Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on April 03, 2004, 11:24:24 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq
Don't really know what to say about this one..............
:D
-
*shock*
:blah:
-
Wouldnt mind but the brits actually sold the things to Iraq.
-
........No, we sold them guns and tanks. The US sold them the chem weapons.
-
The trailers arent chem weapons, they're for making hydrogen for artillery weather ballons, part of a system sold to Iraq by Marconi in 1987. And you didnt sell guns or tanks, part from that stupid big one and the yanks didnt sell them chemical weapons.
-
Actually, we did sell them chemical and biological weapons AND trained them how to use them AND fed them classified intelligence so they could use them effectively against Iran.
Did you like totally miss the 80s?
-
Well, yes.
I was only 0-5 at the time.
-
Really? afaik Iraqi weapons were homemade, US only supplied technology relating to their construction, technical diagrams and the like. What weapons did they sell?
As for the 80s, bit young to be worring about this sort of stuff back then, do remember all the fuss about who armed Iraq during the first gulf war though.
-
I remember watching Iraq get its ass kicked day after day and everyone talking about Desert Storm, but that's about it.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, we did sell them chemical and biological weapons AND trained them how to use them AND fed them classified intelligence so they could use them effectively against Iran.
Did you like totally miss the 80s?
US (specifically) gave Saddam spy satellite photos of Iranian troop positions, IIRC.
-
Originally posted by an0n
........No, we sold them guns and tanks. The US sold them the chem weapons.
Since when were T-72s and AK-74s/42s british exports?
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Since when were T-72s and AK-74s/42s british exports?
Who said they ONLY bought british?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Really? afaik Iraqi weapons were homemade, US only supplied technology relating to their construction, technical diagrams and the like. What weapons did they sell?
As for the 80s, bit young to be worring about this sort of stuff back then, do remember all the fuss about who armed Iraq during the first gulf war though.
We gave them chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of certain treaties we were party to at the time. I think someone thought it would be a good way to 'dispose' of them and get use of them at the same time. When you consider that the Reagan/**** administration (though they aren't the first) considered Ayatollah Khomeni a huge threat to US (and British) interests in the reason (remember, he took over from the Shah, who the British--or was it the US, I can't recall--installed in place of the "dangerous" socialist--though democratically elected--government of Iran), its not surprising that the Reagan/**** administration handed Hussein the weaponry, training and intelligence. If they hadn't, Iraq would have lost the Iran/Iraq war, and we'd have had to deal with larger Islamic fundamentalist theocracy.
All in all, I think we would have done better to let the Ayatollah stomp Iraq. The Iranians have mellowed over the years and are actually more progressive than our "friends" the Saudis and the like. Besides, had we not interfered in Iraq (over and over and over), we'd likely have a hell of a lot more good will in the region.
-
It was the Americans who installed the Shah. That's the main reason that they started hating America in the first place.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
All in all, I think we would have done better to let the Ayatollah stomp Iraq. The Iranians have mellowed over the years and are actually more progressive than our "friends" the Saudis and the like. Besides, had we not interfered in Iraq (over and over and over), we'd likely have a hell of a lot more good will in the region.
Clerics are pretty much blocking the reformists in Iran, tho (such as barring reformist candidiates from standing in the last election, IIRC)... but there is, from a very outside perspective, a proper reformist opposition forming there to the hardliners.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Clerics are pretty much blocking the reformists in Iran, tho (such as barring reformist candidiates from standing in the last election, IIRC)... but there is, from a very outside perspective, a proper reformist opposition forming there to the hardliners.
The theocracy only gained power cause of the whole overthow of the goverment/installation of the Shah so had america not meddled they wouldn't have had the power to make that necessary.
-
No middle-eastern country has yet approached the levels of barbarism which were the fundamental foundations of such collosal ****-ups as the Spanish Inquisition and/or medieval England.
They may be ****ed up, be we were more ****ed-up, for longer, long before they arrived on the scene! :p
-
Which is one up on rest of the region, which seems to be getting more conservative day by day.
-
If Mossadegh had never been overthrown in Iran, the Middle East would an altogether different place than it is today. There would have been no need to support Saddam to fight Iran, and he would have likely lost by popular vote or been overthrown by now. Well, thats what you get for medelling.
-
yay! another one of these threads!
-
Saddam would most likely still be in power in that situation, but a minor dictator.
He very well might have still invaded Kuwait (to gain the seaports) and then be condemned by the US/Saudi Arabia/Iran.
Most likely ****#1 still wouldn't have disposed of Saddam and this second war would still have occured.
It'd be a less messy middle east, a very different one, but many things would still be the same. (The existance of Al Qaida, etc.)
However, this is all hypothetical since I don't happen to have any books on psychohistory, and neither does anyone else :)
-
I don't think Saddam would have still been in power. Iran would have rolled over Iraq without US help. They had, at the outset, superior numbers and superior hardware. US intervention "fixed" that.
We make a lot of bad choices when we decide to intervene in various places. We screwed up with Chile, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Beirut (the second time, not the first, though in reality the second time might have been necessary because of the first), Korea, Vietnam... I'm not saying we should be isolationist, but I think somewhere along the line, somebody should have stood up and laid the pimp-hand down on a couple of presidents and presidents' advisors.
-
Originally posted by Carl
yay! another one of these threads!
*does the happy dance*
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_23
Looks like things are getting a bit heated over there. If the shi'ites start fighting the americans things will get nasty real quick.
-
Mad dogs are nasty, i just hope everything calms down, quick.
-
Posted by Somebody
****
WTF? Shrub's filtered out?
-
Aye but **** isnt :confused: