Talk:SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, Iraq 1973–1990

Interesting. This does conflict with what I know of the Arms to Iraq scandal in the UK. I guess we're included in "Others", but given that it was a major scandal at the time of the first gulf war, and that the UK took part in both military operations, maybe we should have seperate status. In any case, I'd be interested in the figures.

What was the name of the SIPRI report, exactly? Does the "value" represent the cost to Iraq (ie sales price) or the value of the machinery? Martin 15:17, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is the SIPRI paper. Once you are in the SIPRI website you can probably find more. Adam 16:08, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To further answer Martin's question, SIPRI has a pretty sophisticated system for describing the "value". It is not the cost to Iraq, it is SIPRI's independent classification of the value of the machinery. You can read their methods here. DanKeshet

Does the SIPRI paper or any others include financing for the arms sales? I had always assumed that when people said the US had supported Saddam, they meant that they had financed his purchase of weapons, not necessarily that they had directly sold them to him. (I don't know if this is true, though.) DanKeshet

Yes that had occurred to me, and it something that ought to be added to this article. I agree that the actual sale of arms is only one facet of the issue. Having said that, I would be surprised if the US even in the mid 1980s would have given what would have amounted to a massive indirect subsidy to the Soviet and Chinese arms industries by underwriting Iraq's debt to its arms suppliers. there was probably some financial support, but don't forget that until 1990 Iraq could pay for its arms imports quite easily through its oil revenues. Adam 05:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Early arms sales was to some extent paid by oil shipments which the Soviets then resold to the West. Later I believe a lot was sold on credit, the main seller countries are also included in the list of countries that are owed large amounts of money by Iraq. Prezen 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I changed around the emphasis some. It really bothered me too about how people kept on saying that the US armed Saddam, as if they were the only or principle Saddam backers. But the article should be informational, not counter-rhetoric. Also, I added a couple more sources. Non-SIPRI sources tend to say that the USSR cut off new sales between 1980 and 1982; I'll read SIPRI's longer report later. Could it be that this is the difference between "sales" and "transfers" (i.e. date of contract-signing and date of shipment) or state-sanctioned sales? Also, I'm not sure I agree with counting Yugoslavia simply as a "Soviet sattelite". I didn't get to the financial backing yet, either. DanKeshet

"the Soviet Union cut off weapons sales to Iraq and did not resume them until 1982." At the moment this statement appears to be contradicted by the table. This had better be clarified quickly. Adam 08:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is the difference between sales and transfers. The SIPRI table shows the date of shipment, not the date of the original sale/license. If you look at the more detailed SIPRI report, it shows both the years of the sales/licenses and the years of the shipment. SIPRI lists only one sale during the year 1981, and the 1981 date for the completion of the sale is classified, accoriding to SIPRI, as "Uncertain data or SIPRI estimate". There are, however, numerous shipments during that year. By contrast, there's 6 sales listed for 1982 and a number for 1979, 1980, 1983, etc. DanKeshet 17:54, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

This page also has some more bits about USSR, French, and US involvement in the Iran-Iraq War. It also has footnotes we can chase down to try to get closer to primary sources, and a bit more nuanced look at "military involvement" than raw numbers of weapons shipped, e.g. diplomatic aid. DanKeshet

If you're going make the first column "Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact" then the figures for Yugoslavia must be deducted from that column and added to the "Others" column. Has this been done? Adam 23:12, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yup. It wasn't a very big deal; they didn't send them very much compared to the Pact countries. DanKeshet

TDC read this

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)

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)

American supplies during the Iran-Iraq war

If we are going to have stuff like this that isn't related to the article, then there should be statistics for other countries as well. CJK 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of the article is to assess how foreign governments armed Saddam. Obviously sales of dual-use materials by the UK and USA are of relevance here, and given the political fall-out and subsequent events, are also of particular interest. I understand that this article seeks to balance the popular view about UK/US culpability against what other countries were doing, but removing all mention of dual-purpose materials does not provide an objective view. R Bartholomew

Include what other coutries sold

The article is missing what items other sold to Iraq in the 1973-1990 period. It only mentions items what the US sold. All items of all involved country need to be listed. If not, then the article seems biased against one entity. --Doom Child 14:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer to this sort of problem is to find the extra material required, not to remove the information already there.R Bartholomew

I don't think wiki or any encyclopedia works that way. I believe the quest is to present a balanced view, not throw a bunch of data up which supports your views and then demand others find the balancing data. Batvette (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

THe "Sources"

My God. I just totaled the figures and U.S. sales are .5%. All the book references are about the U.S. Someone better have a good explanation for this. CJK 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume the "good explanation" which you seek concerns the prevailing popular view about US arms sales. The answer is, of course, to be found in the issue of dual-use exports - which for some reason you believe should not be mentioned here.R Bartholomew

---

Uhhh - maybe the explanation is that the four books were produced by second rate lefty hacks who got their patina of respectability from the reliably left NYT's book reviews? -No, it can't be that simple. We need not fear the plain meaning of statistics so long as propagandists can find a publisher to sway us with innuendo and hyperbole.

Covert transfers, SIPRI data doesn't go far enough

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." [1]

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. [2]

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. [3] "Combat helicopter" would be a more fitting description. According to the 'List of Gulf War military equipment' page [4], 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. [5] Let's hear some other views. SMB 02:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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." [6] 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)

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)

Summaries for eras

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)

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)

Page name

I propose the title of this page be modified to accurately reflect content and reliance on the SIPRI Arms Transfers Project. Arms sales to Iraq is categorical whereas the ATP database has notable limitations ('all SIPRI research is based exclusively on open sources'). Something along this form: SIPRI Arms Transfers Project (Iraq, 1973-1990). smb (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If I have any problem with the concept, and I shouldn't because I brought it up (albeit in a smarty-pants way) is that you just may be opening up a bigger can of worms with bickering on everyone's part. Will we end up with arms sales to Iraq as a catagory with the .5% of US supplies SIPRI asserts coupled with vague allegations of what came under the CIA's influence taking a page of monstrous detail and importance, with the SIPRI page and its more legit figures itself barely more than a stub? Really, if every single offhand reference you are able to confirm now and in the near future of covert US transfers can be substantiated, what does the US contribution amount to? 1%? 2%? Ask yourself before you start, does it reflect reality or agenda? As a reminder of reality at the end of each war you looked around, the hulks of burned out tanks, APC's, aircraft, ordnance- It was ALL Russian and French. Happy wikiing. Batvette (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war already covers one aspect of the story, so we need not work at great length to redress the minor problem conveyed above. You write: As a reminder of reality at the end of each war you looked around, the hulks of burned out tanks, APC's, aircraft, ordnance- It was ALL Russian and French. I recommend you examine a copy of Howard Teicher's sworn affidavit. It's relevant because he testified that:

"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... Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin. Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used in this Soviet weaponry. 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." [7]

We have no idea what percentage these secret contributions amount to, and it's not for us to simply guess. What's important, given SIPRI's total reliance on open sources, is that it's necessary to acknowledge the existence of these transfers in the main body of text. That needn't be altered if we rename the page or not. smb (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose we rename this article from "Arms sales to Iraq 1973–1990" to SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, Iraq 1973–1990 as per the suggestion above. The name should clearly reflect the main source of information on the page, which is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The parent article International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War includes a link to multiple daughter articles (i.e. ____ support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war). Some of these pages contain detail of clandestine arms sales, which the SIPRI data does not broach. Dynablaster (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsequential listing

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)

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)

Be bold. Dynablaster (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)