Talk:SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, Iraq 1973–1990

message: jingoist just because America selling Iraq WMD material does not fit into your narrow world view of America being a "beacon of freedom to the world" does not mean that you can delete it.  Read the Book "The Death Lobby" which covers in great detail how America armed Saddam, along with other Western powers.
: Yeah, I'll get right on that. Anyhoo, this article is a fairly narrow category, i.e. "arms sales". I am sure that dual use has its place, but not 40% of the article.   TDC 17:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon: first off, bad start throwing names at contributors.  Please talk about the article, not the contributors.  Second: when this article started, it was started as a political argument.  Please don't try to make it into a different political argument.  For example, the juxtaposition of US arms sales to Iraq with the Halabja is strange unless you have specific reasons explaining their connection (e.g.: after Halabja Congress imposed sanctions).  DanKeshet 17:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TDC read this

message: I have some problems with the SIPRI data specifically regarding U.S. facilitated shipments. It appears only to document direct "transfers of complete major conventional weapon systems." We know from Howard Teicher's sworn court affidavit (and Alan Friedman's excellent book on the topic, Spider's Web) that the United States secretly channeled armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait:
"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq.  My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq." 
CIA approved arms dealers - in Chile, Brazil, and elsewhere - would take receipt of Iraqi shopping lists and help fulfill huge military orders, yet there is no mention of the cluster bombs and other known CIA supplied systems on SIPRI's register list. 
The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's notes on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Archives and remain classified.
The register diminishes America's overall role in other ways too. It's weapon description for thirty U.S. supplied MD-500MD Defenders reads "Light helicopter". According to military experts, the Defender is very specifically a military variant of this type of helicopter. Here is a picture.  "Combat helicopter" would be a more fitting description. According to the 'List of Gulf War military equipment' page , Iraq used these helicopters during the conflict.
I am not disputing for one moment that France, Germany and the former Soviet Union were Iraq's principle arms suppliers -- they irrefutably were. However, here too there is no word of the American "Bear Spares" program. According to Alan Friedman, this included buying Russian parts and armaments on the black market and secretly sending them to Iraq, to compliment its existing military hardware. Howard Teicher added:
"The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as the 'Bear Spares' program whereby the United States made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs. If the 'Bear Spares' were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement."
Perhaps the real problem lies not so much with the SIPRI data but rather the emphasis it has on this page. It simply dominates when, it can reasonably be argued, the issue is more complicated.
And so I think it would be a good idea if under the 'Arms suppliers to Iraq' subsection a paragraph is added, or the current one expanded, to briefly mention CIA facilitated shipments and other covert dealings, and perhaps include more prominently a link to the 'U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war' page.  Let's hear some other views. SMB 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The SIPRI register is also missing an entry for the Agusta-Bell 212 Anti-Submarine helicopter. These were built in Italy under licence from Bell Textron in the United States. SMB 06:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My views on the above....."The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's notes on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Archives and remain classified." Maybe when we know, we'll know? Will you similarly treat such implied allegations as facts if  a kiss and tell book on the KGB is presented as factual? Batvette (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: User SMB, I'm curious as to the bizarre logic that has you justifying re-entering the passage about "it is contended" about "western contributions being underrepresented" in the methodology used, described as," SIPRI's data are founded on open sources (newspapers, journals, declassified documents etc)".... the only one "contending" any such thing is you, referencing Friedman's book which I sincerely doubt offers any such contention-it was published in 1993, the study goes through 2004-  and this assumes what, please? That governments and journalists behind the iron curtain, (or whatever you consider "non western") had a a MORE open, honest and accurate relationship in public disclosure of weapons transfers than the west did? RIDICULOUS. Yes, I capitalized that. I'm removing it for that BESIDES the fact the page you reference from the study says nothing resembling this. Unless this is some alterwiki dimension I've entered, users are not allowed to add their own opinionated, unsourced skeptical detractions from well sourced data. It seems you are treating this page as your own POV circus.   Batvette (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the wording was clumsy and have no objection to you removing it. The source, Spider's Web: The Secret History of how the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, was published several years ago and does not directly reference the SIPRI chart in the manner implied. Yet the point in principle remains uncontroversial and true. On data collection and methodology, SIPRI say: "The Arms Transfers Project uses a wide variety of sources when collecting information for the database. The one common criterion is that the sources are published and available to the general public."  Open sources. SIPRI, therefore, do not broach the issue of overt/covert transfers. Why is that noteworthy? Because numerous reliable sources - some of whom served in the Reagan administration - say the United States supported Iraq largely in secret. So let's agree to work on a similar but accurate note, and/or rename this page to something more accurate like SIPRI arms sales to Iraq chart, 1973-1990. smb (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The register source needs to be named in the title. Any thoughts on the proposed format, before I proceed? smb (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covert transfers, SIPRI data doesn't go far enough 

message: It has been suggested that the figures could be summed for different eras, eg 1973-1979, 1980-1982 and 1983 - 1988. I've done it already and will enter it unless told not to. Prezen 09:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? was there a change of leadership in Iraq during that time period, or is it really so that people with an agenda can call certain eras to light and magnify them as they correspond to US presidential administrations? Will we do the same with the nations who supplied the other 99.5%? Or shall we just wipe the whole page clean of facts and write in the largest font possible, "america gave Saddam everything and he slaughtered kurdish babies under direct command of the Dark Lord Reagan"? Nothing personal, but at this point there is not a single wiki page with any relevance to Iraq or a Republican administration that resembles an objective description. Many contain countless blatantly false claims and most people are tired of having to correct them. It's sad and a discredit to what wiki could be. Sorry about the rant. (calms down) Maybe it's time to split this page into one for the Stockholm data, and another for all the abiguous allegations people wish to promote.  Batvette (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries for eras 

message: In the listing of specific weapons, a list that appears to be meant and arguably should be in alphabetical order, you have Switzerland followed by the United kingdom and the United states, then the Soviet union. Moving UK and US behind the Soviets. - Annoying username (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems I didn't realize how the list worked :P Still it probably should START in alphabetical listing from the outset. I'll see if I can arrange that. - Annoying username (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   Be bold. Dynablaster (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsequential listing