US "heroes" kill 9 children [Archive]

Jim Baker

December 7th 03, 07:13 PM

"John Galt" > wrote in message
om...
> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Your tax dollars at work.

....hides in villages amongst children, wears civilian clothes while engaged
in combat, and kidnaps and murders civilian non-combatants working to
improve his country's infrastructure for the future of all his people.

Spin it both ways John or your comments are not credible or relevant to the
discussion YOU started. Come to think of it, I don't know why I bothered.

JB

Jay T. Beatty

December 7th 03, 07:28 PM

Chad Irby

December 7th 03, 08:54 PM

"Jay T. Beatty" > wrote:

> "John Galt" > wrote:
> > Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> > than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> >
> > Your tax dollars at work.
>
> You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?

He'd much prefer leaving Hussein in place so about ten times as many get
killed daily, over another 30 years or so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Victoria

December 7th 03, 09:23 PM

Well this is what I think....you cant blame the military for that....its not
like they did it intentionally...its not like they knew the 9 children where
there...in life there are times where "your in the wrong place at the wrong
time"...so you cant just blame it all on the us military....I admit its a
sad story..and I feel bad that those children had to die...but things happen
and we cant go back and change what happen. but don't think that I am trying
to tell you that you cant have your own opinion...you have the right to say
what ever you want..but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in..thanks

Victoria
U.S.M.C Wife To Cpl. Andrews

"John Galt" > wrote in message
om...
> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Your tax dollars at work.

B2431

December 7th 03, 09:57 PM

>Subject: US "heroes" kill 9 children

>Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
>than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>
>http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTI
ON=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
>Your tax dollars at work.

Read your own cite, genius, it was an accident. This happens when cowards like
Bin Laden wear civilian clothes and hide behind children.

Now let's see if you can spew as much bile at Bin Laden or Hussein. Perhaps you
see them as victims?

Bin Laden has admitted he ordered 9-11 and numerous other cowardly attacks
where children were slaughtered. Hussein's graves are at 300,000 and counting,
a great many of these graves are children's.

Speaking of cowardly attacks aren't you glad you are safe behind your modem and
not in the presence of ">Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even
bigger cowards
>than the kevlar-encased army losers." as you call them?

Just what have you ever done for your country?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431

December 7th 03, 09:58 PM

>From:

>
>In us.military.army John Galt > wrote:
>> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
>> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>
>So agreed.
>
>--
Speaking of cowardly attacks aren't you glad you are safe behind your modem and
not in the presence of ">Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even
bigger cowards
>than the kevlar-encased army losers." as you call them?

Just what have you ever done for your country?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

George Z. Bush

December 7th 03, 10:52 PM

B2431 wrote:
>> From:
>
>>
>> In us.military.army John Galt > wrote:
>>> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
>>> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>>
>> So agreed.
>>
>> --
> Speaking of cowardly attacks aren't you glad you are safe behind your modem
> and not in the presence of ">Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are
> even bigger cowards
>> than the kevlar-encased army losers." as you call them?
>
> Just what have you ever done for your country?

To paraphrase our late President JFK, not a whole helluva lot, I would guess,
but I'd also guess that he's taken a lot, like the education enabling him to
know how to use a computer, among other things.

George Z.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Enuf

December 8th 03, 12:26 AM

(John Galt) wrote in message >...
> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Your tax dollars at work.

The true cowards are Iraqi's who surround themselves with women and
children to lessen their chances of being shot.

Enuf BS

Tarver Engineering

December 8th 03, 12:29 AM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Galt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> > than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> >
>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> >
> > Your tax dollars at work.
>
> ...hides in villages amongst children, wears civilian clothes while
engaged
> in combat, and kidnaps and murders civilian non-combatants working to
> improve his country's infrastructure for the future of all his people.

Rome in Israel?

> Spin it both ways John or your comments are not credible or relevant to
the
> discussion YOU started. Come to think of it, I don't know why I bothered.

Beware: America's children are well equiped to harvest your children.

Seems there needs to be a warning label on everything these days. :)

Steven P. McNicoll

December 8th 03, 02:52 PM

"John Galt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Your tax dollars at work.
>

Murder is a deliberate act. This was a mistake.

davric

December 8th 03, 09:01 PM

Can you remind me who gave you the "mission" except a man who didn't know
where was Irak a couple of years before ???
"Jay T. Beatty" > a écrit dans le message de news:
t...
>
> "John Galt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> > than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> >
>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=
HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> >
> > Your tax dollars at work.
>
> You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?
>
>

Jay T. Beatty

December 9th 03, 01:45 AM

"davric" > wrote in message
...
> Can you remind me who gave you the "mission" except a man who didn't know
> where was Irak a couple of years before ???

What are you talking about?

> "Jay T. Beatty" > a écrit dans le message de
news:
> t...
> >
> > "John Galt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> > > than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> > >
> >
>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=
> HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> > >
> > > Your tax dollars at work.
> >
> > You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?
> >
> >
>
>

David Casey

December 9th 03, 07:02 AM

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:01:11 +0100, davric wrote:

[top posting fixed]

>>> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
>>> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
>>>
>>> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=
>>> HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>>>
>>> Your tax dollars at work.
>>
>> You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?
>
> Can you remind me who gave you the "mission" except a man who didn't know
> where was Irak a couple of years before ???

Not knocking your English here, but huh?

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!

www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Added Patriot live fire pics from June 2002,
Bosque fire pics from June 2003, CQB training
pics from October 2003, FTX pics from October 2000,
NBC training pics from September 2000, and
Dining Out pics from October 2000!

Jeff

December 9th 03, 09:10 AM

you need to clean your own house first, talk about cowards and losers, your the fag thats hiding by
using fake accounts and names pussy

John Galt wrote:

> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Your tax dollars at work.

Jarg

December 9th 03, 06:07 PM

I think that (ironically) he is questioning Bush's intelligence.

Jarg

"David Casey" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:01:11 +0100, davric wrote:
>
> [top posting fixed]
>
> >>> Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> >>> than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> >>>
> >>>
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHAN_ATTACK?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=
> >>> HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
> >>>
> >>> Your tax dollars at work.
> >>
> >> You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?
> >
> > Can you remind me who gave you the "mission" except a man who didn't
know
> > where was Irak a couple of years before ???
>
> Not knocking your English here, but huh?
>
> Dave
> --
> You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
> US Army Signal Corps!!
>
> www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
> Added Patriot live fire pics from June 2002,
> Bosque fire pics from June 2003, CQB training
> pics from October 2003, FTX pics from October 2000,
> NBC training pics from September 2000, and
> Dining Out pics from October 2000!

December 10th 03, 01:32 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> "Jay T. Beatty" > wrote:
>
> > "John Galt" > wrote:
> > > Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> > > than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> > >
> > > Your tax dollars at work.
> >
> > You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?
>
> He'd much prefer leaving Hussein in place so about ten times as many get
> killed daily, over another 30 years or so.

To be fair that IS what the US has done for about 20 of the last 30 years
too...

Jay T. Beatty

December 10th 03, 01:48 PM

"tw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Jay T. Beatty" > wrote:
> >
> > > "John Galt" > wrote:
> > > > Pilots who bravely murder from 10,000 feet are even bigger cowards
> > > > than the kevlar-encased army losers.
> > > >
> > > > Your tax dollars at work.
> > >
> > > You have a better way to accomplish the mission I suppose?
> >
> > He'd much prefer leaving Hussein in place so about ten times as many get
> > killed daily, over another 30 years or so.
>
> To be fair that IS what the US has done for about 20 of the last 30 years
> too...
>
You mean keeping Hussein in place? Well, we fixed that didn't we?

Chad Irby

December 10th 03, 02:18 PM

In article >,
"tw" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:

> > He'd much prefer leaving Hussein in place so about ten times as many get
> > killed daily, over another 30 years or so.
>
> To be fair that IS what the US has done for about 20 of the last 30 years
> too...

....and that's the issue.

If we leave folks like that in place, we're uncaring *******s.

If we remove them, we're evil imperialists.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

December 10th 03, 02:44 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tw" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > He'd much prefer leaving Hussein in place so about ten times as many
get
> > > killed daily, over another 30 years or so.
> >
> > To be fair that IS what the US has done for about 20 of the last 30
years
> > too...
>
> ...and that's the issue.
>
> If we leave folks like that in place, we're uncaring *******s.

It's not just the leaving them in plcae, itäs the installing of them (e.g.
Pinochet)

> If we remove them, we're evil imperialists.

I wouldn't dub anyone an "evil imperialist" for taking out Hussein, I just
find it somewhat galling that we supported him for so long in his chemical
attacks against his enemies and brutal suppression of his population when he
was *our* ******* and then chose to knock him off at his most toothless in
what seems a cynical publicity exercise when OBL couldn't be paraded through
the streets in chains.

Mind you, the almost exclusively US make up of the companies allowed to bid
for rebuilding contracts in Iraq DOES look more than a tiny bit like
imperialism...

Chad Irby

December 10th 03, 04:30 PM

In article >,
"tw" > wrote:

> I wouldn't dub anyone an "evil imperialist" for taking out Hussein, I just
> find it somewhat galling that we supported him for so long in his chemical
> attacks against his enemies and brutal suppression of his population when he
> was *our* ******* and then chose to knock him off at his most toothless in
> what seems a cynical publicity exercise when OBL couldn't be paraded through
> the streets in chains.

You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
after they started using them for non-civilian purposes) and some
pesticides (yes, really pesticides, not chemical weapons as some have
claimed). It lasted a total of less than four years in the early 1980s,
and stopped *before* Iraq used chemical weapons versus the Kurds.

Meanwhile, France has had a close, truly friendly relationship with
Hussein's Iraq since Day One (30 years worth), and nobody in Europe
seems to care.

You want galling? Look in Europe. Look at the countries that want Iraq
to pay those old Hussein debts. Note that one of them is the country
that *invented* the concept of not repaying "odius debts..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott MacEachern

December 11th 03, 02:52 AM

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "tw" > wrote:
>
>You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
>when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
>with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
>after they started using them for non-civilian purposes)

Forty Bell 214STs and approximately 85 Hughes 300s and 500s were
delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
'a few small helicopters'.

and some
>pesticides (yes, really pesticides, not chemical weapons as some have
>claimed). It lasted a total of less than four years in the early 1980s,
>and stopped *before* Iraq used chemical weapons versus the Kurds.

Nicely chosen wording.... the reconnaissance data that America
provided to Iraq was being provided at the time that Iraq was using
chemical weapons against _Iran_. You might note as well that Mark
Pythian, in his book _Arming Iraq_ says that a number of the 214s were
used in the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Scott

Colin Campbell

December 11th 03, 05:37 AM

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:52:18 -0500, Scott MacEachern
> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "tw" > wrote:
>>
>>You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
>>when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
>>with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
>>after they started using them for non-civilian purposes)
>
>Forty Bell 214STs and approximately 85 Hughes 300s and 500s were
>delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
>'a few small helicopters'.

So you are saying that we sold _civilian_ helicopters to Iraq that
were later converted to military use. You apparently are ignoring the
fact that we ceased selling them helicopters when they began
converting them to military use.

Now please compare this practice with the behavior of the European
nations.

>Nicely chosen wording.... the reconnaissance data that America
>provided to Iraq was being provided at the time that Iraq was using
>chemical weapons against _Iran_. You might note as well that Mark
>Pythian, in his book _Arming Iraq_ says that a number of the 214s were
>used in the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja.

I have a question - why are you singling out the US for this
criticism? If you have a problem with the countries that armed Iraq -
shouldn't you be spending all of your time complaining about France,
Germany, Belgium, Russia, China, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Romania,
Hungary, etc?

For example, when it was discovered that Iraq was making chemical
weapons the US immediately banned the sale of any chemicals or
equipment that could be used in their manufacture. It did not do any
good as France and Germany _knowingly_ became suppliers to make up the
lack.

Your priorities are a little out of whack. (Or is it only wrong if
the US does it?)

"...there is always a well-known solution to every
human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken

Chad Irby

December 11th 03, 06:27 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "tw" > wrote:
> >
> >You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
> >when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
> >with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
> >after they started using them for non-civilian purposes)
>
> Forty Bell 214STs and approximately 85 Hughes 300s and 500s were
> delivered to Iraq,

For civilian use. Exactly. And then they supposedly stuck weapons on
them and used them for killing people (although nobody's managed to find
any of these armed 214s, and only a few MD-500s), and we stopped selling
things to them.

Pretty trivial when you compare to the thousands of tanks, fighter jets,
artillery pieces, *combat* helicopters, and other armaments sold to Iraq
for direct military purposes by pretty much everyone else.

Here's a little sample of Russian copter sales:

37 Mi-17/Hip-H
40 Mi-24D/Mi-25/Hind-D
12 Mi-24D/Mi-25/Hind-D
15 Mi-6T/Hook-A
90 Mi-8T/Hip-C
30 Mi-8TV/Hip-F

Then, of course, the French not only sold Iraq copters, but also sold
them the weapons systems to use *with* those copters.

> and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
> 'a few small helicopters'.

Compared to the rest of the stuff everyone else sold, it's damned near
invisible.

> the reconnaissance data that America provided to Iraq was being
> provided at the time that Iraq was using chemical weapons against
> _Iran_.

....and you might note that the use of chemical weapons was part of the
reason we stopped dealing with Iraq in the late 1980s. Our total
involvement with Hussein lasted just four years, as opposed to 30+ for
many of our "allies."

> You might note as well that Mark Pythian, in his book _Arming Iraq_

You mean "Arming Iraq : How the US and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's
War Machine," which is really funny, since the US accounts for less than
1% of arms sales to Iraq over the last 30 years... it should be "How the
Soviet Union and Russia armed Iraq."

> says that a number of the 214s were used in the gassing of the
> Kurdish town of Halabja.

Funny... everyone else says that Halabja was gassed by bombs dropped
from planes. Several hours of regular artillery the day before, some
rockets that morning, and finished off with mustard and nerve gas.

No copters in the attack. And that's from multiple sources, including
Human Rights Watch.

Now, *some* people are claiming that copters were used, but the
eyewitness accounts only mention one copter flying on low to take photos
after the attacks, and they might have been describing the Iranian Huey
that flew some journalists in to cover the story.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Jarg

December 11th 03, 07:16 AM

Facts are so inconvenient sometimes.

You are wating your time. These critics hate the US, and will no matter how
clearly you demonstrate their lack of reason.

Jarg

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Scott MacEachern > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > > "tw" > wrote:
> > >
> > >You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
> > >when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the
war
> > >with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
> > >after they started using them for non-civilian purposes)
> >
> > Forty Bell 214STs and approximately 85 Hughes 300s and 500s were
> > delivered to Iraq,
>
> For civilian use. Exactly. And then they supposedly stuck weapons on
> them and used them for killing people (although nobody's managed to find
> any of these armed 214s, and only a few MD-500s), and we stopped selling
> things to them.
>
> Pretty trivial when you compare to the thousands of tanks, fighter jets,
> artillery pieces, *combat* helicopters, and other armaments sold to Iraq
> for direct military purposes by pretty much everyone else.
>
> Here's a little sample of Russian copter sales:
>
> 37 Mi-17/Hip-H
> 40 Mi-24D/Mi-25/Hind-D
> 12 Mi-24D/Mi-25/Hind-D
> 15 Mi-6T/Hook-A
> 90 Mi-8T/Hip-C
> 30 Mi-8TV/Hip-F
>
> Then, of course, the French not only sold Iraq copters, but also sold
> them the weapons systems to use *with* those copters.
>
> > and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
> > 'a few small helicopters'.
>
> Compared to the rest of the stuff everyone else sold, it's damned near
> invisible.
>
> > the reconnaissance data that America provided to Iraq was being
> > provided at the time that Iraq was using chemical weapons against
> > _Iran_.
>
> ...and you might note that the use of chemical weapons was part of the
> reason we stopped dealing with Iraq in the late 1980s. Our total
> involvement with Hussein lasted just four years, as opposed to 30+ for
> many of our "allies."
>
> > You might note as well that Mark Pythian, in his book _Arming Iraq_
>
> You mean "Arming Iraq : How the US and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's
> War Machine," which is really funny, since the US accounts for less than
> 1% of arms sales to Iraq over the last 30 years... it should be "How the
> Soviet Union and Russia armed Iraq."
>
> > says that a number of the 214s were used in the gassing of the
> > Kurdish town of Halabja.
>
> Funny... everyone else says that Halabja was gassed by bombs dropped
> from planes. Several hours of regular artillery the day before, some
> rockets that morning, and finished off with mustard and nerve gas.
>
> No copters in the attack. And that's from multiple sources, including
> Human Rights Watch.
>
> Now, *some* people are claiming that copters were used, but the
> eyewitness accounts only mention one copter flying on low to take photos
> after the attacks, and they might have been describing the Iranian Huey
> that flew some journalists in to cover the story.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

December 11th 03, 11:54 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tw" > wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't dub anyone an "evil imperialist" for taking out Hussein, I
just
> > find it somewhat galling that we supported him for so long in his
chemical
> > attacks against his enemies and brutal suppression of his population
when he
> > was *our* ******* and then chose to knock him off at his most toothless
in
> > what seems a cynical publicity exercise when OBL couldn't be paraded
through
> > the streets in chains.
>
> You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
> when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
> with Iran,

I suspect there was a bit more to it than athat, but that's not the point. I
shouldn't have used the word supported. What I meant was, for 40 years or so
he was just another wog dictator who we didn't care about especially, but
suddenly when he's an easy target it becmes imperative to take him out
because of all the evil freedom-hatin' stuff he does to his population.

> along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
> after they started using them for non-civilian purposes) and some
> pesticides (yes, really pesticides, not chemical weapons as some have
> claimed).

The precursors are often similar.

> Meanwhile, France has had a close, truly friendly relationship

I suspect it was based a hell of a lot more on money and oil than
friendship, you know.

> with Hussein's Iraq since Day One (30 years worth), and nobody in Europe
> seems to care.

That may be because the French haven't been so hypocritical about it.

Scott MacEachern

December 11th 03, 03:13 PM

Colin Campbell (remove underscore)> wrote in message >...

> So you are saying that we sold _civilian_ helicopters to Iraq that
> were later converted to military use. You apparently are ignoring the
> fact that we ceased selling them helicopters when they began
> converting them to military use.

Right. The US administration of the time sold over a hundred
helicopters, all with military applications, to Iraq in the middle of
the Iran-Iraq... and the government's expectation was that they were
being sold as _civilian aircraft_??? C'mon. You will note that the
sale of the 214s was made over Congressional opposition, which
revolved around exactly this issue. Anyone in the American government
at the time who was not terminally stupid knew exactly what those
helicopters were being sold for, and it wasn't civilian use.

And I am aware of teh scale of European arms sales to Iraq over the
same period, thank 'ee. I was responding to one example of persistent
attempts to minimise America's involvement with Saddam Hussein's
regime over the same period.

> I have a question - why are you singling out the US for this
> criticism?...
> Your priorities are a little out of whack. (Or is it only wrong if
> the US does it?)

Nope. It's wrong if anyone does it... the French for example. See
above: whenMr Irby talks about a 'few small helicopters', he's
misrepresenting the equipment transfers that did take place, and also
misrepresenting the political context in which they were sold.

Scott

Chad Irby

December 11th 03, 03:36 PM

In article >,
"tw" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
> > when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
> > with Iran,
>
> I suspect there was a bit more to it than that, but that's not the point.

Actually, that's *exactly* the point, or people never have tried to
bring it up in the first place. Attempting to tar the US with the brush
of "supporting Saddam" over $5 million in helicopter sales fifteen years
ago, when other countries were selling him billions of dollars worth of
real weapons...

> I shouldn't have used the word supported.

No, "supported" is right, you just used it aout the wrong country. If
you had mentioned Russia/USSR, you'd have had a very good point.

> What I meant was, for 40 years or so he was just another wog dictator
> who we didn't care about especially, but suddenly when he's an easy
> target it becmes imperative to take him out because of all the evil
> freedom-hatin' stuff he does to his population.

For most of that time, we made the mistake of listening to other folks
who told us that interfering with other counties was wrong under any
conditions, no matter how horrible those places were. We just finally
realized that was stupid.

> > along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
> > after they started using them for non-civilian purposes) and some
> > pesticides (yes, really pesticides, not chemical weapons as some have
> > claimed).
>
> The precursors are often similar.

Not similar enough. Making Sarin or Tabun from modern agricultural
pesticides would be immensely harder to do than making it from base
components in the first place (and they had the base components from
Europe already). If you want to find out where Hussein got his nerve
gas and mustard gas, look at France, Germany, and England, not the US.

> > Meanwhile, France has had a close, truly friendly relationship
>
> I suspect it was based a hell of a lot more on money and oil than
> friendship, you know.

No, it was very friendly.

> > with Hussein's Iraq since Day One (30 years worth), and nobody in Europe
> > seems to care.
>
> That may be because the French haven't been so hypocritical about it.

Like hell.

They kept talking about protecting the Iraqi people, while letting them
die by the tens of thousands so they could get cheap oil in the "oil for
food" program. They sold Iraq piles of *real* weapons over the decades,
they tried to sell Iraq a fully-functioning nuclear reactor that was
designed specifically for making bomb materials, and they blocked UN
moves so they could keep collecting money from past weapons sales. They
even tried to relax the embargoes after Iraq spent over a decade not
following the conditions in the 1991 cease fire.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott MacEachern

December 11th 03, 03:58 PM

Chad Irby > wrote ...
> In article >,

> For civilian use. Exactly.

Righty-ho. I may not like some of the people involved in the American
administration of the time, but I don't actually think that they were
as terminally stupid as you appear to believe. Selling 120+
helicopters to Iraq in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war... and you
actually believe that the American government expected that they would
be used for civilian purposes?? A number of your Congressmen certainly
didn't: they objected to the sales on just these grounds.

And you'll note that those helicopters were in the inventory of the
Iraqi army
just before GW2, according to that notorious Commie rag, the _IISS
Military Balance 1990 - 1991_.

> Compared to the rest of the stuff everyone else sold, it's damned near
> invisible.

Well, we'll disagree on that. I don't think an extra 120 helicopters
on strength is 'damned near invisible'... and it's certainly more than
"...a few small helicopters..."

> ...and you might note that the use of chemical weapons was part of the
> reason we stopped dealing with Iraq in the late 1980s. Our total
> involvement with Hussein lasted just four years, as opposed to 30+ for
> many of our "allies."

It lasted longer than that: the Reagan administration opened things up
by taking Iraq off its list of terrorist states in 1982, and as late
as 1988 the administration was talking about Iraq's importance to
America. (Richard Armitage at that point told Congress there was no
international law preventing a leader from using WMDs on his own
people.)

In addition, that programme of providing reconnaissance information to
Iraq lasted until at least 1988, according to an NYT investigation on
the topic from last year, and that information was being provided
during operations when gas was known to be used. Essentially, what put
Saddam Hussein on America's bad books was invading Kuwait. Everything
up to that point -- including killing American sailors on the USS
Stark -- was forgivable.

> Funny... everyone else says that Halabja was gassed by bombs dropped
> from planes.

Well, no, actually they don't... as you say, some people say that
helicopters were used, others do not. None of the HRW reports I've
seen identify the means used to deliver the gas at Halabja, except to
the extent of saying that they were delivered by air. (They do talk
about use of aircraft in conventional attacks, including use of
napalm/phosphorous, earlier that day.)

Scott

Colin Campbell

December 11th 03, 04:38 PM

On 11 Dec 2003 07:13:43 -0800, (Scott MacEachern)
wrote:

>And I am aware of teh scale of European arms sales to Iraq over the
>same period, thank 'ee. I was responding to one example of persistent
>attempts to minimise America's involvement with Saddam Hussein's
>regime over the same period.

In that case - based on the evidence presented - the only conclusion
is that the US did not provide any substantial military aid to Iraq.

What it boils down to is that the US wanted the Iran-Iraq war
stalemated - and worked both sides to ensure that this happened.

We weren't even that subtle about this - when asked about this war the
US Secretary of State said: "We hope they both lose."

"...there is always a well-known solution to every
human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken

Scott MacEachern

December 11th 03, 04:49 PM

"Jarg" > wrote...

> These critics hate the US

Not particularly. I don't have much use for historical amnesia, though.

Scott

Chad Irby

December 11th 03, 04:57 PM

In article >,
(Scott MacEachern) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote ...
> > In article >,
>
> > Funny... everyone else says that Halabja was gassed by bombs dropped
> > from planes.
>
> Well, no, actually they don't... as you say, some people say that
> helicopters were used, others do not.

The handful of reports that suggest helos were used at Halabja seem to
be confusing other reports from differnet towns, and even those are
pretty fragmentary.

The attack at Halabja was fighters dropping 250 pound chemical bombs.

That's the common report we've gotten from actual eyewitnesses.

Some editorial writers have grabbed the "they used helicopters to gas
Halabja" meme, but it's just wrong.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Steve Hix

December 12th 03, 02:24 AM

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:52:18 -0500, Scott MacEachern
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> >>You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
> >>when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
> >>with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
> >>after they started using them for non-civilian purposes)
> >
> >Forty Bell 214STs and approximately 85 Hughes 300s and 500s

All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)

> > were
> >delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
> >'a few small helicopters'.

Compared to the 215 Russian and 169 French military types in 1990, they
were.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm)

64 Russian and 100 French military types remained by 2000;
(http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm).

And none of the American helicopters were still in service by 2000.

Scott MacEachern

December 12th 03, 03:45 AM

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:38:02 GMT, Colin Campbell
(remove underscore)> wrote:

>In that case - based on the evidence presented - the only conclusion
>is that the US did not provide any substantial military aid to Iraq.

Well, we will have to disagree over that. I tend to regard 120+
helicopters and reconnaissance information as 'substantial military
aid'.

Scott

Scott MacEachern

December 12th 03, 03:50 AM

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:42 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:

>All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
>right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)

Yup. I also know about the various versions of the Hughes 500 ....
Hughes Defenders, AH-6/MH-6 and so on. In any case, this is not the
newsgroup where I'd expect to find dismissal of the military
importance of transport and training systems.

>
>> > were
>> >delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
>> >'a few small helicopters'.
>
>Compared to the 215 Russian and 169 French military types in 1990, they
>were.
>(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm)

120 US helicopters is insignificant compared to 169 French
helicopters? When do they start being significant? 130? 140? 150?

>64 Russian and 100 French military types remained by 2000;
>(http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm).
>
>And none of the American helicopters were still in service by 2000.

According to the IISS Military Balance for 2000-2001, there were still
Bell 214s, Hughes 300C, Hughes 500D and Hughes 530Fs (?) still in
service with the Iraqi army. They don't break any down by numbers of
the helicopter systems in use, from any country.

Scott

Scott MacEachern

December 12th 03, 03:53 AM

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:57:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>The attack at Halabja was fighters dropping 250 pound chemical bombs.
>
>That's the common report we've gotten from actual eyewitnesses.

I would be interested in knowing the source of that actual report,
then. (No dissing in this case, I would like to know where it comes
from, and to be able to judge for myself whether it is definitive.)

Scott

Chad Irby

December 12th 03, 03:57 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> Well, we will have to disagree over that. I tend to regard 120+
> helicopters and reconnaissance information as 'substantial military
> aid'.

If $5 million in copters (over 15 years ago) is "substantial," then what
do you consider the billions in sales by Russia, along with the years
upon years of *actual* military aid and training?

"Overwhelming" should be in the phrase book somewhere...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

December 12th 03, 04:19 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:42 -0800, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
> >right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)
>
> Yup. I also know about the various versions of the Hughes 500 ....
> Hughes Defenders, AH-6/MH-6 and so on. In any case, this is not the
> newsgroup where I'd expect to find dismissal of the military
> importance of transport and training systems.

As far as transport copters, the Iraqis had plenty of actual big Russian
transport copters, four-seat Bell machines aren't even going to rate.

> 120 US helicopters is insignificant compared to 169 French
> helicopters? When do they start being significant? 130? 140? 150?

When they start being attack helicopters, like the French and Russian
birds.

> According to the IISS Military Balance for 2000-2001, there were still
> Bell 214s, Hughes 300C, Hughes 500D and Hughes 530Fs (?) still in
> service with the Iraqi army.

Like those MiG-25s that were "still in service" buried under six feet of
sand, I suppose.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Steve Hix

December 12th 03, 05:59 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:42 -0800, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
> >right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)
>
> Yup. I also know about the various versions of the Hughes 500 ....
> Hughes Defenders, AH-6/MH-6 and so on. In any case, this is not the
> newsgroup where I'd expect to find dismissal of the military
> importance of transport and training systems.

They didn't get AH-6/MH-6, did they?

> >> > were
> >> >delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
> >> >'a few small helicopters'.
> >
> >Compared to the 215 Russian and 169 French military types in 1990, they
> >were.
> >(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm)
>
> 120 US helicopters is insignificant compared to 169 French
> helicopters? When do they start being significant? 130? 140? 150?

No, it was 120 (lots being Hughes 300s) compared to 384 others.

Chad Irby

December 12th 03, 06:42 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:57:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >The attack at Halabja was fighters dropping 250 pound chemical bombs.
> >
> >That's the common report we've gotten from actual eyewitnesses.
>
> I would be interested in knowing the source of that actual report,
> then. (No dissing in this case, I would like to know where it comes
> from, and to be able to judge for myself whether it is definitive.)

This has a decent description:
("The March 16 Chemical Attack on Halabja")
Specific mention of attack aircraft, not copters.
<http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL3.htm>

This one mentions MiG-26s, but they probably meant MiG-23 or -27.
<http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0710chem.htm>

I *did* see some suggestion that at least part of the Halabja chemical
attack was by rockets and artillery, and that the jets were just
dropping cluster bombs and regular minutions. But Iraq did also use 250
kg mustard gas bombs versus Iranian towns, so that's in the mix, too.

This is after digging through a *lot* of descriptions of the Halabja
attack over the last couple of days, and trying to remember what I read
yesterday. And I still can't find anything like an eyewitness
description that mentions helicopters used in the attack itself - just
one recon chopper taking photos, or dropping pieces of paper to judge
wind speed.

I've found references to some copters being used in other places to
deliver chemical weapons, but most of them were apparently white
phosphorus rockets fired to keep people in place for artillery and
fighter bombardments with chemicals. Helicopters were having a hard
time in the Kurdish areas in 1988, due to ground fire, so delivering
chemicals by copter would have been pretty risky compared to dropping
bombs from jets or firing off artillery/rockets, and low-level spraying
would have been just plain nuts.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott MacEachern

December 13th 03, 03:33 AM

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:59:12 -0800, Steve Hix
> wrote:

>They didn't get AH-6/MH-6, did they?

No, I don't think that 160 SOAR lets too many out of their sight. So
what? The Defender's essentially the same aircraft. Point is, these
are hardly 'support types', as you said.

>No, it was 120 (lots being Hughes 300s) compared to 384 others.

Gee, in that case are the 169 French helicopters insignificant
compared to the 335 (Russian and American) other ones? I'm interested
in the math that you're using for this. And 30 of the 126 were Hughes
300s.

Scott

Scott MacEachern

December 13th 03, 03:45 AM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:19:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>As far as transport copters, the Iraqis had plenty of actual big Russian
>transport copters, four-seat Bell machines aren't even going to rate.

4-seat?? I think that you'll find that Bell 214STs are considerably
larger than that!

>Like those MiG-25s that were "still in service" buried under six feet of
>sand, I suppose.

It gives an amagamated number for all of those helicopters, from all
nations. Some were no doubt out of service... but there's no evidence
that the American ones were particularly so.

Scott

Scott MacEachern

December 13th 03, 03:53 AM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:57:28 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>If $5 million in copters (over 15 years ago) is "substantial," then what
>do you consider the billions in sales by Russia, along with the years
>upon years of *actual* military aid and training?

Very substantial indeed. But if the USA sold 120+ helicopters to
Saddam Hussein for _$5 million_ (that is, less than $50,000/apiece)
they were giving them to him! In fact, the figure I've seen for just
the sale of the 214s was $200 million... which makes a lot more sense.

Scott

Scott MacEachern

December 13th 03, 04:10 AM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:42:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>This has a decent description:
>("The March 16 Chemical Attack on Halabja")
>Specific mention of attack aircraft, not copters.
><http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL3.htm>

That's what I was reading from the HRW site as well, although the
connection between the aircraft and gas isn't direct. "In the
afternoon, at about 3:00, those who remained in the shelters became
aware of an unusual smell."

You may be right, for the reasons that you give concerning
antiaircraft threats in Kurdistan atthe time... but note that both the
LA Times and the Guardian quoted sources that said that the 214s had
been involved.

Scott

Chad Irby

December 13th 03, 05:31 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:19:34 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >As far as transport copters, the Iraqis had plenty of actual big Russian
> >transport copters, four-seat Bell machines aren't even going to rate.
>
> 4-seat?? I think that you'll find that Bell 214STs are considerably
> larger than that!

I was referring to the Defenders, forgot about the "Super Transport"
214ST... lots of seats, no external hardpoints.

But still very tiny when compared to the monster Russian copters that
were in service in Iraq.

....and according to this story, only two of them were still in service
as of January...

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74743,00.html>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

December 13th 03, 05:52 AM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:42:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >This has a decent description:
> >("The March 16 Chemical Attack on Halabja")
> >Specific mention of attack aircraft, not copters.
> ><http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL3.htm>
>
> That's what I was reading from the HRW site as well, although the
> connection between the aircraft and gas isn't direct. "In the
> afternoon, at about 3:00, those who remained in the shelters became
> aware of an unusual smell."
>
> You may be right, for the reasons that you give concerning
> antiaircraft threats in Kurdistan atthe time... but note that both the
> LA Times and the Guardian quoted sources that said that the 214s had
> been involved.

The reports of the 214s being involved seem to all have come from
opinion pieces, not actual reporting. If you read some of the older,
non-eyewitness stories, you run into the phrase "it is believed" a lot.

Which, oddly enough, seems to have been quoted without attribution from
that same Mark Phythian guy who keeps selling books based on the idea
that the US and Britain armed Iraq (while ignoring everyone else, who
*really* sold them the weapons, and are still trying to collect on the
bills).

The US was really a very minor player in Iraq for most of the last three
decades.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Scott MacEachern

December 13th 03, 03:37 PM

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:31:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>...and according to this story, only two of them were still in service
>as of January...
>
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74743,00.html>

Well, according to that site those were the only two helicopters in
service at that time... which seems unlikely. FWIW, I doubt that
anyone had information that precise on aircraft and helicopters in
service in Iraq at that point.

Scott

Scott MacEachern

December 13th 03, 03:40 PM

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:52:52 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Which, oddly enough, seems to have been quoted without attribution from
>that same Mark Phythian guy who keeps selling books based on the idea
>that the US and Britain armed Iraq (while ignoring everyone else, who
>*really* sold them the weapons, and are still trying to collect on the
>bills).

Pythian's book quotes those same sources, IIRC. And the book never
denies that the bulk of Saddam's weapons came from other countries: he
was addressing the widespread, comfortable belief in Britain and the
USA that neither of those countries had anything to do with it.

Scott

Chad Irby

December 13th 03, 05:21 PM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:31:03 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>
> >...and according to this story, only two of them were still in service
> >as of January...
> >
> ><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74743,00.html>
>
> Well, according to that site those were the only two helicopters in
> service at that time... which seems unlikely.

I dunno. Copters in the desert for 20 years? Very maintenance
intensive.

> FWIW, I doubt that anyone had information that precise on aircraft
> and helicopters in service in Iraq at that point.

Probably not, but it's a good general guess. They sure couldn't get
part for the US-made copters very easily.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

December 13th 03, 05:26 PM

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:52:52 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Which, oddly enough, seems to have been quoted without attribution from
> >that same Mark Phythian guy who keeps selling books based on the idea
> >that the US and Britain armed Iraq (while ignoring everyone else, who
> >*really* sold them the weapons, and are still trying to collect on the
> >bills).
>
> Pythian's book quotes those same sources, IIRC. And the book never
> denies that the bulk of Saddam's weapons came from other countries: he
> was addressing the widespread, comfortable belief in Britain and the
> USA that neither of those countries had anything to do with it.

Well, he's addressing his own contention, but since nobody ever really
denied it, and since he took that nice controversial title, the rest of
his claims are, let's say, less reliable.

"Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War
Machine" pretty much says it all. Not "sold a tiny amount of weapons,"
not "let everyone else in the world sell them a hundred times as much."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.