Back When "The West" Armed Saddam - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-24-2005, 11:51 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:09 AM
Back When "The West" Armed Saddam

Well as we know the US was apparently a principle backer of Saddam during the 1980's as we are reminded ad infinitum, I have therefore found out total weapons sales to Iraq during the '80's from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the figures themselves are interesting.
Quote:
Vendors, $Millions, Percent
USSR, 17,503, 50.78%
France 5,221, 15.15%
China, 5,192, 15.06%
Czechoslovakia, 1,540, 4.47%
Poland, 1,626 , 4.72%
Brazil , 724 , 2.10%
Egypt , 568 1.65%
Romania , 524 , 1.52%
Denmark , 226 , 0.66%
Libya , 200 , 0.58%
USA , 200 , 0.58%
link

Ignorance of the facts is no longer an excuse.
__________________

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 12:07 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
interesting stats. do you have any for monetary aid? not specifically weapons? everyone knows the u.s. was fighting old beat up soviet military pieces.
__________________

Se7en is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 10:33 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
interesting stats. do you have any for monetary aid? not specifically weapons? everyone knows the u.s. was fighting old beat up soviet military pieces.
Iraq was able to keep its Soviet military equipment in fine condition. They were even able to repair many tanks from the 1991 Gulf War that had been damaged or destroyed in the war and put them back in service.

Overall aid to Iraq in the 1980s came out to over 120 Billion dollars of which the United States share was 5 billion.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 02:23 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Iraq was able to keep its Soviet military equipment in fine condition. They were even able to repair many tanks from the 1991 Gulf War that had been damaged or destroyed in the war and put them back in service.

Overall aid to Iraq in the 1980s came out to over 120 Billion dollars of which the United States share was 5 billion.
they were able to fix up many that looked like this?:



wow, pretty impressive.

and again, just out of curiosity: are you all only interested in numbers or does the apparent u.s. complaisance and moral ambiguity of it's actions play a role in your opinions?

Quote:
The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.
link.
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 04:43 PM   #5
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:09 PM
Most of the US shipments to Iraq (and many of the European ones as well) were of "dual-use" technology, not weapons, and it was on that basis that "Iraqgate"emerged. For example, large quantities of sarin and mustard gas precursors, as well as anthrax bacillus were shipped.

I doubt these are included in the statistics. They probably also don't include the helicopters, armored emergency vehicles etc.

They do demonstrate how Europeans tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth about the arms trade, though. Even librul peaceniks like me get pissed off about that .
yolland is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 06:03 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

They do demonstrate how Europeans tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth about the arms trade, though. Even librul peaceniks like me get pissed off about that .
on the european leg of the elevation tour didn't u2 show a graphic that basically listed every member of the u.n. security council as being among the top arms dealers in the world? that's pretty disturbing if you ask me.
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 06:41 PM   #7
The Fly
 
packcrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Derry, Ireland
Posts: 285
Local Time: 04:09 PM
It wasn't just guns. I remember reading an interview with some Iraqi general who was slightly amused that he was fighting Americans; since the US military gave him officer training in the first place.
packcrush is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 06:53 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by packcrush
since the US military gave him officer training
these are the sort of intangibles that can't really be tallied properly.
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-25-2005, 08:16 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 11:09 AM
As some people have noted, the stats don't tell the complete story. Still, they're certainly interesting and I have to agree with yolland about the talking out both sides of the mouths from certain countries.
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 01:16 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by packcrush
It wasn't just guns. I remember reading an interview with some Iraqi general who was slightly amused that he was fighting Americans; since the US military gave him officer training in the first place.
Unlike most other countries, the SOVIET UNION had over 1,000 troops stationed in Iraq training the Iraqi Republican Guard the classic Soviet Armored tactics they of course practiced with T-72 tanks, BMP armored Personal Carries, and Hind Attack Helicopters. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union, even before Saddam achieved full power in 1979. Iran was the United States client State, and the United States actually sent real weapons to Iran, not Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. 2,000 TOW missiles for the release of hostages.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 01:22 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


they were able to fix up many that looked like this?:



wow, pretty impressive.

and again, just out of curiosity: are you all only interested in numbers or does the apparent u.s. complaisance and moral ambiguity of it's actions play a role in your opinions?



link.
Not to burst your bubble, but not not all Iraqi Tanks destroyed or damaged during the Gulf War looked like that or had that level of damage. The Iraqi's were able to repair several hundred tanks from the 1991 war and had a total of 2,700 tanks when the coalition invaded Iraq in 2003.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 07:46 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Not to burst your bubble, but not not all Iraqi Tanks destroyed or damaged during the Gulf War looked like that or had that level of damage. The Iraqi's were able to repair several hundred tanks from the 1991 war and had a total of 2,700 tanks when the coalition invaded Iraq in 2003.
can't take a little sarcasm or what?

besides, what difference does it make to me whether or not the iraqi army was running at roughly 60% of their previous strength at the time of the invasion in 2003? it's no surprise they were easily overwhelmed yet again.

what about the other half of my post?
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 08:43 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


can't take a little sarcasm or what?

besides, what difference does it make to me whether or not the iraqi army was running at roughly 60% of their previous strength at the time of the invasion in 2003? it's no surprise they were easily overwhelmed yet again.

what about the other half of my post?
Destroying Saddam's military and overthrowing his regime in under 3 weeks in 2003 was not exactly easy. I have several friends that were involved in the push towards Baghdad with the Marine 1st MEF and it took a lot of hard work, to accomplish this with so little loss of life.

You'll have to be a little more specific about what your talking about for me to respond to the second half of the post your refering to.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 10:13 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
this paints a slightly different picture.

but don't get me wrong, i don't doubt that annihilating other human beings is a tough job.
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 10:29 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
this paints a slightly different picture.

but don't get me wrong, i don't doubt that annihilating other human beings is a tough job.
It appears you fail to appreciate the difficulty that goes into a lot of these operations even when its just for training. Do you have any idea how many military records were set during this initial operation, just in terms of the distance travelled and territory taken in that amount of time for an armored force of that size? Guess what the average casualty figures estimated were before the war for urban combat, both military and civilian? The Success that the military had in the initial faze is simply remarkable and that is something all of my friends talked about from their various different positions on the ground in the air in the race to Baghdad.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2005, 11:56 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It appears you fail to appreciate
you've hit the nail on the head there. military records are not impressive. they're just plain tragic. how many people were killed in order to set those records? honestly, you seem to look at war as a sporting event where racking up the best stats gets you into the all-star game...ignoring the fact that you're drop daisy cutters instead of throwing touchdowns.
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 12:39 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


you've hit the nail on the head there. military records are not impressive. they're just plain tragic. how many people were killed in order to set those records? honestly, you seem to look at war as a sporting event where racking up the best stats gets you into the all-star game...ignoring the fact that you're drop daisy cutters instead of throwing touchdowns.
Once again, you fail to understand what I'm talking about. One of the most important records is the low number of deaths, both civilian and military that resulted from the 3 week operation to overthrow Saddam's regime. Such an advance considering the firepower and urban conditions would have typically resulted in death rates that were hundreds or thousands of times what they actually were. But through the excellent training, skill, and technology of coalition forces, civilian casualties as well as military casualties were kept very low considering the conditions. US military personal saved thousands of wounded Iraqi military personal, a subject rarely covered by the media.

I'm sorry if you don't appreciate the efforts of the US military in Iraq including those of my friends. What they did was incredible and their service and sacrifice has made the region and this world a safer and more secure place.

Your presumptions about my views on war are absurd.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 12:57 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:09 PM
That you would take seriously anything iraqibodycount has to say. This anti-war group has only one agenda, and objectivity and the facts are not one of them. The only accurate tally of casaulties comes when every body is correctly identified and studied by forensics and other investigators to determine cause of death.

Otherwise, when simply using unsubstantiated media reports, one comes up with grossly inflated figures. A perfect example of this were the media claims that 7,000 Palestinians were killed in the Israely siege and occupation of Jenin. United Nations investigators and forensic experts later determined that only 48 civilians had died in the fighting and all of the deaths were the results of accidents.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 01:24 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


That you would take seriously anything iraqibodycount has to say.

The only accurate tally of casaulties comes when every body is correctly identified and studied by forensics and other investigators to determine cause of death.


Otherwise, when simply using unsubstantiated media reports, one comes up with grossly inflated figures. A perfect example of this were the media claims that 7,000 Palestinians

Sounds a lot like what other deniers of mass killings have said.

Millions in death camps, where are all the bodies or mass graves
have the remains been studied to determined the truth?

Once somebody swallows the propaganda from one side they can keep putting up these smoke screens and people who want to buy the arguments will.


26,000 to 30,000 civilian deaths from 50,000 bombs is a realistic estimate.


deny, deny, deny all you want.
__________________

deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×