Wow, is this true???? Iraq related

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

I wonder how true this is [:' (]

It' s from the Press... It HAS to be true!

Seriously... Maybe I give the US Government too much credit... but would this information REALLY be this easy to find if it was true? I mean, all it would take would be for Saddam to sign on to Iraq Online (IOL) or whatever friggin ISP they use, and he would know that we know, and the stuff would be moved before we could blink.

Just my 2 cents, though...

This was the front page of the " Sunday Tasmanian" on Sunday. Exactly the same story, but not surprising, considering they' re published by the same company

What WAS surprising, is that I' ve heard no mention of it on ANY other media. No radio, TV, or internet coverage of what should be a very very big deal.

I have my doubts, frankly. I would like to think that such a story would be checked before it was published, but I' m not really that naive.

I hope it is true, cause I suspect that Saddam has the stuff being moved around. I think he' s got stuff, but we have to prove it. If this is true, proof will be secured.

But I' ll believe it when more reports come in about it and the inspectors can confirm it.

Umm.....this story is total bullshit. Thank you.

the supposed " body gaurd" : Wow, i knew there were rumors of him bein gay, but hes naked! And...so am I! And I' m his....body gaurd! Damn..maybe it is true.

ORIGINAL: Jpjr

Umm.....this story is total bullshit. Thank you.

And you know this how? Not trying to be a smart ass, I really want to know or are you just saying its BS cuz you think so?

if it was true it would be verifiable through a real news source.

jon

Very Very True Jon!

ORIGINAL: Metal7000
if it was true it would be verifiable through a real news source.

Oh please... One of Australia' s largest newspaper networks is not a " real" news source? Look, I' m as skeptical about this as the next person, but you' ll have to do better than parochialism to dis-credit it.

I will admit though, that I haven' t been able to find a mention of this on any other real news sources, so I do have my doubts about this, or at least as to the wisdom of it being in the public arena, if in fact it turns out to be true.

let me rephrase that. if this was credible, the american propaganda machine would be all over it. for them to not make use of this means that it must be very, very unreliable.

jon

I heard that they' re going to send inspectors to see if Saddam is gay!!! and if he is, that' d will be enough bomb Iraq.

Now that I definitely agree with

hehe, as long as you aren' t calling the propaganda machine a " reliable news source"

I heard a good one today. Apparently the United Nationa has a subcomittee which monitors disarmaments. This was set up a few years ago and each month the lead nation changes. Guess who' s coming up for May - you guessed it - Iraq. When you add to that the fact that the US armed the prix with weapons to beat the Iranis way back when then you' ve got to wonder if the steering wheel is indeed in someone' s lap. [:' (]

I get really tired of the lack of truth in some of these posts.

First we did not arm Saddam Hussein in the war between Iran and Iraq. We armed the Iranians. The Soviet Union supported the Iraqi Government and Military forces, and in addition to Migs, they also received a lot of other items including materials and armaments for chemical and biological weapons.

Communist expansionism which brought about the Cold War was faught all over the world from Cuba, to Asia, to the Middle East, and several other places in the world.

The same is true in Afghanistan where we helped them fight off the Soviet Union and their attempt to invade and occupy lower asia.

Also if by the Cold War we mean the events since World War II, it was necessary. Otherwise, we definitely would have had Soviet continued expansion, taking over most, if not all, of Western Europe; moving into the Middle East; causing problems not only with India but other countries in Southeast Asia; Africa is a basket case in itself in many ways, tragically, and there would have been fertile grounds for communist subversion and takeover there. All of these things were prevented, sometimes prevented with great cost to blood and treasure, but nevertheless were prevented by the resistance of the United States and other Western countries to Soviet communist expansionism.

You can arm a man with a club and teach him how to defend himself, but if he tries to bash you with it the only one at fault is the fool that has the club and wrongful intent to use it.

you' re trying to argue that we didn' t officially support Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? and that they never received arms shipments from america?

jon

By 1987, the war expanded to involve attacks on oil shipping in the Persian Gulf. Thus, Arab and Western nations became involved and in July, 1988, Iran was forced to accept a United Nations-mandated cease-fire. Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million. Iraq summarily executed thousands of Iranian prisoners of war. Iran had been supported by Syria and Libya, and received much of its weaponry from North Korea and China, as well as from covert arms transactions from the United States. Iraq enjoyed much wider support, both among Arab and Western nations: the Soviet Union was its largest supplier of arms.

Again it says, Iraq enjoyed a much wider support, both among arab and western nations, THE SOVIET UNION WAS ITS LARGEST SUPPLIER OF ARMS. If you read it also states that Iran enjoyed covert arms transactions from the United States.

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/SR3IraqIranWar.htm

Again, the concept we armed Iraq is false, we armed Iran to fight Iraq because the Soviet Union was who we were attempting to falter during the Cold War.

It' s like trying to argue that if we' re poked by a sharp stick by the Taliban in Afghanistan it' s our fault, when the reality is we were assisting in the downfall of the Soviet Union which was attempting to expand through out the world. What Afghanistan did after that is their own fault.

From the same news site reported in the initial post.

Iraq glee at tragedy (regarding the Columbia)

" Iraqi car mechanic Mohammed Jaber al-Tamini said it was retribution for Israel' s aggression.

" Israel launched an aggression on us when it raided our nuclear reactor without any reason, now time has come," he said."
- http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5926707^661,00.html

From foxnews.com

Shuttle Tragedy Is Page-One News in Baghdad

" We are people who love other people," said Bushra al-Samarai, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly. " We respect their feelings and share their sadness over this tragic incident."
- http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77333,00.html

As you can see, these articles focus on different areas of the same topic, Iraq' s feelings towards the Columbia tragedy. The media is entertainment often involving copious amounts of bullshit. How do you think it became socially acceptable to become racist towards Arabs in America?

I don' t believe it' s socially acceptable to be racist in America, but you must come to realize that people are afraid, there have been terrorists who' ve lived here and trained here, people met them and talked with them and had no idea what their intent was. I am a firm believer that in Iraq there are several kinds of people... the kind who are happy about the Shuttle Columbia, there are those who will say they are glad for the destruction but truly underneath feel bad, then there are those who might share their sorrow over it even if it might go against the dictatorship that rules them. I think the media should protect their sources and not release information that might get some innocent Iraqi Citizen who might share remorse (because I am sure they exist) into being held and killed as a political prisoner by Saddam.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada

I get really tired of the lack of truth in some of these posts.

First we did not arm Saddam Hussein in the war between Iran and Iraq. We armed the Iranians. The Soviet Union supported the Iraqi Government and Military forces, and in addition to Migs, they also received a lot of other items including materials and armaments for chemical and biological weapons.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

Gee a bash site that' s anti-american, how nice and happy for you.

Oh man, I couldn' t have hoped for a better answer.

Mr. " I get really tired of the lack of truth in some of these posts" finally gets some truth and he can' t handle it.

A bash site that' s anti-american?

You know what strikes me as anti-american? People who are so jingoistic that they can' t admit the flaws of their country. People point out America' s flaws so the country they live in can be improved. It' s similar to constructively criticizing Dream Theater songs. Fans do it because they love DT, not because they are anti-DT. Why do you think the forum rules state no insults to DT, but critiques are OK? It' s because the forum mods believe it is beneficial for the band!

At best if such a website was distributed to my home printed on paper I' d use it to wipe my rear, for it' s not worth anything else other then an inflamatory bash site.

You can sit in front of your computer all you like and look for reasons to be against things like war in Iraq. Or try to gain some form of " individualism" in a country you already have that gift in by trying to find faults here instead of accepting the realities of the world, that there is evil, there is destruction, and there is need for survival. You can go on all day about all the atrocities that we' re responsible for, and my response would be the same. Simply because regardless of how you attempt to paint the picture the goal of the United States was to prevent Soviet Expansionism, that might not mean something to you, but had we not the Soviets would have probably succeeded and the world would be a lot more dangerous then it is now.

I get sick and tired of people blaming the US for taking part in what is reality survival, something that countries all around the world do.

On one hand you have people like Susan Sarandon going on about how Iraq isn' t involved with Terrorism and isn' t such a bad place, but the crap link like the one provided above uses it as " Fact" to try and single out and bash Reagan that Iraq was involved with terrorism.

Also ask yourself what kind of armaments are used in Iraq:

Following Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force was estimated to include:

15 MiG-29 ground-attack aircraft
30 Mirage F1 ground-attack aircraft
50 MiG-23 multi-role fighters
20 Su-25 ground-attack aircraft
30 Su-20/-22 ground-attack aircraft
7 Tu-16 and B-6D bombers
10 Tu-22 supersonic bombers
Iran still retains the 15 Il-76, 40 Su-20/22, 24 Mirage F1, seven MiG-23, seven MiG-25 and four MiG-29 combat aircraft that fled Iraq to escape the Coalition air campaign in 1991.

These are all Russiand and French weapons, Iraq purchased weapons from the French and the Soviets, which were used against us in Desert Storm, and against Iran.

In 1987 the Iraqi air force consisted of 40,000 men, of whom about 10,000 were attached to its subordinate Air Defense Command. The air force was headquartered in Baghdad, and major bases were located at Basra, H-3 (site of a pump station on the oil pipeline in western Iraq), Kirkuk, Mosul, Rashid, and Ash Shuaybah. Iraq' s more than 500 combat aircraft were formed into two bomber squadrons, eleven fighter-ground attack squadrons, five interceptor squadrons, and one counterinsurgency squadron of 10 to 30 aircraft each. Support aircraft included two transport squadrons. As many as ten helicopter squadrons were also operational, although these formed the Army Air Corps. The Air Defense Command piloted the MiG-25, MiG-21, and various Mirage interceptors and manned Iraq' s considerable inventory of surfaceto -air missiles (SAMs).

The equipment of the air force and the army' s air corps, like that of the other services, was primarily of Soviet manufacture. After 1980, however, in an effort to diversify its sources of advanced armaments, Iraq turned to France for Mirage fighters and for attack helicopters. Between 1982 and 1987, Iraq received or ordered a variety of equipment from France, including more than 100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets. Other attack helicopters purchased included the Soviet Hind equipped with AT-2 Swatter, and BO-105s equipped with AS-11 antitank guided weapons. In addition, Iraq bought seventy F-7 (Chinese version of the MiG-21) fighters, assembled in Egypt. Thus Iraq' s overall airpower was considerable.
Between 1977 and 1987, Paris contracted to sell a total of 133 Mirage F-1 fighters to Iraq. The first transfer occurred in 1978, when France supplied eighteen Mirage F-1 interceptors and thirty helicopters, and even agreed to an Iraqi share in the production of the Mirage 2000 in a US$2 billion arms deal. In 1983 another twenty-nine Mirage F-1s were exported to Baghdad. And in an unprecedented move, France " loaned" Iraq five SuperEtendard attack aircraft, equipped with Exocet AM39 air-to- surface missiles, from its own naval inventory. The SuperEtendards were used extensively in the 1984 tanker war before being replaced by several F-1s. The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million, a part of which was paid in crude oil. Iraq also bought more than 400 Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and at least 200 AS30 laserguided missiles between 1983 and 1986.


While maintaining official neutrality in the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet Union had provided extensive military assistance to Iraq, and at the same time, continued its efforts to gain leverage on Iran. In early 1987, Moscow delivered a squadron of twenty-four MiG-29 Fulcrums to Baghdad. Considered the most advanced fighter in the Soviet arsenal, the MiG-29 previously had been provided only to Syria and India. The decision to export the MiG-29 to Iraq, also assured Iraq a more advantageous payment schedule than any offered by the West and it reflected Soviet support for one of its traditional allies in the Middle East. In May 1987 the Soviets provided Iraq with better financial terms in a successful effort to prevent Iraq from buying sixty French Mirage 2000 fighters for an estimated US$3 billion. Caught in a financial crisis, Baghdad welcomed the low-interest loans Moscow extended for this equipment.

During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Consequently, the early attainment of air supremacy enabled allied forces to isolate the battlefield by interdicting enemy supply lines and degrading command and control links. Air supremacy also allowed coalition forces to conduct cross-border reconnaissance and aggressive deception and harassment operations with virtual impunity. The Coalition air campaign drastically wore down the ability and the will of the Iraqi Army to fight. Iraqi ground forces were so devastated and demoralized by the time the ground war started that they lacked the conviction to fight for their own soil, much less Kuwait.

List of more weapons ground and air supplied by the Soviet Union and France over the years, perhaps you should support invading France if you believe we' re responsible for what the Taliban did because we helped them against the Soviets.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm

Great, so now you just told us what Iraq bought with the money the US gave them.

In May 1987 the Soviets provided Iraq with better financial terms in a successful effort to prevent Iraq from buying sixty French Mirage 2000 fighters for an estimated US$3 billion. Caught in a financial crisis, Baghdad welcomed the low-interest loans Moscow extended for this equipment.

The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million, a part of which was paid in crude oil. Iraq also bought more than 400 Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and at least 200 AS30 laser-guided missiles between 1983 and 1986.

Wow, how nice of those Soviets to give loans to buy weapons from them and France, as well as Iraq trading Crude Oil for it. Russia and France still to this day have contracts with Iraq for Oil and arms deals, not to mention the military units that Iraq stole from Kuwait during their invasion.

Okay, so now you told us that the US weren' t the only ones giving Iraq money.

Here, use these weapons they might help you in your war to bash ideas into peoples heads that America is the one always at fault not the countries who actually are responsible for killing millions, supporting terrorism, or invade neighboring countries:



The United States traded items with Germany prior to WWII, much of which was helped used to create weapons of destruction, we should hold the United States accountable for the acts of the Nazi Party.

Here we go again...

I' m still waiting for the list of weapons of mass destruction we shipped to Iraq to " arm" them, or what tanks, planes, anti-missile weapons, or other military weapons that the Iraqi' s have that we armed them with. So far, all weapons shown are french and soviet made.

jimboxxx -

Why instead don' t you provide a list of military equipment that Iraq has that was made by the United States, why don' t you show that the United States specifically intended to arm Iraq in order to crush Iran, why don' t you give evidence that shows our goal was to help the Soviet Union in it' s campaign to assist Iraq against Iran... instead of posting simply gremlins.

So in summary, you say the US didn' t help arm Iraq. Then I respond with a well cited article with over 20 sources stating the US helped arm Iraq. And then you claim the article is anti-american. In response, I explain how constructive criticism of a nation (the article) can be compared to constructive criticism of a band. Then you still claim the article is anti-american with your " I' d use it to wipe my rear" remark. Next you explain how other countries helped aid Iraq. I respond by saying you are absolutely correct. Then you accuse me of being anti-american and bring up something unrelated to the original argument. Finally you once again point out that the weapons Iraq used were not american, but just paid by america and other countries.

Are you done yet?

Well I guess not, let' s continue our summary shall we? In the middle of the argument, jimboxxx shows up voicing his disgust in these political discussions and apparently shows no signs of wanting to engage in the argument. Afterwards, Phylum antagonizes jimboxxx because he is not participating in an argument he clearly doesn' t want to be a part of.

Are you done NOW?

Gerald -

So in summary, you say the US didn' t help arm Iraq. Then I respond with a well cited article with over 20 sources stating the US helped arm Iraq. And then you claim the article is anti-american. In response, I explain how constructive criticism of a nation (the article) can be compared to constructive criticism of a band. Then you still claim the article is anti-american with your " I' d use it to wipe my rear" remark. Next you explain how other countries helped aid Iraq. I respond by saying you are absolutely correct. Then you accuse me of being anti-american and bring up something unrelated to the original argument. Finally you once again point out that the weapons Iraq used were not american, but just paid by america and other countries.

Are you done yet?

First, I said that I believe that the Bowling for Columbine site is anti-american, at least it tries to do a good job of going after Republican Presidents and trying to blame America.

I think your view points are wrong, I think that you for what ever reason find fault in the US instead of with who it should be with. Do I truly think you yourself are un-american? Doubtful, I think someone can have a way to look at things that I feel is wrong, and you could support it with what you think is factual when it' s really trying to take truthful examples and distort them to an alterior motive, and that some people might take it as the almighty word to prove wrong doing on the part of the US. I think the bowling website should be more aptly named boweling.

At the end of it all if you said lets go get a beer, i' d have no issue with that. I love political discussion, but I do think that after you add all the numbers together at the end you are coming up with an incorrect conclusion about the US and it' s level of responsibility for what other countries choose to do.

In addition...

Remember Carter' s human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah' s top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah' s military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah' s first acts.

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan' s election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

I believe Carter' s decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush' s decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]

With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah' s departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam' s Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.

And decades after Carter' s ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the " axis of evil." Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies.

We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this.

Since Carter left the presidency, he has had little to say about the human rights abuses in Iran. Why should he? Iran opposes the U.S.

Instead, he has focused his attention on Israel, America' s lone democratic ally in the Mideast. Recently, Carter suggested that the U.S. should cut off aid to Israel, so angry was he after Israel sought to defend itself in the wake of suicide bombings.

Fair enough. But what has Carter said about Arab or Muslim countries that have had long records of human rights abuse – Syria or Libya or Iran or Iraq?

Not much. One reason may be money. As NewsMax' s Dave Eberhart reported recently, Carter and his Carter Center foundation are recipients of millions of dollars of Arab money.

Well I guess not, let' s continue our summary shall we? In the middle of the argument, jimboxxx shows up voicing his disgust in these political discussions and apparently shows no signs of wanting to engage in the argument. Afterwards, Phylum antagonizes jimboxxx because he is not participating in an argument he clearly doesn' t want to be a part of.

In regards to Jimboxx, he edited the " Re" put my name and added the vomit gremlin, sorry but that was directed at myself and I do not view this as him simply having disgust in political issues more then he' s puking over my posts and ideals. Had he not directed anything towards me specifically I' d not responded. IF he returns and posts this wasn' t intended then I' ll happily retract my statements to him and apologize for the misunderstanding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Deaddrama and Phylum didn' t you BOTH not agree to talk to each other? Last time I remember you both decided you weren' t ever going to see eye to eye and decided to ignore each other.

Of course I could be wrong.