US "heroes" kill 9 children

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