Back When "The West" Armed Saddam

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
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.
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.
 
Se7en said:
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 said:


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?:

IraqiTank.jpg


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?

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.
 
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 :wink:.
 
yolland said:

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 :wink:.

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.
 
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 said:
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.
 
Se7en said:


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

IraqiTank.jpg


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 said:


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 said:


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.
 
Se7en said:
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 said:


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 said:


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.
 
FatBratchney said:

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 said:


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 said:



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.

So I guess you believe that 7,000 Palestinians were killed at Jenin?

Accuse, Accuse, Accuse, without any evidence or facts all you want. Thats real propaganda. Pick the number that fits your politcal agenda and there you go.
 
STING2 said:



Accuse, Accuse, Accuse, without any evidence or facts all you want. Thats real propaganda. Pick the number that fits your politcal agenda and there you go.


US admits it has counted 26,000 Iraqi dead

By Daniel Howden and David Usborne in New York
Published: 31 October 2005

The Pentagon has admitted for the first time that it is keeping track of civilian casualties in Iraq. The figures, slipped into a bar graph in a lengthy report to the US congress this month, show that the daily number of Iraqi casualties has more than doubled in the past 18 months.

The report says that nearly 26,000 Iraqis have been killed or wounded in attacks by insurgents, with an estimated 26 casualties a day between January and March of last year, rising to 64 a day in the run up to the referendum on the new constitution.

This contradicts the Pentagon's assertion that the security situation in Iraq is improving - and that appearances to the contrary reflect the media's focus on bombings in and around Baghdad.

Previously, the US military has insisted it kept records of the casualties among only its own personnel, and avoided discussion about civilian tolls. It also refuses to release information on the number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded by US forces.

Washington and London have regularly doubted independent estimates of the number of Iraqis killed since the 2003 invasion.

Pentagon officials said the report was only a rough estimate and did not distinguish between civilian casualties and members of Iraq's nascent security services killed or wounded in insurgency attacks.

"They have begun to realise that when you focus only on the US it gives the impression that the US doesn't care about Iraqis," Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a research group in Washington told The New York Times.

Greg Hicks, a Pentagon spokesman, trying to play down the significance of the information, said: "It's a kind of a snapshot. The Defence Department doesn't maintain a comprehensive or authoritative count of Iraqi casualties." The estimates in the graph were based on casualty reports filed by US and allied forces who responded to attacks, but Mr Hicks noted that troops did not respond to all attacks.

The graph appeared in a quarterly audit of Iraq operations. Analysis carried out by the independent group Iraq Body Count, which compiles statistics for civilian casualties based on reports by news outlets, suggests the figure of 26,000 casualties would correspond to a death toll of nearly 6,500 - based on a ratio of one death for every three casualties.

This figure is lower than Iraq Body Count's estimate for the same period of 11,613, which includes those killed by US and allied forces. It is also lower than the Iraqi Interior Ministry estimate for the period from August 2004 to May this year of 8,175.

The appearance of the graph will increase pressure on the Pentagon to be more open in releasing data on fatalities in Iraq.

Hamit Dardagan from Iraq Body Count told The New York Times: "We now know that the US military does keep records of Iraqi civilian deaths. There seems to be no obvious reason for keeping them a secret."
 
deep said:


Another crap article with the title "US admits 26,000 dead Iraqi's", then if one actually takes the time to read the article, you learn that its not 26,000 dead Iraqi's but 26,000 dead and wounded, which is far different from what the title claims. In addition, it is only estimate based on reports. It is not a detailed analyses identifying people and studying how they were killed. Its about as reliable as the same BS put out by Bodycount.

The article only reinforces the points I was making, especially the title which is contradicted by the information within the article.
 
STING2 said:


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.


^^^ Is there ANY point in having a reasoned discussion with an IDIOT like this?
 
Right, enough. Have some courtesy people, please. STING - don't dismiss other people's points of view as crap. FatBratchney - don't call other people idiots.

If you disagree with someone's opinions or with an article someone else has posted then please find a way to express your disagreement without the use of insults. Alternatively, carry on with the insults and your access to FYM will be removed. It's really your choice.

*Fizz.
 
Its ALSO your CHOICE as to what level of Neo-Con BULLSHIT is allowed to go unmolested.

Your message board rules would be vaporized in the average News Room in the Corporate Media.

Do they adhere to YOUR code of conduct?
Would Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coultier countenance a "fair and balanced" debate?

PLEASE--GET REAL!

I am sure there are many peeps who are irritated with the abundance of airtime giving to common neo-con gibberish...in the papers/news/internet media.

EVERYWHERE--neo-cons are afforded all kinds of airtime to propagandize--FREE from harassment.

Your rules only entrench the situation.

You KNOW -->NO AMOUNT of "reasoned debate" will change the mentalities of those whose mentalities MUST BE CHANGED.


So WHY BOTHER with the pretense of "fact based critiques"?
 
Back
Top Bottom