Groucho said:pbman said:I didn't say the US were the only country to arm Saddam, but arms and military equipment aplenty came his way from the US from 1983 onwards. Britain did the same - a formal ban on arms but arms sales via third parties and disguised as non-military equipment.
No-one supported Saddam on the security council dickbrain. It's that 'you are either with us or with the terrorists' crap again isn't it. By your logic the USA supports everyone they are not raining bombs down on.
Your right, you only strongly implied it to fool idiots i presume.
Meanwile back in reality i found it funny that we only armed him 1%, you choose to ignore the other 99%.
So tell me why was that?
Soldier's mother Cindy Sheehan in Bush protest
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
Groucho said:pbman said:No-one supported Saddam on the security council dickbrain. It's that 'you are either with us or with the terrorists' crap again isn't it. By your logic the USA supports everyone they are not raining bombs down on.
LOL
Your memory is no better on this than it is, on who armed him.
Come back with some credibility next time.
pbman said:
US Republican politicians have repeated that lie ad nausium but the US military have now accepted that there is a mixture of foreign supporters and home grown resistance fighters and that they have wide support amongst the Iraqi population.
Do you think the Shia resisters in Falluja were Ba-athists?!
Who do you think has taken to the streets in their 100,000s only yesterday?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Prove it.pbman said:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Go on then, should be easy.
FridgeMagnet said:
TEn seconds with google.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That makes no statement about re-enlistment of troops who have been in Iraq.
It certainly makes no statement about their motivations. The fat cash bonus might be significant (or else why would it be offered?)
It certainly makes no statement about their motivations. The fat cash bonus might be significant (or else why would it be offered?)
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
And here's a good one:
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
There's a complete chronology of US involvement in Iraq which explains the truth behind the chart you offered.
You can find the facts here
I would also dispute the reenlistment statements you make regarding returning soldiers in the US, as many reports exist which categorically state that the US military has been unable to meet its enlistment targets.
Also consider the plight of a soldier, after four years of active duty, having been indoctrinated to fight and having known the 'thrill' of live combat, on returning to their poor, unemployment-ridden home town, where they can't find anything equal to that excitement, what are they going to do?
Like any kind of addict, some go back for another fix.
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
And here's a good one:
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
There's a complete chronology of US involvement in Iraq which explains the truth behind the chart you offered.
You can find the facts here
I would also dispute the reenlistment statements you make regarding returning soldiers in the US, as many reports exist which categorically state that the US military has been unable to meet its enlistment targets.
Also consider the plight of a soldier, after four years of active duty, having been indoctrinated to fight and having known the 'thrill' of live combat, on returning to their poor, unemployment-ridden home town, where they can't find anything equal to that excitement, what are they going to do?
Like any kind of addict, some go back for another fix.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Re-enlistment doesn't make up the shortfalls at all; from pbman's link:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
No, you do it, you're the one making the claim. I've not heard it anywhere and I read all sorts of US shit.pbman said:
pbman said:Right thats how they get killed.
No. They get killed by the elites - on both sides - who are manipualting the situation as they carve themselves a power base.
I was one of a million people who marched in London to protest against the war.
I saw Michael Franti's movie last weekend at a festival. He went to Iraq. There was an image of a four-year old boy with his legs blown off. That is not right.
War creates problems. It does not solve them.
I pity the poor boys and girls who have been sent to fight there, as much as I pity the thirsty, poor grieving Iraqis who are stuck in the middle. And I am very very angry that the US gov is not counting civilian casualties. That shows an ultimate disregard for the feelings of the population there. If the dead do not count, then on what basis is the war for Iraqi freedom fought? If Iraqis do not matter, then what is the moral high ground for the war based on?
One drop of blood is too much.
I cried when I saw the picture of that poor little boy.
That is the true cost of war.
Just stop it.
pbman - what are you going to do about the reported 5,000 US soldiers who have gone AWOL? The US military family campaign against the Iraq war has over 2000 members and is growing fast. A majority oppose the war. More and more US soldiers are being killed and many are badly injured. US military advisers have lost their initial misplaced optimism but Bush soldiers on from the comfort of his desk with an ever dwindling aray of fanatical supporters.
FridgeMagnet said:
Us shit?
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-954557.php
And this is interesting, we missing our goals cause we are expanding the military.
And this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501697.html
Here are some recent reports that variously illustrate the moral redundancy of the proposed constitution, Bush's slow move toward some kind of megalomania, the strong-arm tactics of the US military, images showing the consequences of such tactics, and proof that US military recruitment is not up to scratch.
Top Sunnis in Iraq govt lash out at charter
Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
US forces, fighters clash
The Photos Washington Doesn't Want You To See
US Army recruitment lagging
Top Sunnis in Iraq govt lash out at charter
Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
US forces, fighters clash
The Photos Washington Doesn't Want You To See
US Army recruitment lagging
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
And who sets the goals? That's meaningless. Hard figures plz.
Recruitment is still failing to meet targets, as the title shows: "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal". Perhaps everybody who would have joined has already done so.
Recruitment is still failing to meet targets, as the title shows: "Army Likely to Meet August's, But Not Year's, Recruiting Goal". Perhaps everybody who would have joined has already done so.
rocketman said:
Well we don't like bathist thugs who are the modern eqivilant of hitler and his thugs.
If you guys would supprt what is best for the people in iraq, you might have some criedibility. But giving up to bathist thugs who will imiedietly start killing in much higher humbers than they did last time, isn't an option for anyone.
Thats why the people in iraq, can't ever give up, so they will ultimetly win,and defet the bathist thugs and the terroists.
They have no other choice.
Its win or die.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
There's not enough soldiers by the admission of the military, who would have no cause to lie, and there's no indication that Iraq veterans are reinlisting disproportionately, which would be rather odd if it were the case.
FridgeMagnet said:
Yes their is, they have one number for their re-ilistment goal, and it applies to all units, its the same number.
If the other units who hadn't been in iraq also met the same percentage thier would be a surpluse of people in the militay, as they have new people coming in.
Similar threads
