CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Corporations that helped supply Iraq's weapon program
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Corporations that helped supply Iraq's weapon program

post #1 of 26
2/15/03 at 2:37am
Thread Starter 
"Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was said that the report would name the corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China, and elsewhere.

Now, that part of the report has been leaked. The leftist German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung received portions of the original, uncensored 12,000-page dossier. (The names of the corporations have been blacked out of the version of the report given to the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council.) The paper has printed the list, presented below."

<a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm</a>

THE US CORPS:

USA

1. Honeywell (R, K)

2. Spectra Physics (K)

3. Semetex (R)

4. TI Coating (A, K)

5. Unisys (A, K)

6. Sperry Corp. (R, K)

7. Tektronix (R, A)

8. Rockwell (K)

9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)

10. Finnigan-MAT-US (A)

11. Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)

12. Dupont (A)

13. Eastman Kodak (R)

14. American Type Culture Collection (B)

15. Alcolac International (C)

16. Consarc (A)

17. Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)

18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)

19. Electronic Associates (R)

20. International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

21. Bechtel (K)

22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)

23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A)

24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

"In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."
Reply
post #2 of 26
2/15/03 at 2:38am
Thread Starter 
Oops, the key:

A = nuclear weapon program
B = biological weapon program
C = chemical weapon program
R = rocket program
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and building of military plants
Reply
post #3 of 26
2/15/03 at 11:45am
We get it....

You think America is the primary evil in the world. Understood. Do we really need yet another thread to remind us?

These are as useless as those "I'm leaving" threads at this point.
Reply
post #4 of 26
2/15/03 at 12:44pm
I'd say it's a pretty valid point. If Saddam's weapons programs are a major reason for military action against him, and his doing so makes him a threat to world peace, then surely these corporations are traitors? If there's a direct line from Saddam to Al Quaeda then doesn't this information implicate these companies as well?

Will they be boycotted for their complicity in arming Iraq against the west?

Will they be censured by the government for their activity?

These are questions worth asking.
Reply
post #5 of 26
2/15/03 at 1:05pm
Well, take this all out to it's logical conclusion: Sue science for allowing this knowledge to have ever been known.

Hell, sue the Earth for allowing the component elements, materials, and molecules to exist!

Because if you really want to go down this road the company that supplied the toilet paper for the research labs should be held complicit.

Reply
post #6 of 26
2/15/03 at 1:22pm
When did these companies give/sell stuff to the Iraqis? Was it pre-1991? Was it during the sanction years?
If it's pre-91, they could have done whatever they wanted. There was no law against it, there was no problem with it, and everything was fine.
If it's post-91, there should be and probably is something the government is doing with these companies, although, quite frankly, what are they going to do about the companies from other nations who are on that list and got off scot free? I'd imagine they will still do something, even though it would be "unfair" to those companies.
Reply
post #7 of 26
2/15/03 at 2:53pm
What I heard on CNN about a month ago suggest otherwise. Only two American corporations were mentioned Al Haddad(Out of Business now) and another one that escapes me. Germany had something like 14 that supplied Saddam.

Of course i'm only talking about Chemical Weapons here.

Reply
post #8 of 26
2/15/03 at 3:03pm
Thread Starter 
Why does it matter if it was pre 91? Isn't half the argument of Saddam being a genocidal maniac based on his pre-91 actions? And isn't it wrong for ANYONE to supply a genocidal maniac EVER?

Kronos, your silly reductionist beliefs can be applied to anything, including Al Qaeda: "Why not just go after religion? Why not just go after the human need for belief?"
Reply
post #9 of 26
2/15/03 at 3:14pm
Quote:
The Daimler-Kronos Corporation:
Well, take this all out to it's logical conclusion: Sue science for allowing this knowledge to have ever been known.

Hell, sue the Earth for allowing the component elements, materials, and molecules to exist!
Let's take it even further then - why should we attack Saddam for wanting to use these materials? Culpability has to start somewhere. If these weapons in Saddam's hands are the reason for war, then why should the western corporations who helped him get them be exempt from blame? Selling a madman the materials for weapons of mass destruction is considerably different to stocking the coffee machine in the lounge of the factory.

Quote:
sorropa:
When did these companies give/sell stuff to the Iraqis? Was it pre-1991? Was it during the sanction years? If it's pre-91, they could have done whatever they wanted. There was no law against it, there was no problem with it, and everything was fine.
Because obviously, Saddam was a boy scout then. He probably wanted all those chemicals, rockets and poisons for his hobbies or something. He only became evil when he invaded Kuwait.

Please.

You see, this is what sticks in my throat about this whole situation. We're being sold this war with emotive words like "evil", as if wiping out Saddam is some moral imperative. And yet only a few decades ago we quite happily turned a blind eye to his barbarous ways, to his genocidal disregard for the Kurds, to his sadistic militarism...when he was useful, a mad dog we could turn against our enemies.

If Saddam is evil now, then he was evil then, and by arming and supporting him we must also - by extension - be "evil". This stuff can't be turned on or off. Saddam was our buddy, until he threatened our interests, and that's why my stomach turns whenever I hear this conflict being described in the playground terms of goodies vs baddies. When it comes to the Middle East, all our hands are dirty. Nobody comes out clean.

If Bush wants to use Saddam as an example and wipe him off the face of the earth as a show of strength then fuck it. Go for it. It's going to happen regardless. I just wish they wouldn't patronise us by making out that we're the knight on the white steed slaying the evil dragon.
Reply
post #10 of 26
2/15/03 at 5:15pm
It matters if it is pre-91 because if it is pre-91, it is not a violation of international law. Selling stuff to a totalitarian regime is never the best thing to do, however, these companies should not have anything done to them by the government if all the transactions were legal.

I don't know if Saddam was ever our "buddy." If I recall, the weapons he does have are French and Russian, not US. We may have supported him, but in the minds of policy makers he was the lesser of two evils (Iran being the greater). Iraq was a secular state, and just having a secular government seemed to be a move in the right direction. Of course, he hadn't gassed the Kurds yet, and the extent of his human rights violations wasn't fully known. What was known, and what the US did act on, was the Osirak nuclear power facility (French made). We worked with the Israelis to take it down.

I don't recall saying Saddam was not evil before 1991.
Reply
post #11 of 26
2/15/03 at 5:31pm
We signed a Treaty in 91. But that, of course, means nothing to some.
Reply
post #12 of 26
2/15/03 at 5:49pm
Funny how we signed a treaty yet there was no declaration of war.
Reply
post #13 of 26
2/17/03 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Call:
We get it....

You think America is the primary evil in the world. Understood. Do we really need yet another thread to remind us?

These are as useless as those "I'm leaving" threads at this point.
What's with this "we" shit?

If anything, you're just a polar-opposite caricature of Devin. If I understand your brand of politics correctly the USA has never done anything dastardly, ever. And even if we did, we shouldn't feel guilty about it, right? We're the big bad USA and we're above being held responsible for our involvement in the terror game. Even if it was merely on a profit for technology basis.
Reply
post #14 of 26
2/17/03 at 3:33pm
But holding Corporations responsible for something someone else does is simply irrational. Like holding gun manufacturers responsible for armed robberies.
Reply
post #15 of 26
2/17/03 at 3:49pm
Quote:
The Daimler-Kronos Corporation:
But holding Corporations responsible for something someone else does is simply irrational. Like holding gun manufacturers responsible for armed robberies.
Many of those corporations, due to the sensitive nature of what they do, are held resposible by our government as to who they do business with and how.

Guns as a form of protection for the individual are a legacy here in this country.

The point here is that we do have a history in this country of being highly selective when determining who the bad guys and the good guys are. A lot of self-righteous people nearly go into hysterics when confronted with this fact.
Reply
post #16 of 26
4/4/03 at 3:51pm
<img src="http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif" alt="" />

<a href="http://www.xanga.com/item.asp?user=dissidentfrogman&tab=weblogs&uid=149 15553" target="_blank">http://www.xanga.com/item.asp?user=dissidentfrogman&tab=weblogs&uid=149 15553</a>

Info from here: <a href="http://www.sipri.se/" target="_blank">http://www.sipri.se/</a>
Reply
post #17 of 26
4/4/03 at 4:11pm
Thread Starter 
And who cares who gave more? Isn't ANY arms to Iraq too many for freedom loving Americans who think Saddam is evil?
Reply
post #18 of 26
4/4/03 at 4:47pm
I don't think so.

Saddam was going to buy weapons. Saddam had money. He was going to spend it with someone. Why not with us?

Keep in mind that things can be tinkered with, if we control who buys them.

A few years ago there was word that Israel sold anti-aircraft technologies to a neighbor country. A few years later, Israel wound up fighting that country, over something or other.

Well, Israel sent in their Air Force to strike, and the anti-aircraft weapons were fired up to defend, and HOLY CRAP, they didn't work.

Israel had built an identifier code into the software of the anti-aircraft weapons it had supplied, and that identifier did not allow the anti-aircraft weapons to even recognize Israeli transponder frequencies.

Israel got the money, the other country got the weapons. But those weapons could NOT be used against the seller. Pretty clever if you ask me.

I'm going to scour for the article, I'll post it soon.
Reply
post #19 of 26
4/4/03 at 6:03pm
Fuji film is better anyway.
Reply
post #20 of 26
4/4/03 at 9:33pm
I'm confused, we don't know exactly what was bought/sold? We know the companies involved and have correlated which weapons their goods went towards though? Is it possible that somebody like Hewlett Packard sold them computers which they then used to load up blueprints to use to figure out ways to modify rockets? Suddenly the sale of computers is helping them build arms?
That's a bad example, but there are companies on there that seem a bit odd to be listed as helping with weapons manufacturing (of course I'm not educated on subsidiaries of these companies).
Reply
post #21 of 26
4/7/03 at 6:26pm
I read another thing with that list, and it frankly scared me, and showed me how fucking stupid this whole thing is.
Reply
post #22 of 26
4/8/03 at 1:51am
IBM did sell Iraq a mainframe that got their NW program working, however, most of the materials for their NBC programs came from the FSU, Poland, Germany, and France.
Reply
post #23 of 26
4/9/03 at 6:24am
I think you have to take a step back, and not just look at Iraq. There is a general assumption in most countries including the US, that companies cannot sell WMD/arms etc to certain nations - this is either in Law or tradition - this needs to be policed effectively, and yes corporations need to be held accountable, as do the Governments that create/support these rogue nations/regimes. We seem to be happy to create monsters as long as they terrorise other people, but not when they bark back at us, then we roll out a stack of Bullshit in order to stop them. Bottom line - dont create the monsters in the first place - dont sell them arms and dont support their regime. But this is as likely to happen as me getting a blow job from Selma Hayek.
Reply
post #24 of 26
4/10/03 at 10:56am
Quote:
David Manning is PISSED:
Quote:
george w. sorro:
IBM did sell Iraq a mainframe that got their NW program working, however, most of the materials for their NBC programs came from the FSU, Poland, Germany, and France.
Florida State sold bioweapons to Saddam Hussein?

Damn & Blast Bobby Bowden.
FSU is accepted shorthand for the Former Soviet Union in my major. Should've made that clear. However, if Bobby Bowden is selling arms to Iraq...
Reply
post #25 of 26
4/10/03 at 11:19am
Who sold Iraq the Playstation 2?
Reply
post #26 of 26
4/10/03 at 11:31am
Electronics Boutique.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Corporations that helped supply Iraq's weapon program