Klaus,
The first Gulf War certainly was about the threat to the worlds energy supplies in the Gulf. This Gulf War was primarily about Saddam's WMD's capability that in the short term could be used for terrorism. The long term threat of Saddam, threatening the worlds energy supplies could have grown again, had Saddam been able to get Nuclear Weapons. In its current state though, the only threat was WMD essentially used for terrorism. Saddam had the potential to become a threat again to the worlds energy supplies even though it was not immediate as in this month or the next.
Saddam without WMD or WMD programs would be no threat to the region or the Worlds energy supplies. Without any WMD program, plus military embargo, it would be impossible for him to threaten world energy supplies in the future.
Ensuring that Saddam was disarmed of WMD and unable to now, or ever threaten the worlds energy supplies was the objective. IT was discovered that peaceful inspections could never achieve that objective. Saddam was never going to peacefully disarm 100%. That is why military force had to be used in the current Gulf War.
I have never stated that one of the USA's chief national security concerns is not the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. This has been a chief US Security concern for nearly 60 years. Keeping the supply of energy available at low prices is vital to the entire global economy. When the price of energy goes up, the people that get hurt first or those that live in poverty or just above the poverty line.
Ensuring that Iraqi oil is widely available on the market will mean lower oil prices, lower cost of energy. Revenue from this Iraqi oil will come into Iraq and be able to be used to build up the infrastructure of the country that has been so negleted and damaged under Saddam Hussien.
"I don't think a ranking is a good idea, because they didn't sell all the same stuff and it's different to compare how many kalashnikovs (russia) should be compared to a uran centrifuge(germany) or a satelite photo (USA)"
"And they were just examples flying to my head, neither the worst ones of each country nor the morst important ones in their support."
Klaus,
I don't think you understand fully the value of what the Soviet Union supplied to Iraq. I think I am going to have to put up that huge weapons table and explain it in detail. Ranking is an excellent idea cause I can explain in detail the type of weapons that were supplied and the capability it gave Saddam.
When we speak of the Soviet Union, were talking Mig 29 Jet Fighters, T-72 tanks(1 million dollars for each), BMP Armored Personal Carriers, AT-5 Spandral Anti-Tank Missiles, 152 mm Self Propelled Artillery, Scud Balistic Missiles, Hind Attack Helicopters.
Just about everything that Saddam's military fights with, that allows Saddam to be in power and invade other countries, is built and supplied by the Soviet Union.
Kalashnikovs are only a tiny fraction of what the Soviet Union sent to Iraq.
Ranking is very important so people will understand where most of Saddams power actually came from.
Your lists which do not include the SOVIET UNION and mention the USA first produce one of the most factualy inaccurate statements I've seen on this board on a question that is asked often and not correctly answered.
