[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'd open fire (short burst, I don't "unload" on the kid and I go for legs and arms).

I'm sure you know that troops are trained to shoot center mass (middle of the chest). That's not something easily unlearned and even if you could be sure of hitting an arm or a leg, the ballistics of a 5.56mm round are such that it may well still kill.

It is unlikely that anyone was doing much "unloading." All US soldiers are trained to shoot single shots or short bursts. 5-7 rounds with a SAW, 3-5 with an M-60 machine gun. The most common weapon, the M-16, has no continuous fire setting. It is normally fired single shot, but there is a 3 round burst capability. Nevertheless, troops are trained not to use that setting except in special circumstances.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
we certainly don't know whether the kid pointed it at anyone. Neither do we know that he didn't.

In the version of English that I speak, "stooping to pick up" comes before "pointing at". He was killed while stooping to pick up, which implies necessarily that he didn't point it.

The only way you can argue that he did aim it is if you rerewrite the facts as they are presented here. Having a little experience of journalists, I can promise you that Reuters would not have got that part wrong. They would have had Boggs read the paragraph describing how the boy was killed and they would have corroborated it with the other witnesses too. No, I think we can certainly say that he didn't aim the RPG. That doesn't mean necessarily that it wasn't legitimate to kill him and I agree that we should leave the legitimacy determination to a military tribunal, but we can safely say that Army policy is that 10 year old kids that act as weapons collectors or scouts are considered legitimate targets.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
apparently tis isnt too big a deal...might be cause the kid isnt an American.

killing children (as long as they arent American) is alright in the name of 'peace' or 'stability' or 'freedom' or 'anti-terrorism' or 'liberation'....

Why must race and nationality continuously be brought up?

It seems simple enough. If the kid has the intent to shoot me, no matter what color or nationality he is, I'm going to shoot him before he has the chance.

It's not a racist or an "everybody deserves to die, except Americans" thing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sure you know that troops are trained to shoot center mass (middle of the chest). That's not something easily unlearned and even if you could be sure of hitting an arm or a leg, the ballistics of a 5.56mm round are such that it may well still kill.

It is unlikely that anyone was doing much "unloading." All US soldiers are trained to shoot single shots or short bursts. 5-7 rounds with a SAW, 3-5 with an M-60 machine gun. The most common weapon, the M-16, has no continuous fire setting. It is normally fired single shot, but there is a 3 round burst capability. Nevertheless, troops are trained not to use that setting except in special circumstances.

You concede though that troops are not trained to deal with 10 year olds on the other side. Don't you think troops need to adapt their behaviour in those circumstances and perhaps not shoot center mass?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Troll:
You concede though that troops are not trained to deal with 10 year olds on the other side. Don't you think troops need to adapt their behaviour in those circumstances and perhaps not shoot center mass?

Heh, you bring up an excellent point. From some of the comments I have heard from the American soldiers make to journalists it is apparent that they receive little or no training in how to deal with the realities of war, the psychological implications it will have on them, stress, ect... Killing children, killing men and women, seeing people being blown apart, dead bodies, dead parts of bodies, the smell of dead people... all of it must take a huge toll.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You concede though that troops are not trained to deal with 10 year olds on the other side. Don't you think troops need to adapt their behaviour in those circumstances and perhaps not shoot center mass?

I don't know what recent training the troops might have had on civilians on the battlefield. It could be different from what I received. However, on this point I doubt it. The training stressed the shoot/no shoot decision itself. If you have cause to shoot at all, you shoot to kill. If there is sufficient doubt that you don't think you have cause to kill, then you shouldn't shoot at all.

This is roughly the same training that the police recieve. Don't shoot if you don't have to. But if you have legitimate cause, shoot to kill. I went through this training as well when I was qualifying to get a concealed permit when I was driving VIPs around Europe.

Shooting to wound runs two risks. One is you might lower your shoot/no shoot threshold and begin shooting when you shouldn't. More practically, there is the danger that a merely wounded person could shoot back.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
No, America allowed Saddam to get the power he holds, they should be obligated to take him out of power, and the costs of doing that is on their hands.

Don't you think it's kind of fuked up that twenty years ago, Drumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein??

Do I have to go dig up the pics of Chirac with Saddam?

Hell, once I shook the hand of a kid in my school who ended up killing his brother, that doesn't mean I condone what he did.

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Do I have to go dig up the pics of Chirac with Saddam?

Please do that, I haven't seen them.
But this reminds me of another thread I started but resulted in nothing useful.............

[davesimondotcom]

All of you who are so upset about this one child which was obviously a terrible error, definitely the exception to the rule when it comes to US soldiers in Iraq:

Where were you when Saddam was gassing his people? There were many children murdered.

Where were you when Saddam was feeding his people to plastic shredding machines feet first?

I am glad that you are upset that this child was killed. And if it was improper, the shooter should be punished. But for you to use this as a way to say that the United States doesn't care about Iraqi children, that's simply crap.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Do I have to go dig up the pics of Chirac with Saddam?

Hell, once I shook the hand of a kid in my school who ended up killing his brother, that doesn't mean I condone what he did.

Yea, at one point in time EVERYONE who could was doing biz with Iraq... US, France, Germany, Russia ect..ect..ect..

Infact, after the US failed to pass a bill to declaure that Saddam commited Genocide on the Kurds in '88, biz between the US and Iraq drastically increased.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Do I have to go dig up the pics of Chirac with Saddam?

Not really. Chirac's government isn't attacking Iraq. No u-turn there </facetious remark>

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Logic:
Please do that, I haven't seen them.
But this reminds me of another thread I started but resulted in nothing useful.............

I don't have time right now, but I have in the past posted an article where Chirac describes Saddam as a "good friend" (the article was from 1998).

If I remember correctly, at that time, Chirac still had a picture of himself with Saddam next to his couch, according to the article. I could be mistaken.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Yea, at one point in time EVERYONE who could was doing biz with Iraq... US, France, Germany, Russia ect..ect..ect..

Bingo - everyone. That just goes to show that posting a picture of Rummy with Saddam is irrelevant.

In fact, the United States has done much less business with Iraq than Russia, France and others.

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
All of you who are so upset about this one child which was obviously a terrible error,

You realise that by saying that this was an error, you're criticising your government. After all, it is your government's policy that 10 year old weapons collectors and scouts are legitimate targets. According to your government this wasn't an error; it was a legitimate kill. How unpatriotic of you to say that your government's policy is in error.

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
In fact, the United States has done much less business with Iraq than Russia, France and others.

Can you back that up. I'm really interested. I know that after '92, the USA wasn't able to do much business with Iraq (for obvious reasons and not for want of trying), but my understanding was that the USA more than made up for what they lost over that period in comparison to France, Russia etc. in their dealings with Iraq BEFORE '92.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
How unpatriotic of you to say that your government's policy is in error.

I was simply saying that the soldier who fired on the boy may have made an error in retrospect. At the time, I'm not sure anyone here would have done anything different. I can't say how I would react in that situation. Can you?

For me, a life threatening situation would be trying to cross a street. I've never had a weapon pointed at me (loaded).

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
Can you back that up. I'm really interested. I know that after '92, the USA wasn't able to do much business with Iraq (for obvious reasons and not for want of trying), but my understanding was that the USA more than made up for what they lost over that period in comparison to France, Russia etc. in their dealings with Iraq BEFORE '92.

OK, did you notice how Saddam's bunkers have been built by Germans?

Or that French companies supplied him with parts for his weapons, funneling through another country?

Or that his planes are Russian made?

Or his missiles are Chinese?

All this went AROUND UN sanctions. It's ok for the French to go around sanctions to arm someone, I guess, right?

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I can't say how I would react in that situation. Can you?

I did just that a few post back!

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
For me, a life threatening situation would be trying to cross a street. I've never had a weapon pointed at me (loaded).

Boggs didn't have a loaded weapon pointed at him. Just to make that clear for the umpteenth time.

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
OK, did you notice how Saddam's bunkers have been built by Germans?

Or that French companies supplied him with parts for his weapons, funneling through another country?

Or that his planes are Russian made?

Or his missiles are Chinese?

All this went AROUND UN sanctions. It's ok for the French to go around sanctions to arm someone, I guess, right?

So you can't back your statement up then?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
So you can't back your statement up then?

Do I have to dig up every old thread for you?

Oh, that's right, facts be damned, your hatred for America above all. America is the root of all evil.

[BkueKanoodle]

I dug up old threads for the troll.

Take this thread's chart for example. It list weapons ssales to iraq going all the way back to 1973

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=153629

And for the record. The chemical weapons used by iraq against the kurds in the 80's were of russian origin.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I dug up old threads for the troll.

Take this thread's chart for example. It list weapons ssales to iraq going all the way back to 1973

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=153629

And for the record. The chemical weapons used by iraq against the kurds in the 80's were of russian origin.

That thread deals with WEAPONS SALES. I was asking Dave to back this statement up:

"In fact, the United States has done much less business with Iraq than Russia, France and others."

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Where were you when Saddam was gassing his people? There were many children murdered.

Where were you when Saddam was feeding his people to plastic shredding machines feet first?

Where were you?

[BkueKanoodle]

And I gave it as one example of said business. It's not the only one, but it's more facts then you've presented so far.

If you don't think weapons sales are a big business in this world, you are sorely mistaken.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Where were you?

Montana.

But seriously, I was in favor of getting rid of Saddam during the first Gulf War, when Bush 41 wimped out because of not having UN backing.

I also supported getting rid of Saddam when Clinton suggested it in 1998.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
That thread deals with WEAPONS SALES. I was asking Dave to back this statement up:

"In fact, the United States has done much less business with Iraq than Russia, France and others."

OK, Troll, since you were the one that suggested that the US loaded up on businesss with Saddam pre-1992, shouldn't YOU be the one to prove it?

Let's see some statistics from you for once.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Where were you?

I can tell you where I was, and there is a large portion of America who think this way as well, I was right here in the states for the last 12 years telling anybody who would listen that Saddam should have been taken care in the 1st Gulf war and waiting for a president who would stand up for American interests in the world, fix our Mistakes, and take care Saddam.

The liberals tend to only believe the reality they create for themselves in the Media. They forget that there is a silent majority in the US who go to work everyday, buy into the American dream and every once in awhile rise up against the coastal elitists and take back our country to do the right thing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
And I gave it as one example of said business. It's not the only one, but it's more facts then you've presented so far.

If you don't think weapons sales are a big business in this world, you are sorely mistaken.

Okay, let's drop this discussion. No one has any accurate data on weapons sales to Iraq or any accurate data on global trade with Iraq and even if we did, what does it prove to say Russia did more business with Iraq than the USA? I tend to agree with Dave that Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam is irrelevant. It certainly isn't relevant to this discussion which is about whether or not 10 year olds should be legitimate targets.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
They forget that there is a silent majority in the US who go to work everyday, buy into the American dream and every once in awhile rise up against the coastal elitists and take back our country to do the right thing.

Oh yes, we ever so love the soothing sound of ocean waves crashing upon the shore. And that fresh crisp ocean air! Truly sublime!

[Too Artificial]

Now I remember why I stopped reading the War/Politics thread.

I appreciate some of the posts, but the anti-americanism is just too much.

"The purpose of the war is to prevent a 'possible' attack against the US" (paraphrased)

Yeah, that's right. Get over it. It's about g**dam* time we took some action. That said, nobody likes seeing the civilians killed, crippled, etc.

Okay, I'm disgusted enough with leftist, commie, anti-american tones here. Carry on maggots.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Troll:
Okay, let's drop this discussion. No one has any accurate data on weapons sales to Iraq or any accurate data on global trade with Iraq and even if we did, what does it prove to say Russia did more business with Iraq than the USA? I tend to agree with Dave that Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam is irrelevant. It certainly isn't relevant to this discussion which is about whether or not 10 year olds should be legitimate targets.

Lordy! Is that how you debate? You ask the other side to present facts, they do and then they call you on yours and you want to "drop the discussion!"

Can't back up your statement with facts?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Too Artificial:

...
Okay, I'm disgusted enough with leftist, commie, anti-american tones here. Carry on maggots.

Hmmmm who is that hiding behind a vaguely sarcastic user name?

[Troll]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
You ask the other side to present facts, they do and then they call you on yours and you want to "drop the discussion!"

What facts? I have yet to see any facts supporting the contention that Dave made. Besides, I never offered any facts of my own. I expressed an honest interest in seeing facts suggesting that over the course of history, the US has done less business with Iraq than France and Russia. If you can prove that to me, I am more than happy to concede that point.

I find it very strange that every time the USA is even vaguely criticised, you boys start pointing at France and Germany and Russia. Why don't you rather deal with the point about the policy that 10 year old weapons collectors and scouts are legitimate targets?

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Troll:
What facts? I have yet to see any facts supporting the contention that Dave made.

Let me again refer you to the previous thread. Are you denying that weapons sales count as business? Do I need to dig up the links about French oil contracts too?

Oh wait, i'm not going to bother, because as soon as I present you with facts that fly in the face of your beliefs, you want to "drop the discussion."

In that case why bother.

Thanks for playing, troll, try again next time.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I find it very strange that every time the USA is even vaguely criticised, you boys start pointing at France and Germany and Russia. Why don't you rather deal with the point about the policy that 10 year old weapons collectors and scouts are legitimate targets?

I don't have those statistics either. I'm sure that they could be put together, but I don't have them. However, we aren't writing academic papers here and it isn't the case that something isn't true unless it can be proved to your satisfaction.

Commmon sense, and common knowledge supports the assertion that the Soviet Union was particularly close to the Ba'ath Party regime. The Soviet Union and Iraq had a friendship pact. That is reflected in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi military hardware is Soviet in origin. The Iraqi armed forces are much smaller than once they were, but they had an awful lot of that stuff. It represented a lot of trade.

It's also quite well-known that France was pretty close to the Iraqi regime. To take one small example, the nuclear reactor sold to Iraq came from France. Nuclear reactors are expensive.

The US and Iraq since the Ba'ath Party came to power were never bosom buddies. There was a period between 1984 and 1990 when the US did sell arms to Iraq. But it strains credulity to think that it outwieghed the decades of close relations between Iraq and the Soviet Union, or Iraq and France. I can't point you to the statistics, but unless you are quite dishonest, you know that is correct. That being so, I'm not sure what interest you have in casting doubt on a fact that we have all seen widely reported - even if we don't have the time or the resources to link to it right this second.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
What facts? I have yet to see any facts supporting the contention that Dave made. Besides, I never offered any facts of my own.

Yes, we know you don't offer facts. We asked you to provide some.

Originally posted by Troll:
I expressed an honest interest in seeing facts suggesting that over the course of history, the US has done less business with Iraq than France and Russia. If you can prove that to me, I am more than happy to concede that point.

Now it's the entire course of history? Good thing Iraq as a country is less than 100 years old. Do we have to go back to the Ottomans? Persians? How far back?

Originally posted by Troll:
I find it very strange that every time the USA is even vaguely criticised, you boys start pointing at France and Germany and Russia. Why don't you rather deal with the point about the policy that 10 year old weapons collectors and scouts are legitimate targets?

OK, here's my position.

It's a sh*tty world when you have to shoot a 10 year old. That sucks.

I don't believe it is US policy to just go out there and gun down civilians. You might want to look that up.

As far as the boy being a "weapons collector" and a "scout" - why isn't he just a boy? Don't we have to criticize the Iraqi policy of making boys into soldiers (even if this boy specifically wasn't one, there have been others).

[idjeff]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Yet, the neighborhood kids are getting killed. If the ball goes into the street, don't chase after it right away before looking both ways, and looking up.

idjeff, your utter lack of sympathy for the peope of Iraq tells me you either a) are a cruel person or b) don't know what the fuk you are talking about.

Again with the spin. What lack of sympathy are YOU talking about? Geez, care to back up that accussatory statement. I don't care? Please. We were talking about a situation where a kid, who was picking an RPG was shot by a US soldier. We were all speculating about "kids" and "kids who ARE combatants" and whether or not they should be shot under certain circumstances. Are you sure I don't know what the fuk I'm talking about?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I asked you a perfectly legitimate question. What does your question above have to do with my initial one?

If you don't want to answer, cannot answer just say so. No need to be evasive.

Wasn't being evasive, I answered it indeed. The difference was, Iraq could not do it by themselves.

You question was how it was a bad comparison. I made a statement about the Iraqi people not having the ability to do such a thing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
No, America allowed Saddam to get the power he holds, they should be obligated to take him out of power, and the costs of doing that is on their hands.

Don't you think it's kind of fuked up that twenty years ago, Drumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein??

Because the US knew ahead of time, Saddam would turn the way he did. Power can corrupt ones mind over time. That is why I am glad we have a 8 year limit on our Dictat... er Presidents.

[Troll]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Are you denying that weapons sales count as business?

A country's economy is not fairly represented by imports of one single commodity or even exports of a single commodity (although in this case, oil exports is a pretty good indicator). What Dave presented is dodgy evidence of weapons imports by Iraq (refer to the thread for the criticisms). Claiming that that graph represents the totality of Iraq's business dealings is about as valid as me showing you a list of Iraq's fish imports and saying Spain did more business with Iraq than Switzerland. The threads about oil contracts only look at the situation POST Gulf War I.

I know for a fact that prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq's biggest trading partner was India which doesn't feature on that list of importers and suggests, in itself, that that list of imports doesn't tell the whole story

[Spliffdaddy]

Apparently, the Iraqi government hasn't bought anything except weapons and palaces for the last few decades.

I'd say that's conclusive evidence that arms purchases are a large percentage of the Iraqi budget.

The fact that coalition forces aren't facing American-made weapons - but Russian and french weapons - tells me that the USA hasn't sold many weapons to iraq lately.

I'd suggest that the French are to blame for most of the world's problems.

[BkueKanoodle]

I never said it was the only indicator of all imports, but rather an example. I think Simeythelimeys post put it very well though.

I'm calling you out Troll, provide the facts that the US was bigger trading partner then Russia, Germany and France pre gulf war, as you claimed.

You are the one calling for facts, yet you have not provided a single one in support for your argument. Except for that pathetic link about india, whuich proves the point that the US was not heavily involved with iraq in a business sense, even before the gulf war.

Of course thats typical for a troll.

[Nicko]

"I'd suggest that the French are to blame for most of the world's problems."


Hey no fair, you can't use that same answer for all the world's problems!

[Zimphire]

Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.
"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.
"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."
"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."

The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048

You mean to tell me that Saddam'sa goverment is capable of imprisoning children too?!?!?!

I thought he has just a murderer, rapist, torturer and all around bad guy!

This changes everything. let's get that Bastard!

[daimoni]

.

[Nicko]

FOund this on google:

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds


"...To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist.
Iraq Lobbies for Arms

While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-***-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi charg� d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town.

"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community."

One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

The rest is here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
You mean to tell me that Saddam'sa goverment is capable of imprisoning children too?!?!?!

I thought he has just a murderer, rapist, torturer and all around bad guy!

This changes everything. let's get that Bastard!

What I am saying is, if you want to blame someone for the deaths of these children fighting, you know who to blame.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Nicko:
FOund this on google:

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds....

And you point?

I quote Slimeythelimey :

" The US and Iraq since the Ba'ath Party came to power were never bosom buddies. There was a period between 1984 and 1990 when the US did sell arms to Iraq. But it strains credulity to think that it outwieghed the decades of close relations between Iraq and the Soviet Union, or Iraq and France"

What about the rest of the years? And compared to the other countries, the US gave a very small percentage of weapons to iraq. The Russians also gave them chemical weapons.

The Swiss Insititute for Peace Research found the that chemical weaponas that Iraq used were russian. The Nuclear weapons program relied heavily on french suppliers.

Do you see American tanks in Iraq now? (oh wait you do )

[SimeyTheLimey]

The problem with Google as a research is this: If you type in Evil & America & Responsible /10 "All world problems" you will get a slew of hits, all of which will seem utterly convincing to the easily convinced, but most of which will in fact be pure garbage.

On the other hand, if you want to find something objective, google isn't as halpful. That's because the more responsible sources tend to be on sites with subscription archives. For example, many of the best newspapers require subscription, so do a lot of think tanks and many univesities. This is assuming that those sources are online at all, which isn't necessarily the case. If we are trying to figure out Iraqi trade before 1990, it is probable that most of it will be in non-online sources.

So fire away, America-haters. You do have the upper hand!