US "heroes" kill 9 children

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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/milita...-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.

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/milita...-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

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.