US "heroes" kill 9 children

"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...

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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