What Planet is Rumsfeld on?

Trond · Mar 28, 2003

this planet

Westy · Mar 28, 2003

I think that military terminology describes the battlefield or front line as "Planet Earth". I think that is a great description because it shows how far away from Planet Earth Rumsfeld is on so many different levels.

Stellite · Mar 28, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
This morning on TV I saw him making a speech this about the increased forces being sent out to Iraq. In it he said something along these lines (cannot find a transcript so it's not verbatim);

'Whatever the cost of defeating Saddam Hussein, it will be lower than the cost of another attack like 9/11'

This bothers me for at least two reasons, firstly the whole odea of measeuring costs of future death and destruction (when the scale cannot be known) against something that has happened in the past. Secondly he was clearly attempting to link Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attack.

Maybe he feels vulnerable and is desperately trying to look good/distract people but it seems highly irresponsible for such a powerful man to be making such banal statements.

What he is saying is quite simple. Saddam and his regime support terrorism against the US and the cost of removing him is worth it if it really reduces the chances of another 9/11. This is how I interpret the above. And I agree with it if it was meant in tht way. What planet are you on if you don't, planet Nero?

Silver · Mar 28, 2003

Originally posted by Stellite
What he is saying is quite simple. Saddam and his regime support terrorism against the US and the cost of removing him is worth it if it really reduces the chances of another 9/11. This is how I interpret the above. And I agree with it if it was meant in tht way. What planet are you on if you don't, planet Nero?

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Show me a credible source that links Iraq to terrorism against the US. I'm not talking about someone going, "Um, yeah maybe 6 years ago...." And DON'T quote Colin Powell and his mobile biological weapons factories (which like the tooth fairy may exist, but we haven't seen any evidence yet).

Show me proof that Iraq has been a state sponsor of terrorism to a greater degree than Pakistan (a nuclear power, by the way! And an "ally" even though their ISI has much more credible links to Al-Queda than Saddam) and I'll support the war.

And don't tell me to remember 9/11 either, I do. I remember that none of those terrorists were Iraqi and most of them were Saudi. (Another "ally"!)

You want Saddam removed because he's a bad guy? I agree, but lets be honest about what we are doing and the costs of doing so. And let's stop making friendships of convenience with leaders of countries that aren't any better than Saddam.

Westy · Mar 28, 2003

Originally posted by Stellite
What he is saying is quite simple. Saddam and his regime support terrorism against the US and the cost of removing him is worth it if it really reduces the chances of another 9/11. This is how I interpret the above. And I agree with it if it was meant in tht way. What planet are you on if you don't, planet Nero?

Silver beat me to the rant/counter rant but here are my $.02.

Getting rid of Saddam may reduce the chance of another 9/11 caused by Iraqi supported terrorists. But how do we take care of all the terrorists we are creating when we piss off most of the world? Why do you think terrorists hate the US? It is not our freedom and wealth that they despise, it is our foreign policies that piss people off enough to murder.

We attack Iraq because they fail to abide by UN resolutions. Israel has ignored a number of UN resolutions yet we respond by giving them $3,000,000,000 a year in military aid. We attack Iraq because of their human rights violations, yet we give China most favored nation trading status and they have one of the worst human rights records in the world. We voted to remove UN peacekeeping troops from Rwanda while Hutu extremist were performing Genocide and killing 800,000 innocent civilians.

We can go after Iraq and it will make little difference on our chances of suffering another 9/11. We will create even more terrorists with this war. We can try to kill terrorists but until we have a just foreign policy that is not motivated by greed we will continue to create terrorists all over the world. We are fighting symptoms but fail to fight the disease, drinking a bottle of tequila to cure a hangover.

valve bouncer · Mar 29, 2003

Originally posted by Westy

We can go after Iraq and it will make little difference on our chances of suffering another 9/11. We will create even more terrorists with this war. We can try to kill terrorists but until we have a just foreign policy that is not motivated by greed we will continue to create terrorists all over the world. We are fighting symptoms but fail to fight the disease, drinking a bottle of tequila to cure a hangover.

Exactly Westy, the present policies of the coalition are all stick and no carrot. 9/11 and Bali has led to absolutley no introspection on why these things happen. All we get are the same old platitudes that "they" hate us or are jealous of our way of life. To me this smacks of giving up, of saying the problem is too difficult for us to understand so we'll do the obvious and "blow some sh*t up". But it is precisely this cavalier application of Western power that has partly led to the present situation.
Now don't get me wrong, of course the projection of military power is of course justified in some circumstances, certainly in Afghanistan and probably in Iraq but it must be accompanied with policies that reduce the factors that lead to the popularity of extremism in the Middle East in particular and the world in general. It seems the key to most of this is to solve the impasse between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Of course this means the Americans and their friends will have to show real leadership and make some hard decisions, decisions that may result in electoral backlash at least in the short term. Coupled with this is un-stinting support for democracy in the region as well as a committment to raising the people of the area out of the poverty and hopelessness that is a breeding ground for much of the extremism. This means of course following principles of consistency rather than expediency, defeating the "what's in it for me" attitude. It seems a forlorn hope but the present situation will get worse before it gets better unless we expand our vision and create an environment based on fairness and respect.
Now I of course realise the DT's of this world are going to reply with posts full of rolling eyes and theatrical sighs, accusing me of naivety and not living in the "real world" but I ask them- what is your solution other than "blowing sh*t up" which will, as a sole solution, do nothing more than provide short term fixes to problems that need long term answers.

MMike · Mar 29, 2003

Wow.....where did all the bleeding heart liberals come from all of a sudden?

MMike · Mar 29, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
If you include me in that, I've been here all along, you're the one that buggered off to pasture new, me old mucka.

Oh believe me I know.... (create and technical differences drove me away).....but I've been a-watchin'....

I just noticed a conspicuous lack of "Ayuh....we blowed 'em real good, them damn towel heads!! Yeeeeehawwww!!" in this thread.....

Stellite · Mar 29, 2003

Originally posted by Westy
Silver beat me to the rant/counter rant but here are my $.02.

Getting rid of Saddam may reduce the chance of another 9/11 caused by Iraqi supported terrorists. But how do we take care of all the terrorists we are creating when we piss off most of the world? Why do you think terrorists hate the US? It is not our freedom and wealth that they despise, it is our foreign policies that piss people off enough to murder.

We attack Iraq because they fail to abide by UN resolutions. Israel has ignored a number of UN resolutions yet we respond by giving them $3,000,000,000 a year in military aid. We attack Iraq because of their human rights violations, yet we give China most favored nation trading status and they have one of the worst human rights records in the world. We voted to remove UN peacekeeping troops from Rwanda while Hutu extremist were performing Genocide and killing 800,000 innocent civilians.

We can go after Iraq and it will make little difference on our chances of suffering another 9/11. We will create even more terrorists with this war. We can try to kill terrorists but until we have a just foreign policy that is not motivated by greed we will continue to create terrorists all over the world. We are fighting symptoms but fail to fight the disease, drinking a bottle of tequila to cure a hangover.

One of the reasons terrorists hate the US is simple. We support Israel. Another reason is our way of life and the last reason is their being brain washed into thinking that America wants to take over their country.

The Israel issue is a big one. However, you seem to ignore the fact that the Arabs have been trying to remove the Israelis from the face of the earth for a very long time. What was the 6 day war about? Israel could have kept the land it took over during that war, but it did not, it gave concessions. Israel has attempted to make peace many times before the last year or so and the palestinian terrorists groups won't stop. They kill innocents, why do you ignore that. Israel has given up much and not been rewarded in kind. I think both sides are at fault here and not just the one side as you claim.

"Until we have a just foreign policy that is not motivated by greed" HUH? Man, do you listen to anything but the rantings of other liers. We are probably one of the few countries whos last motivation is greed. If Greed was out motivation that we would stop sending money to so many other countries in the world. Foreign Aid My Azz. We give away money 16,000M in aid annualy plus another 13,000M in loans which will never be paid back to keep other economies strong in the hopes that it will make the worlds economy strong. And you have the nerve to say that we are motivated by greed?BS.

Stellite · Mar 29, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
It wouldn't take much to brainwash me if the US was invading my country for the second time in 12 years. The US may not want to 'take over' countries but it certainly has a much harder take on those that don't toe its line. There was understandable and justified outrage in the US (and most of the world) at the events of 9/11 where innocent people were murdered. We should not underestimate the effects of so-called 'collateral damage' resulting from the bombing of Baghdad.

Well the US is the largest per-capita consumer nation of anything much that can be consumed. It shows scant regard for measures to conserve the world's resources (e.g. Kyoto agreement).

US aid is generally conditional, disagree with US foreign policy at your financial peril. At the end of the day the US can afford to give out the aid it does and still remain the richest and most powerful state on earth, yet still it withdraws aid from pitifully poor countries like Yemen when voted against in the UN.

There is a difference between buying friendship and philanthropism. If the US is so good to everyone why do they need such a mighty military machine?

I remain to be convinced that the US government has anybody's interests at heart other than its own (and I feel the same about the UK government). I have more respect for those who admit as much and argue that is the correct motivation for a nation's government. They, at least, are realistic.

Just like the first time, it is not the people that don't want us there it is the corrupt government. You do not seem to be in favor of freeing the people of Iraq or you do not seem to think that they want freedom. Why is that when it is a known fact to every country in the UN council that Iraq is mistreating it's population with rape, and murder, despotism.

THe reason why we need a military machine is to stop the Stalins, Saddsms, hitlers, etc. I guess history hasn't taught some people any lessons. Thanks to the US both world wars came to a conclusion fairly quickly.

Stellite · Mar 30, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
Don't be so sure of that. Our troops are not receiving the rapturous welcome everywhere that we have been led to believe they would, and I expect as we get closer to Baghdad that situation will worsen. Who is deprived the common people of water, sanitation, power? We are. Your idea of freedom may not be the same as theirs.

There's a big difference from liberating a country from an invading force (a la Kuwait & WWI & WWII) and liberating a country from itself.

well in WWII we did both, are you glad about that. You would be Goose Stepping right now!! :rolleyes:

Drunken_Ninja · Mar 30, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
Once again that old chestnut rears its head, perhaps you'd like to explain your theory?

As far as liberating a country from itself goes the invasion of Germany was much more necessary and justifiable than the current invasion of Iraq. Had we got rid of Saddam after he invaded Kuwait it would have made a hell of a lot more sense than it does to do so now, and far more similar to 1944.

The U.S. has been selling Iraq their capabilities all along since the Reagan administration. Where do you think Iraq got all of those choppers and weapons to fight Iran and to gas the Kurds?

The U.S. didn't like Iran at all and began by giving Saddam weapons and missiles. to fight them.

When asked what the choppers were for (even though it was well known that the Iraqis used chemical weapons) it was answered that they were for 'spraying'. What? Farmers fields? No... For war? We cannot answer that.

Oh yeah I am not joking. Saddam Hussein was the only dictator that had nerve gas and was buying millions of vials of the antidote from the U.S. without being questioned. They were too busy selling him jeep vehicles. They were selling him items that were not specifically for war but used to escalate it. They gave Saddam a loan to get all of these things so that he could spend his cash on weapons from other countries.

Rumsfield was the one who shook Saddams hand and gave him the loan, he was a part of that era at the Whitehouse.

This is nothing like WW2. The U.S. has been turning a blind eye to Saddam all of these years just to profit from his militarization. The U.S. (George Bush Sr.) didn't even try to stop Saddam when he took his army after the gulf war and moved in on the kurds. Even though there was a resolution stating that he was 'not supposed to do that'.

They didn't even tell Saddam to stop.

Not at all like WW2. This is still a U.S. f'up.

Drunken_Ninja · Mar 30, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
I think you misunderstood my post, I simply meant that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and following on from kicking them out going into Iraq to remove Saddam would have been much more similar to 1944 than waiting 11 years and then doing it.

I'm aware that the US saw Saddam as a useful ally against those horribly aggresive, imperialist, evil, mass murdering Iranians (of course, those are Rumsfeld/Bush definitions, not dictionary ones). Just another example of the consistent and enlightened US foreign policy (and yes, I know, the UK is no saint).

But as an aside, US relations with Hitler prior to 1939 were not all that frosty either.

I get the impression that you are trying to justify regime change to yourself fluff. It goes a little bit deeper than that.

Stellite · Mar 30, 2003

the war so these women can go back to their happy lives in Iraq.

09 October 2002

Iraqi Women Speak Out about Life under Saddam's Dictatorship

National Press Club audience hears accounts of Saddams persecution

By Lindsey Brooks
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington In 1991, Sabria Mahdi Naama and her children found themselves fleeing for their lives from their native land, Iraq. Her husband, Abbas Kareem Naama, had been gone for months and she had no idea if he was alive or dead.

Naama brought a National Press Club audience to tears October 4 as she recounted her family's arduous journey to freedom after months of hiding from Saddam Hussein's security forces.

The mother of five was part of a panel called, "The Unheard Voices of Iraqi Women," sponsored by the International Alliance for Justice, a network of 275 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from over 120 countries. The group sought to put a spotlight on human rights violations that continue to be a hallmark of Saddam's rule in Iraq.

Naama and her husband, a former general in the Iraqi army, are Shiites, a Muslim majority in Iraq. After the Gulf War, General Naama participated in an uprising against Saddam Hussein in the southern part of the country, along with a few other senior military officials. Eventually, her husband was forced to flee their village to save his life, she said.

For months, Naama said she feared her husband had been executed by Saddam's regime. But, an even greater dread was that if he were alive, the Iraqi dictator would order the arrest of her children as a means to lure the general from hiding. Finally, Naama herself was forced to flee with her children.

"I bitterly left my homeland when it was absolutely unsafe for my kids and my family to stay even one day more," Naama said. She spoke in Arabic, and her daughter, Ersa, translated into English.

"Our guilt was that we protested the destruction of our life and the death of two members of our family ... We participated in the uprising to defend our life and our kids. When at last we arrived at the Rafha camp in the Saudi desert we were ghosts in the shape of human bodies," Naama said. "My kids were at the edge of death."

General Naama had been able to escape to the same camp and their family was reunited. After living in the desert camp for two years, they were moved to San Diego, California with a group of refugees.

Along with Naama, six other women from various regional, ethnic and religious backgrounds in Iraq shared their experiences living under Saddam's dictatorship.

Safia Al Souhail, the advocacy director for the Middle East and Islamic world at the International Alliance for Justice, said, "We, the women of Iraq, for the last three decades have suffered under an extraordinarily brutal regime, everybody in this panel has lost loved ones in various wars launched by Saddamin the most aggressive and inhuman ways possible."

Al Souhail said Saddam's operatives in Beirut assassinated her father, Sheik Taleb Al Souhail, chief of the Bani Tamim tribe in Iraq, in 1994.

"We are here because of our common wounds and common aspirations, which is to see our country free from the repression of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Iraq under Saddam's regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed ... rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer and various disorders are the results of Saddam's gassing of his own people ... the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children occurs ... Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes," Al Souhail said.

Nidal Shaikh Shallal related some of the ways Iraqi women have suffered at the hands of Saddam.

"The Iraqi woman has lost her loved ones husbands, brothers and fathers," Shallal said. "The Iraqi woman has endured torture, murder, confinement, execution, and banishment, just like others in Iraqi society at the hands of Saddam Hussein's criminal gang."

"The heads of many women have been publicly cut off in the streets under the pretext of being liars, while in fact they mostly belonged to families opposing the Iraqi regime. Women, especially dissident women, have been raped by members of Saddam Hussein's gang ... The wives of dissidents have been either killed or tortured in front of their husbands in order to obtain confessions from their husbands . . . Women have been kidnapped as they walk in the streets by members of the gangs of Uday and Qusay [Saddams sons] and then raped," Shallal said.

On a personal level, Shallal and her husband had their possessions confiscated and were expelled from their home by the Iraqi regime. She was fired from her government job and her husband was jailed for four months and tortured by Iraqi military intelligence.

Shallal's brother was arrested in 1980 and her family still does not know what happened to him. Several of her cousins have been executed and as many as 882 male relatives and tribal members, the Jibour tribe, have been arrested and their fates are unknown, she said.

The panel at the news conference also included four Kurdish activists: Zakia Ismail Hakki, a lawyer and former president of the Kurdish Women's Foundation who became the first woman judge in Iraq; Hetau Ibrahim Ahmad; Paiman Halmat; and Dr. Katrin Michael. The four spoke of Saddam's persecution of the Kurdish population.

Halmat, a teacher, said, "It has been the Iraqi regime's policy to change the demography of Iraq, by eradicating the Kurdish population from areas that are deemed important in the north of the country. The regime has done this through forced deportation, arbitrary arrests and systematic torture."

Michael said, "In 1987 I was in the Bahdinan region when the government bombed us with chemical weapons. I am still suffering from that bombing to this day."

Michael said she has a vision of an Iraq without Saddam that would have a developed civil society that enshrines equal rights under the law; equal wages for men and women; and protection for women against violence and rape.

The women who spoke out at the National Press Club hope that their stories of life under Saddam will help the rest of world understand the suffering that Saddams regime has imposed on Iraqis. They also hope that the rest of the world will understand their yearning for a different, and much better, future for all Iraqis.

:mad:

rbx · Mar 30, 2003

what bugs me about rumsfeld is the guy has his name on the wolfowitz "The Project for the New American Century" which strikes me as not being a very democratic way of doing international affairs.
i dont know but every time i read and hear wolfowitz views of the world alarm bells go off in my head and the bush doctrine has some very strong ties with wolfowitz ideologies.

DRB · Mar 30, 2003

Originally posted by Drunken_Ninja
The U.S. has been selling Iraq their capabilities all along since the Reagan administration. Where do you think Iraq got all of those choppers and weapons to fight Iran and to gas the Kurds?

The U.S. didn't like Iran at all and began by giving Saddam weapons and missiles. to fight them.

When asked what the choppers were for (even though it was well known that the Iraqis used chemical weapons) it was answered that they were for 'spraying'. What? Farmers fields? No... For war? We cannot answer that.

I've already posted the following once but since you choose to recycle this tired incorrect arguement.

First, the level of support from the US that Iraq received during the Iran/Iraq war consisted of little or no material support. It mainly consisted of intelligence data and photographs. As many weapons that folks claim were sold to Iraq by the US, he would have a military made up almost exclusively of US weapons. Is that what we found in the first Gulf War? Is that what you are seeing on TV now? There are certain example of US produced direct war materials being shipped to Iraq via unapproved third country transfers, 300 2000lb bombs in 1986. Additionally, there was a transfer of artillery repair parts in 1984. Most of these parts were found to be carriage items (axles, wheels, etc) The fact of the matter is that at the time Iraq didn't need US weapons. Virtually all of Saddam's weapons systems were of Soviet and French design.

Even the dual use items (civilian helicopters and parts, air control systems, and a variety of electronic items) sold to Iraq during that time frame for the most part were found to have gone to civilian uses. There were reports of US manufactured helicopters being used to spray poison gas on Kurds. But the fact of the matter is that the Iraqi military never employed US helicopters, but that is not the case of French and Soviet designed helicopters. (The ones used to spray the Kurds were actually Russian built MI-8s).

Now for the anthrax. The US did transfer numerous cultures of "bacteria, fungi and protozoa" during late 1983. It is unknown in common circles as to the exact content of those cultures other than the above description. Based on CDC records, where all of these cultures came from, Anthrax spores were certainly among those cultures. So yes the US did give anthrax to Iraq. However, and I need to make this very clear, every single chemical and biological weapon destoryed by the UN in the 1990's was of Soviet design. Every sample of chemical weapon tested by the UN and Internation Red Cross during the Iran/Iraq war and attacks on the Kurds was found to also be of Russian design. The anthrax strains destroyed in 1995 were ones that were known to have been produced at the Soviet Biological weapons facility in Stepnagorsk, Kazakhstan. And were virtually identical to the strain found in a "mysterious" outbreak amongest the residents of Sverdlovsk (strangely enough outside of another biological weapons lab.)

Furthermore, the tactics and delivery systems employed for the use of the chemical weapons against Iranian and Kurdish forces were rght out of Soviet tactical manuals on the battlefield use of chemical weapons.

kghoscht · Mar 31, 2003

I just wanted to pipe in here and say that I agree with what DRB said in regards to US giving war materiel to Iraq.

The US has indeed helped Iraq prior to and during the first Gulf War (Iran-Iraq war), but like DRB said, it was in terms of intelligence and money, not materiel.

If the US gave materiel to Iraq, we would have seen countless F16s (the most exported fighter design in the world) instead of countless Mig's and Su's being destroyed or fleeing en masse during the second Gulf War (Desert Storm).

With large (and expensive) weapons systems, there's generally a 1-2 decade lag between the latest designs and what's common in the field. The lag is smaller in richer countries (like the US) and larger in poorer countries. For example, my personal favourite, the F-16 was in the 80s what the F-22 is now.

What I'm getting at is that it's highly unlikely that Iraq would have been given tonnes of NATO airplanes, helicopters, and tanks in the mid 80s, and then replace them with a whole bunch of Warsaw Pact equipment a few years down the road.

More likely that they got the money from the US, and spent it down at your friendly neighbourhood Mikoyan-Gurevich dealership.

And now, Gulf War III, we're seeing Russian (and Chinese) equipment being used by Iraq. The antitank weapons used to take out those two M1A2s last week were Russian design, and the cruise missle that hit that pier in Kuwait was most likely a Silkworm, a Chinese design.

Edit: tried to explain myself a little better.

LordOpie · Mar 31, 2003

what's the relevance of what we (USA) did in the past?

so what?

Suppose our past actions were a mistake and wrong? Does that mean we should not try to fix them?

Trond · Mar 31, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
what's the relevance of what we (USA) did in the past?

so what?

Suppose our past actions were a mistake and wrong? Does that mean we should not try to fix them?

This is why;

Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and half by covert action (CIA). These are practically unknown to most Americans and rarely mentioned, with the notable exceptions of Chalmers Johnson's book Blowback and Bill Blum's Rogue State: a Guide to the World's Only Superpower.

Thepagoda · Mar 31, 2003

The United states did give war material to Iraq in the 80s. No not F-16s, but F-14s. Iraq uses the powerful radar in the F-14A fighter for early warning. Where did I learn this? Off a aviation trading card I collected as a kid.

As for what is the relevence. I think the relevence is only important to those who seek to justify this war to themselves. People are trying to justify this as a humanitarian war, when clearly the actions of the state department indicate otherwise.

This war will lead to increased terrorist attacks. (why do you think the terror alert is High now? Because we pissed everbody off?) Putting this stick into the hornet's nest will not alleviate terrorist pressure, but only serve to build the anti-american sentiment felt abroad.

The interests of the US are not acts of kindness, they are self-serving. Ask the nicaraguans and panamanians about this. What is it that the US spends foriegn aid for? For the luxury of using some 90% of the world's resources while only boasting roughly 5% of its population. that is where the petty (in relationship to what is reaped from foriegn nations annually) aid packages come in.

Just as another note, I was wondering if anybody saw the interview with the Turkish ambassador and the Fox news anchor? Don't know which guy it was.

kghoscht · Mar 31, 2003

Originally posted by Thepagoda
The United states did give war material to Iraq in the 80s. No not F-16s, but F-14s. Iraq uses the powerful radar in the F-14A fighter for early warning. Where did I learn this? Off a aviation trading card I collected as a kid.

Are you sure you're not confusing Iran with Iraq? Iran most definately did deploy F-14s (and F-5s and a boatload of F-4s) during the Iran-Iraq war.

At the bottom of this page:

Library of Congress - Iraq Forces Tables

is a table that lists the equipment used by Iraq as of 1987. I don't see any NATO aircraft, except the Mirage F-1.

This page:

acig.org - Iran air victories

covers the air-to-air victories of the Iran airforce during the period of the Iran-Iraq war. There are no NATO planes listed on the table under the "victims" heading, aside from the above mentioned Mirage, and a couple F-15s and a KC-130 that didn't belong to Iraq (they are listed as RSAF).

The Iraqi counterpart to the above page:

acig.org - Iraq air victories

Doesn't list any NATO craft on the winning end either.

I suppose it could be argued that no Iraqi F-14s shot down doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have any, but I find that kinda hard to swallow.

Finally, the radar used in a F-14A during the 80s was the AN/AWG-9 (I think). I searched the usual defense equipment sites (globalsecurity.org, fas.org, acig.org, janes.com, etc) and even google and I couldn't find anything that suggested that Iraq was using the radar. I would expect that an EWR specifically made for an aircraft would make a pretty poor ground-based EWR system, but I admit I haven't really looked into that.

I honestly hope I don't come across as a prick, but I think either you mis-remember what that card said, or the card was mistaken. If you do have links to data supporting the Iraqi F-14/AWR claim, I would be very interested in seeing it!

DRB · Mar 31, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
what's the relevance of what we (USA) did in the past?

so what?

Suppose our past actions were a mistake and wrong? Does that mean we should not try to fix them?

The relevance is that DN decided to make up stuff we had done in the past and I corrected that error.

I think that we are trying to fix an error in regards to Saddam now. Just not the way everyone thinks we should.

It was Iran that got those systems prior to the 1979 revolution.

Trond · Mar 31, 2003

I suppose it could be argued that no Iraqi F-14s shot down doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have any, but I find that kinda hard to swallow.

Me too.

I read somewhere or heard on the news (A Norwegian officer in NATO I think) that Saddam supposedly have "saved" Iraq's planes for the clash in Baghdad, and that the number is somewhere along the lines of 400 planes. This is the number accounted for after the Gulf War in '91 as I understood it.

If and how he managed to store those away is beyond me, it remains to be seen nonetheless.

Westy · Mar 31, 2003

I have been away from this thread too long but I must respond to some of these older posts.

Originally posted by Stellite
"Until we have a just foreign policy that is not motivated by greed" HUH? Man, do you listen to anything but the rantings of other liers. We are probably one of the few countries whos last motivation is greed. If Greed was out motivation that we would stop sending money to so many other countries in the world. Foreign Aid My Azz. We give away money 16,000M in aid annualy plus another 13,000M in loans which will never be paid back to keep other economies strong in the hopes that it will make the worlds economy strong. And you have the nerve to say that we are motivated by greed?BS.

Yes the US gives away Billions of dollars a year in aid and it has made great improvements in certain areas. But US foreign aid is never free, it is usually tied to political or financial demands. We just offered Turkey $8Billion to be able to launch military operations from their land. We did not offer them $8billion to feed their hungry or to heal their sick. US Foreign aid is not used as a humanitarian gift but to purchase power and influence. As a side note, the US grants the smallest amount of aid in relation to our GNP of any major industrialized country.

Stellite · Mar 31, 2003

Originally posted by Thepagoda
The United states did give war material to Iraq in the 80s. No not F-16s, but F-14s. Iraq uses the powerful radar in the F-14A fighter for early warning. Where did I learn this? Off a aviation trading card I collected as a kid.

The interests of the US are not acts of kindness, they are self-serving. Ask the nicaraguans and panamanians about this. What is it that the US spends foriegn aid for? For the luxury of using some 90% of the world's resources while only boasting roughly 5% of its population. that is where the petty (in relationship to what is reaped from foriegn nations annually) aid packages come in.

Just as another note, I was wondering if anybody saw the interview with the Turkish ambassador and the Fox news anchor? Don't know which guy it was.

It was Iran that got 80 F-14's from the US not Iraq and shortly thereafter the Russians came out with their Su-27 and Mig-31 which looked very similar and had very powerfull radar and had a missile similar to the phoenix carried by the F-14.

your right the US does not act in Kindness:

"Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. Lend- Lease to the Soviet Union officially ended in September 1945. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference "

78 DEs Were Built For The UK for WW II Service as part of the lend lease act for Britain

"United States has historically never been stingy toward the United Nations. A look at the statistics proves Americas overwhelming generosity to the world body. The United Nations itself has admitted as much, as 1995 statistics list the United States as the largest contributor to the world body, giving more than $1.8 billion that year alone. Thats $400 million more than that of second-place contributor, Japan.6"

"Between 1946 and 1996, the United States contributed in excess of $32 billion to the United Nations.7 And, as Rep. Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey) notes, "We have also paid at least $22 billion since 1992 in additional costs in support of U.N.-authorized peacekeeping."

The United States has already moved to erase the money owed it by 32 heavily indebted poor countries identified by IMF. IMF and the World Bank have forgiven some, but not all, of their expected money and remain the world's largest creditors. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been pushing governments, private corporations and philanthropies to contribute to a $7 billion to $10 billion international fund aimed at addressing the devastating AIDS epidemic in Africa and other poor areas. President Bush gave the effort a nudge last week by announcing that the US government would contribute $200 million in seed money to help get the fund started.

Again, some know not of what they speak
:angry:

Thepagoda · Mar 31, 2003

It seems I must recind my statement that Iraq possessed the F-14 fighter. My mistake, seems that you (Mr. Stellite and Mr. kghoscht) are right, it was Iran, not Iraq. Sorry.

True, the United States has had a great record of giving, BUT those funds are not always a free as they seem. The united States pretty much controlled the UN (and NATO for that matter) until recent divisions. World lending has consistenetly led to exploitation, case in point - countries ranging from nicaragua to the congo to indonesia, and many more between. the consequences of a lend are very simalar to what we are seeing going on in Iraq. sure we are providing them with food. how generous, oh but wait the name of the program is food for oil. really free.

What Planet is Rumsfeld on?

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

the teste

Monkey

find me a tampon

the teste

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

A fowl peckerwood.

Monkey Turbo

A fowl peckerwood.

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Turbo Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Turbo Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Monkey

unemployed bum

Chimp

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Chimp

Chimp

unemployed bum

Monkey

the teste

Monkey

Chimp