| Revision as of 04:26, 30 September 2005 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:27, 30 September 2005 edit undoIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits →Move?Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Would anyone object to a move to Abd al-Karim Qasim, which is a more accurate form as well as that used in academic works such as ]'s ''Old Social Classes'' and Charles Tripp's ''A History of Iraq''? ] | ] 17:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | Would anyone object to a move to Abd al-Karim Qasim, which is a more accurate form as well as that used in academic works such as ]'s ''Old Social Classes'' and Charles Tripp's ''A History of Iraq''? ] | ] 17:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==No mentin of British & USA backing for Qasim coup in Guardian== | |||
| ] the article you mention "Declassified UK cabinet papers of 1963 printed in ] on 1 January 1994, p5 revealed British & USA backing for the coup which removed Abdul Karim Qassim." does not seem to exist. I did a Lexis-Nexus search and this is the closest I could find to what you explained: | |||
| ] the article you mention: | |||
| "Declassified UK cabinet papers of 1963 printed in ] on 1 January 1994, p5 | |||
| In which you wrote: | |||
| revealed British & USA backing for the coup which removed Abdul Karim Qassim." does not seem to exist. | |||
| I did a Lexis-Nexus search and this is the closest I could find to what you explained: | |||
| January 1, 1994 page 5 | January 1, 1994 page 5 | ||
Revision as of 04:27, 30 September 2005
Declassified UK cabinet papers of 1963 printed in The Guardian on 1 January 1994, p5 revealed British & USA backing for the coup which removed Abdul Karim Qassim. AllanHainey 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Move?
Would anyone object to a move to Abd al-Karim Qasim, which is a more accurate form as well as that used in academic works such as Hanna Batatu's Old Social Classes and Charles Tripp's A History of Iraq? Palmiro | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
No mentin of British & USA backing for Qasim coup in Guardian
AllanHainey the article you mention:
"Declassified UK cabinet papers of 1963 printed in The Guardian on 1 January 1994, p5
In which you wrote:
revealed British & USA backing for the coup which removed Abdul Karim Qassim." does not seem to exist.
I did a Lexis-Nexus search and this is the closest I could find to what you explained:
January 1, 1994 page 5
CABINET PAPERS 1963: IRAQ: MINISTERS EAGER TO SELL ARMS TO NEW RULERS AFTER BLOODY COUP
EVIDENCE of the British government's strong support for the first Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party is revealed in the enthusiasm with which Macmillan's cabinet secretly agreed to arm the new Baghdad regime, writes Seumas Milne.
The Ba'athist overthrow of General Kassem in February, 1963, in a bloody anti-communist coup backed by the CIA, was accompanied by the killing of about 5,000 communists and supporters of the dead leader.
Less than two months later Edward Heath - then Lord Privy Seal - gave a sympathetic report to cabinet on an Iraqi request for military aircraft and armoured personnel carriers.
"If these inquiries reflected a disposition on the part of the new government of Iraq to reduce their dependence on the Soviet Union, we should seek to take advantage of it," the future prime minister said.
The only worry was that British equipment might be used to attack Kuwait, but the government pressed ahead with the arms supplies anyway.
By June, there was some ministerial nervousness at the "ruthless methods" being used by the Baghdad regime against the Kurds.
Lord Home, then foreign secretary, warned that the government might be criticised if British weapons were used to repress the Kurdish community. The cabinet slowed the flow, but in September military supplies were again sharply stepped up.
They included 16 Wessex helicopters, 20 training aircraft, small arms, mortars, ammunition, Saracen carriers and 3,000 rockets. "These arms are wanted urgently by the Iraqis for operations against the Kurds . . . our interest lies in a gradual supply of arms to meet Iraqi requirements," one minute to Macmillan reads.
"I agree," the prime minister has scribbled across the bottom, asking that the matter be "pushed forward energetically".
Duncan Sandys, the colonial secretary, reported to cabinet in May that the Iraqi government had "found it necessary to imprison a number of supporters of President Nasser and to execute certain adherents of the previous president." He said the agreement to supply military equipment would increase British influence in Iraq.