posted January 28, 2007 09:56 PM         

quote:

---

Others have attempted to assert here that the US "armed" Saddam and couldn't supply a single fact to back up their statement...except that the US sold Saddam some Bell helicopters in the 1980s. But those were not military helicopters, not troop carriers, not helicopter gun ships, not armored and were totally unsuited for any military combat use.

---

posted January 28, 2007 11:05 PM         

The US did not arm Saddam Hussein, did not put Saddam in power in Iraq. Did not supply Saddam with weapons grade chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union as were most middle east nations of the time.

The only contribution the US made to Saddam in his war against Iran was to give Saddam intelligence on Iranian troop movements and concentrations...from satellite surveillance cameras. Perfectly reasonable under the circumstances which existed at the time.

Nothing more.

Perfectly reasonable under the circumstances existing at the time. Iran had held American diplomats hostage for more than 400 days...violating international law and invaded the sovereignty of United States territory..our US embassy in Teheran.

I've heard these allegations in the past. When attempting to run them down, they can't in any way stand up to an examination.

So, if you insist, then furnish some proof to go along with the hot air.

If you don't want to have these discussions here on FFA then people shouldn't start anti-US rants and antiwar threads outside of GU.

posted January 28, 2007 11:20 PM         

Reports?

Get out!

I'm through.

I've already indulged your ignorant behind thus far.

Who do you think supplied Iraq with weapons to beat Iran?

History.

And you who do you tink PUT SADAAM in power?

But really, these are no secrets. Geesh. You don't know this?!

Wow.

And I'm not going to give you a history lesson. Are you young. As that the problem.

I will not read anything else your write.

I can't stand those ignorant, republican warmonging civilians who believe whatever the government NEEDs them to beleive.

I also know the night that the scud missile hit that national guard unit in Dhahran, was the night, the Patriot was down for parts.
That's not part of the record either.

There are things soldiers just know. We just know stuff, you will never know. Because they won't write. Report. Or lead you to believe it.

posted January 28, 2007 11:35 PM         

Neither am I persuaded that you are prohibited..by law or any other mechanism..from talking about what you allege you saw...inside Iraq.

I really don't give a continental damn whether you read what I post or not. Be assured I WILL read and comment on your posts, as they warrant comment...as this one did.

posted January 28, 2007 11:38 PM         

*Who do you think supplied Iraq with weapons to beat Iran?*
exactly .. and that stuff was still about in desert storm ..

posted January 29, 2007 12:06 AM         

quote:

---

Actually Natural111, Saddam had a lot of weapons...most of which were Soviet Union/Russian manufactured.

---

posted January 29, 2007 12:38 AM         

It's not beyond the realm of possibility some obsolete US weapons were in Iraq from surrounding nations as Happy Dragon says...and for the reasons stated.

But that doesn't account for the row upon row, field upon field of US armaments alleged to have been found inside Iraq when US forces were not inside Iraq during the Gulf War.

It's also true US weapons systems were used in the Iran/Iraq war which ended in 1988 and if they had belonged to Iraq, they still would have been there during the Gulf War..Desert Storm.

But those US weapons systems belonged to Iran. They were sold to the Shah of Iran and were still in use..in fact, they were the arsenal of Iran after the Iranian Revolution and used against Iraq.

I said Iraq's weapons systems were supplied by the Soviet Union/Russia, France, China and assorted other nations...not including the United States.

The broadcast news profiled the Iraqi weapons systems in the lead up to Desert Storm, item by item..especially CNN and no US weapons systems were profiled as being in Saddam's arsenal.

This blurb bears out my memory of what I saw both before the start of Desert Storm and also what I saw during the actual combat in Kuwait between US/Coalition forces and Saddam's military. It's also another indication the US did not arm Saddam. The Soviet Union/Russia and France did. Further, the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988 and Desert Storm commenced early 1991...3 years later.

"Unlike most other conflicts between 1945 and 1990, this one did not lead to sharp division between the US and Soviet Union (on the other hand, the two superpowers were almost on one side"***Iraq's side.

"Another reason for the lack of information can be traced back to the United States’ dramatic miscalculation regarding the viability, competence, and capability of Iranians to maintain and operate their sophisticated US-supplied weapon systems following the Islamic revolution and withdrawal of the American advisors"

" On the other hand, the Soviets used this war as a testing ground for many newly developed weapons, several of which were not particularly successful. The third power, France, was involved foremost in low profile—but massive—arms deliveries to Iraq, most of which occurred as part of a very complicated cooperation between Iraq, France, and India"***essentially what Happy Dragon said about some of the middle east conflicts being a test bed for superpower weapons systems of the day.
http://www.acig.org/pg1/preface.php

posted January 29, 2007 12:45 PM         

quote:

---

Who do you think supplied Iraq with weapons to beat Iran?

---

Oh I know, its like easy logic that some people don't seem to get. Duh.

As for those in denial, here's a nice little present I digged up for you (Oh, and you can thank me and my 8th house moon later )

quote:

---

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

---

quote:

---

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

---

You can read the whole article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

posted January 29, 2007 01:56 PM         

The US did not put Saddam in power in Iraq. Saddam came to power in 1979 and had actual power for a few years prior to officially assuming the role as President of Iraq....prior to Ronald Reagan becoming President of the United States....in 1981.

The very idea the US assisted or brought Saddam to power in Iraq is absurd..given the fact Iraq broke diplomatic relations with the US over US support for Israel in one of the 70's wars.

Iraq started WMD research and development in 1970 or 1971. The US had nothing to do with Saddam's development of WMD...and in fact, Iraq was not an ally of the US at that time, Iran most definitely was. Iraq was a Soviet client state.

Much has been made of the CDC shipping medical research samples of anthrax and other naturally occurring strains of diseases to Iraq. This practice is routine and the CDC has shipped the very same pure research strains to nations around the world...for medical research to develop defenses against them. Let it be clearly understood...these were/are not weaponized strains which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Given enough time, any competent medical research lab could isolate strains of anthrax and other diseases. Anthrax is a naturally occurring disease found in the soil of nations all over the globe. Alternatively, one anthrax infected cow would provide a strain of anthrax which could be cultured, grown and developed into a weaponized version of the disease.

Much also has been made of US companies shipping pesticides and raw chemicals to make pesticides to Iraq...for use in Iraq's agriculture fields. So what? US companies ship the very same chemicals/pesticides to nations around the world...as does every other industrial nation on earth. You make no points here even though some of those chemicals/pesticides are or could be used as precursors for chemical weapons. Iraq was already developing CW from 1970 or 1971 and the chemicals for their development were available from nations around the world.

Iran was most definitely an enemy of the United States....after the Iranian Revolution. Saddam hated...despised the Ayatollah Khomeini and the feeling was mutual. Saddam was going our way and we assisted Saddam....not with weapons, not with WMD but with intelligence information and logistical support...which did not include American weapons system. Saddam had plenty of weapons...supplied by the Soviet Union and France...among others.

The reasons for the US supporting Saddam were clear as glass. Iran was an enemy of the United States. After the Iranian Revolution, Iran was an enemy of Iraq. Simple really, in the world of shifting alliances..."The enemy of my enemy, is my friend".

Further, there was no way in hell the US was going to stand idly by and let our enemy..Iran win the war with Iraq...and take over Iraq's oil fields to use oil as a weapon against the US and other Western nations...which the Islamic radical extremists in Iran despised and still do despise.

posted January 29, 2007 02:07 PM         

quote:

---

You make no points here even though some of those chemicals/pesticides are or could be used as precursors for chemical weapons. Iraq was already developing CW from 1970 or 1971 and the chemicals for their development were available from nations around the world.

---

Yeah, they were supplied knowingthat Iraq probably use them as precursors for weapons. Is the American gov't that stupid to believe that Saddam was only asking for them for his frickin' tomatoes or something....especially since he was at war with Iran. Its all in the article, America knew of his programs and what could be the consequences of selling him all those chemicals.....and the anthrax, yuck!

I can dig up thousands of more just like this, don't even get me started. The truth is that you said that U.S. never armed Saddam.....I just dugged up proof that U.S. did. And yet you're still in denial. The end.

posted January 29, 2007 02:55 PM         

But when you attempt to run them down...if that is..you were even interested in running them down to debunk them..you would find them hollow.

The US had no battlefield advisors on the ground in Iraq during the war between Iraq and Iran. The Iranians made many claims against Iraq and the same was true about Iraq making claims against Iran.

For instance, Iraq insisted Iran had used WMD against the Kurds.

The US had no way to prove or disprove any of the accusations against either. They were both pointing fingers at each other...over a lot of issues.

The anthrax reference samples shipped to Iraq were not used against Iran or the Kurds. They were also not weaponized versions of the strains. So this is a hollow argument as well.

Iraq had a flourishing agricultural culture and it's entirely reasonable to believe the pesticides and chemicals to make pesticides would be used for agriculture.

You cite a string of incidences designed to weave a story of US complicity...first in bringing Saddam to power in Iraq...which didn't happen, second..in arming Saddam..which also didn't happen...then in supplying Saddam with weaponized biologicals and chemicals...which also didn't happen.

Some of you people need to get it firmly implanted in your heads that the US is not responsible for the actions of any other nation, not responsible for the fall of every sparrow to the ground...not by inference or any other mechanism.

Given your talking points, you should be happy indeed that the citizens of Iraq and the Middle East are free of Saddam. Saddam is dead, his insane sons are dead, Iraq has a freely elected representative government participated in by about 70% of Iraqi citizens of voting age and the US/Coalition is there to make sure they aren't overthrown or subverted before they are able to defend themselves.

So, here's a question for you.

Why aren't you?

posted January 29, 2007 04:55 PM         

jwhop - you are absolutely right. It isn't hard to isolate anthrax. Weaponizing it is the tricky part and finding a device that can adequately distribute it is also tricky. That being said, the Iraq government was working on it.

Dulce,

Maybe you could read your argument and see your failed logic. It is nice to know that you are such a well informed Arm Chair quarterback stating what the American government knew and did not know. Would you deny pesticides and raw materials to a country that was not yet an enemy or one that still needed products to save crops in order to feed its people? Would you rather watch them die of starvation? Or are you the type that has consistently backed such an evil organization as the UN that used profits from the oil for food scandel to purchase luxuries for its top people- Annan being one?

This war in Iraq was not simply fought over WMD's, which Iraq was manufacturing and the Military has proof- but that is besdies the point, it was fought over Iraq continuously breaking the rules. Jwhop has posted a ton of information here as well as GU is stuffed with thread after thread of facts justifying why we went after Iraq.

I guess people think that starting a thread here will allow them to voice untruths about our government and Military without being held accountable by those of us that actually know the facts. LOL....

jwhop- Maybe they think we don't realize there is a forum called "FFA". LOL...

posted January 29, 2007 05:20 PM         

She posts threads in sadness about soldiers being killed or injured then is the first to say that more should be sent off.

You should be ashamed of being a Native American Indian.

posted January 29, 2007 06:16 PM         

There were many reasons stated for authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein. They've been posted on GU many times and directly from the original source...the Joint Resolution of Congress which spelled them out in detail.

Yes Pid, weaponizing biologicals and chemicals is the tricky part. Something some here seem to not get is that if Saddam's stocks of WMD had come from America, they wouldn't have degraded to near impotency as the one's found in Iraq...after the invasion had. You know the ones found in Iraq...that Saddam wasn't supposed to have...the ones Saddam swore HE DIDN'T HAVE when he made his declaration of finished goods WMD and the stocks to make WMD to the UN...yes, those WMD.

Yeah, I suppose there may well have been the feeling that posting trash about the US and the US military would be overlooked if posted on FFA.

However, if this is to continue, it would be best moved to the forum on which it belongs...GU. And if someone wants to continue it there. Then, we can also talk about those who have a new found and overt show of compassion for those suffering and dying in Iraq. A new found compassion which was never in evidence when Saddam was murdering about a million Iraqis over 25 years and torturing and starving an untold and unknowable number more.

posted January 29, 2007 07:04 PM         

quote:

---

Given your talking points, you should be happy indeed that the citizens of Iraq and the Middle East are free of Saddam. Saddam is dead, his insane sons are dead, Iraq has a freely elected representative government participated in by about 70% of Iraqi citizens of voting age and the US/Coalition is there to make sure they aren't overthrown or subverted before they are able to defend themselves.

So, here's a question for you.

Why aren't you?

---

Gee, I would be happy for them...except now Iraq is an even worse hell-hole to live in...even worse than under Saddam's rule. Didn't you know? (My favorite part is going to be when you try and deny this btw.)

quote:

---

Maybe you could read your argument and see your failed logic. It is nice to know that you are such a well informed Arm Chair quarterback stating what the American government knew and did not know. Would you deny pesticides and raw materials to a country that was not yet an enemy or one that still needed products to save crops in order to feed its people? Would you rather watch them die of starvation? Or are you the type that has consistently backed such an evil organization as the UN that used profits from the oil for food scandel to purchase luxuries for its top people- Annan being one?

---

First of all. I won't even go into why the U.N has been dismissed as such an evil power...I've been through this before with J.WHOP..he knows. (But on a side note, maybe you think so becuase it isn't headed by a major western power like maybe say...America)

Second of all, "Fake War on Terror" aside, I don't see any failed logic in my argument....maybe I need to be more clear. Your friend J.Whop claimed that the U.S. never took part in arming Saddam (I am aware that there are other Western Countries that did), I was simply giving him the proof that he needed, that America did in fact have a role. You guys are not perfect you know....stop pretending to be.

quote:

---

This war in Iraq was not simply fought over WMD's, which Iraq was manufacturing and the Military has proof- but that is besdies the point, it was fought over Iraq continuously breaking the rules. Jwhop has posted a ton of information here as well as GU is stuffed with thread after thread of facts justifying why we went after Iraq.

---

This is all horse **** and you know it. Aside from the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction found (most were destroyed in the late 90's), he was "breaking the rules" against his own people in the 80's and America didn't do sh*t about it. They knew about it but all they cared about was blowing Iran back into the friggin stone age. Only when Saddam started hating America (and for very legit reasons IMO) did he become a "monster dictator". No one buys that America was trying to "liberate" the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein...so get off the Savior Complex.

posted January 30, 2007 04:23 AM         

S_T

posted January 30, 2007 02:52 PM         

YET.. when people suffer tragedy who do they come to? America. When they need aid, medicine and money- who do they come to? America.

We can continue this in GU, then again we've already punched numerous holes in your theory in that forum which I guess is why you feel safe to post here LOL.

TP / SS- too bad you are so ignorant that you know nothing about American Indian warfare. Read a real history book instead of the twisted crap you find from anti-war websites. Troll.. so when do you think you'll get kicked of here again SweetStars /TranquilPoet/ MysticGemini/ MysticDreamz/ AtlanticMyst

posted January 30, 2007 03:12 PM         

I don't think that is limited just to the US either Pid, but I hesitate to get too far into this as I know NOWT about politics.

My brother served in the first Gulf War as US MP and he told me of some of the things they discovered, such as headless women who had been "violated" and murdered and Saddam's opponents skinned alive and out into acid vats, apparently while they're families had watched (though obvioulsy they HAD NOT been present for that last partso it is conjecture, but believable based on other accounts).

Also, the Iranian side of things I know a little about as the Shah was my second cousin. The US and Britain (who are just as responsible, maybe moreso in some areas for manipluating affairs to their desire, including selling weapons I believe) were very influential to putting him in place. The former Shah was actually even closer in the bloodline.

I was interested to read the comments about the links to this, and don't refute any of them, seems common sense to me.

On the other hand, so much information is polluted by design and agenda it seems almost impossible to find the truth in anything. That includes my own input here as it is based on family hearsay.

Interesting chaps.

posted January 30, 2007 03:18 PM         

That is an interesting connection you have and I enjoyed reading your perspective

posted January 30, 2007 04:24 PM         

I call them the Bush-Blair Nazi war hungry crew. Many are very racist towards Arabs.

Even against the ones who are citizens of their own country who would never hurt anyone.

Pidua - you stink. I think you need to get out of your cavern and take a bath once in a blue. It smells like a dirty desert ape just walked through here yuck.

I mean at least a mud bath. sheesh.