View Full Version : illegal arms in iraq
devil-fire
Aug25-04, 01:28 PM
where are the iraqi rebels getting their weapons from? i thought that everyone or almost everyone from the former iraqi military who would have accses to small arms chaches either surrendered , were captured or were killed early in the invasion? is it just the small arms culture that has always been in iraq that is supplying weapons to these fighters? what kind of arms control is currently in place in iraq?
devil-fire
Aug25-04, 09:06 PM
the thing is that right now, iraq has a lot of the world's attention and more importantly, the western world has high interest in there so most of the weapons are not likly to slip in like they did in rwanda. so i was thinking that either there are leaks in new iraq goverment or it could just be that the weapons were already everywhere before anyone invaded anything (i read an interview with the arms dealer that supplyed sadam before the kuwait invasion and he claimed something in the lines of 'owning an ak-47 is a right of passage in iraq'). maybe people had a lot of RPGs, rifles and ammunition before, but i would expect that to have been spent by now
thoughts?
phatmonky
Aug25-04, 10:03 PM
The Iraqis (on the BBC) have repeatedly reported seeing Sadr's militia with Iranian weapons and Iranian style dress.
At the moment, every household in Iraq is allowed to own one AK47 variant, or so our news clamied the other day.
devil-fire
Aug26-04, 02:40 PM
nothing about all the RPGs or ammo?
russ_watters
Aug26-04, 02:48 PM
Iraq was arms dealer to the world prior to the war. I'm sure there are caches all over the place.
Iraq was flooded with ex-Soviet military hardware for quite a while. Unfortunately it was not flooded with ex-Soviet engineers, so most of it is old and not so great.
Iraq was arms dealer to the world prior to the war.
Hmmm. I wonder where they could have gotten all those weapons.
JohnDubYa
Aug27-04, 12:56 AM
Mostly from France and the Soviet Union, I suspect.
Well yes, generally ex-Soviet gear comes from ex-Soviet places.
and some items had shown up from russia, I believe.
How many people in the USA have weapons? almost everyone.
JohnDubYa
Sep6-04, 03:13 PM
What's your point, tumor?
Mostly from France and the Soviet Union, I suspect.
Try the USA.
What's your point, tumor?
Well if almost everyone in the US has weapons, iraq is arms dealer of the world, is it possible almost everyone in iraq had weapons?
i rekon they smuggle weapons in from saudia arabia too.
phatmonky
Sep6-04, 11:03 PM
1>Try the USA.
2>Well if almost everyone in the US has weapons, iraq is arms dealer of the world, is it possible almost everyone in iraq had weapons?
3>i rekon they smuggle weapons in from saudia arabia too.
1>Show me some sort of validation for this assertion. I wasn't aware that we built and/or sold kalishnikovs to anyone
2>Not almost everyone in the US has weapons, however we do have enough weapons here for every person. The reason for that is our freedom to own them. As we all know, Saddam would not take kindly to his detractors having guns to fight him with (are we in agreement here, or do I need to get a link on this?). When did Iraq become the arms dealer of the world?
3> Why Saudi Arabia? Not saying atleast ONE gun didn't get smuggled from there, just wondering why the seemingly arbitrary choice?
1.
A brief history of US participation in the Middle east, this is what people mean when they say 'They've interfered with so mucht thats none of their business'
in 1951 Iranian people democratically elect Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh as Iranian premier. in 53 the US ousts Mossadegh and isntalls Shah as dictator. In 79 the iranian people revolt against shah and take US hostages in retaliation (the embassy incident). The iraqi-Iranian war start when the US enters partnership with Saddam and gives him weapons and money to kill iranians in retaliation of the hostage taking. Saddam begins to develop Chemical and Biological Weapons. The relationship went sour during the gulf war when Pres Bush betrayed Saddam, thus resulting in the attempted assassination of Pres Bush Sn. by Saddam Hussein.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/4185241.htm?1c
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm
http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/impact
2. Dunno, havn't researched it but its plausable. I was merely putting a theory together from tumor and Johns posts.
3. I've just been hearing alot about AL Quadi running around in saudi arabia managing to evade officials, so it seems a likely spot, jordan doesnt have such a big problem, and syria is too well controlled i think. I know someone who lived there he said he saw secret service agents every other block, exageration for sure but still.
phatmonky
Sep6-04, 11:39 PM
1> Smurf, I'm aware of all of that. What does that have to do with a bunch of thugs running around with small arms? I don't see them running around with missilie trucks and tanks (even then they were all soviet as well). They have kalishnikovs and RPG's. Those were not what we provided.
[QUOTE=phatmonky]They have kalishnikovs and RPG's. Those were not what we provided.[QUOTE]
why wouldnt it? AKs cost 7 bucks in africa, no one said the CIA wasnt cheap.
phatmonky
Sep6-04, 11:53 PM
[QUOTE=phatmonky]They have kalishnikovs and RPG's. Those were not what we provided.[quote]
why wouldnt it? AKs cost 7 bucks in africa, no one said the CIA wasnt cheap.
So now this has devolved into conspiracy theory that can't be proven?
I'm going to bed.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 12:10 AM
You won't miss much.
Why don't you believe the US would sell AKs And RPGs to the Iraqis? What would they give them? M-16s? I doubt it, too expensive, Saddam only needed to arm more troops, no reason to spend hundreds of dollars per soldier. Remember reading about how he marches women and children in front of his armies to dissuade the iranians?
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 04:07 AM
Why don't you believe the US would sell AKs And RPGs to the Iraqis?
Is this your response? You are going to ask us if we believe it or not?
It doesn't matter whether we choose to believe it; cite the evidence to support your claim.
Prove that it isnt, my theory is common sense, when was the last time you heard of a terrorist with an M-16.
We know the US provided arms, We know the terrorists used ak-47s, they may have got them from somewhere else too, but I believe they also got them from the CIA.
Ever heard of William Blum? He writes books and essays criticising the US administration, particularly its rather unsavoury activities. His main source of information is the US Library of Congress. He provides sources from the LOC in his work. He constantly checks information released through the FOIA, and includes relevent pieces in his writings. Personally, I think he performs a valuable public service.
You can read some of his material here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html
I've never read any of his stuff before, this is golden, thanks!
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 07:19 AM
Ever heard of William Blum? He writes books and essays criticising the US administration, particularly its rather unsavoury activities. His main source of information is the US Library of Congress. He provides sources from the LOC in his work. He constantly checks information released through the FOIA, and includes relevent pieces in his writings. Personally, I think he performs a valuable public service.
You can read some of his material here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html
Anything in there showing us buying up Russian small armsand redistributing to Iraq? :rolleyes: You guys are so damn unbelievable. You just run off on a tangent when you can't back your on-topic statements.
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 07:22 AM
Prove that it isnt, my theory is common sense, when was the last time you heard of a terrorist with an M-16.
We know the US provided arms, We know the terrorists used ak-47s, they may have got them from somewhere else too, but I believe they also got them from the CIA.
I started to write a long reply to this, but I'm not falling for the trap.
If it's common sense, you can easily find something to back your theory. Until then, try to remember this is a serious forum, not one for spouting unbacked conspiracy
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 07:23 AM
I've never read any of his stuff before, this is golden, thanks!
Golden? Taking pride in this now?
Anything in there showing us buying up Russian small armsand redistributing to Iraq? :rolleyes: You guys are so damn unbelievable. You just run off on a tangent when you can't back your on-topic statements.
Are you now saying the US Library Of Congress is wrong, and the FOIA releases lies?
"American technology, Russian Technology, All made in Taiwan!"
Where I come from 'Golden' is a slang word used to express great interest or amusment.
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 07:41 AM
Are you now saying the US Library Of Congress is wrong, and the FOIA releases lies?
You know very well what I'm asking for Adam. Just simply post a link to the actual page with this proof. Show me where we gave Russian small arms to Iraq. More specifically, just show me where we gave them AK-47's.
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 07:42 AM
"American technology, Russian Technology, All made in Taiwan!"
Where I come from 'Golden' is a slang word used to express great interest or amusment.
Still waiting on those links.
Sorry, I find nothing amusing about many of the covert operations launched during the cold war.
You and Johnny both, obsessed with links
http://www.spongobongo.com/no9979.htm
"Shortly afterwards President Reagan ordered the CIA to airlift in every AK-47 that we could get our hands on to the rebellion. Obviously if we supplied the rifles that we had, the M16s would have been too obvious. So we turned to the stores in Pakistan and the huge stockpiles of AK-47s in Israel"
The internet has everything, If I can find a site that says Bush's mother was a space alien, I can find a sight that says Pigs were brought to North America by Flying Horses.
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 07:59 AM
You and Johnny both, obsessed with links
http://www.spongobongo.com/no9979.htm
"Shortly afterwards President Reagan ordered the CIA to airlift in every AK-47 that we could get our hands on to the rebellion. Obviously if we supplied the rifles that we had, the M16s would have been too obvious. So we turned to the stores in Pakistan and the huge stockpiles of AK-47s in Israel"
The internet has everything, If I can find a site that says Bush's mother was a space alien, I can find a sight that says Pigs were brought to America by Flying Horses.
I'm obsessed with the links because of the constant about of bull**** that is running rampant on these forums.
But the point of that mission was to keep the US's fingerprints off of it, but still support the revolt. You have made your point that we have provided them, but I still don't see how this is common sense, or likely, in the case of Iraq (I still don't see a link to this one, as Adam is saying exists ).
The last time we would have provided Iraq weapons would have been the same time they were getting weapons from the Soviets. Why the soviets would give them no small arms, with their tanks, migs, and other supplies is beyond me. But to make this even more crazy, you assert that we then wanted to covertly give Saddam small arms and keep our prints off that, while we held a public relationship with him and supplied him chemical weapons to deter Iran.
As for your idea that M-16's are too expensive. You are Canadian,so you may not be aware that our government does not work on an intelligent expense platform (no matter how much I wish they did). Iran is the only other country in the world that has the F-14. They are currently buried in the dirt to make use of their long range Radar. If planes, and one of our most expensive at the time, aren't too expensive, I don't see why small arms would be - not to mention the other contradictory reasons I stated above.
Yeah. I forgot what we were arguing about, give me a minute.
>>Oh right. weather the USA gave Iraq AK-47s and RPGs. I got carried away and forgot what my point was. another minute.
Well, I haven't found anything saying the CIA gave Iraq AK47s yet, but if you're really interested in this sort of thing, try this:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/jf99/jf99lumpe.html
And a full list of open arms suppliers to Iraq:
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck
http://www.curi.us/domain/archives/2004/04/20/weap-caches
I dont understand it myself, this guy is going on about weapon caches and whatnot, very interesting.
He basicly states (I think) that theres more burried munitions in Iraq than anywhere else in the world.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-29-cover-small-arms_x.htm
a more comprehensible article about it
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 11:12 AM
So far, we have been provided a short blurb from an unnamed rug dealer, an admittedly error-prone, incomprehensible guestimation from "curi," and a news article from CNN that states that the Iraqis had (gasp) a lot of small arms. (I don't even bother with Adam's links anymore.)
Why not find the evidence to support your claims, THEN post?
Ah, refusal to view the information presented. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? :)
studentx
Sep7-04, 11:41 AM
Ah, refusal to view the information presented. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? :)
The information isnt refused, its just been proven false. This piece of information is what youve been refusing.
Proven Palse? pray give me a link that disproves it.
Smurf, studenx has a habit of saying things totally unrelated to... well, anything, really. The information was never "proven false" by anyone, least of all studentx.
studentx
Sep7-04, 11:55 AM
Which piece of information are you referring to? The piece that doesnt prove that the US gave iraq AK's and RPG's? You dont understand it do you?
The burden of proof lies with you.
I dont know, your the one that said it what were YOU refering to?
studentx
Sep7-04, 12:17 PM
Try the USA.
This was the piece of information i was referring to. Its been proven false by lack of any evidence of this assumption and when asked to post evidence, it is said the evidence is already posted. When Adam is asked to point to the evidence , he points to something which is not evidence and accuses others of refusing it as evidence. This is also a piece of information which has been proven false : Adams claim that what he posted is evidence to the assumption that the US gave Ak's and RPG's to Iraq.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan1.php
second paragraph
"At every turn of the war against Iraq, U.S. and British forces will face weapons systems largely developed and supplied to Iraq by American, European, Russian and Chinese companies."
America may not have been the only nation. But my suggestion still stands.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 12:31 PM
No mention of the CIA. No mention of AK-47's.
Just another wild goose chase.
Why are you so offended by the idea the CIA gave Ak-47s to Iraq, we know tehy gave them to afghanistan.
This was the piece of information i was referring to. Its been proven false by lack of any evidence of this assumption and when asked to post evidence, it is said the evidence is already posted. When Adam is asked to point to the evidence , he points to something which is not evidence and accuses others of refusing it as evidence. This is also a piece of information which has been proven false : Adams claim that what he posted is evidence to the assumption that the US gave Ak's and RPG's to Iraq.
Remember what I told you ages ago? Read first, then post.
Here are the links I provided for you earlier:
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/jf99/jf99lumpe.html
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck
studentx
Sep7-04, 03:40 PM
Ok now, could someone just post the proof that the US supplied Iraq with its Ak47's and RPG's ?
Adam? Smurf? ANYONE?
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 08:06 PM
Ok now, could someone just post the proof that the US supplied Iraq with its Ak47's and RPG's ?
Proof? Hell, I would almost settle for "scant evidence" at this point.
JohnDubYa
Sep7-04, 08:10 PM
Adam posted a link, and damned if I didn't bother reading it again. Why do I waste my time? I should have known it would have no mention of sales of AK-47s to Iraq anywhere in the text, but I looked anyway. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on Candid Camera.
Nearly everybody in Iraq has a gun of some sort and that was true even under Saddam Hussein. Arms have never been difficult to get hold of in the region and I imagie many of the tribal militas may of had rpgs.
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 08:31 PM
Nearly everybody in Iraq has a gun of some sort and that was true even under Saddam Hussein. Arms have never been difficult to get hold of in the region and I imagie many of the tribal militas may of had rpgs.
Link to something explaining this? Sure would like to know why the Iraqis weren't handling Saddam themselves then.
This is the first one I found:
According to media reports, Iraq is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. It is believed that there are enough guns in Iraq for at last every person in Iraq to possess one, a level similar to gun ownership in clans in Yemen and Somalia, as well as in the United States. With a population of approximately 24 million, that means there could be millions of small arms in the hands of civilians. The gun culture is pervasive in Iraq. There is even an Iraqi saying, "Give everything to your friend, except your car, your wife, and your gun."
http://www.cdi.org/iraq/small-arms.cfm
Armed civilians are no match for an army.
phatmonky
Sep7-04, 09:05 PM
This is the first one I found:
http://www.cdi.org/iraq/small-arms.cfm
Armed civilians are no match for an army.
So why didn't they handle Saddam? I don't get it :confused:
So why didn't they handle Saddam? I don't get it :confused:
It's a myth that an armed citizenry is any real protection against a dictatorship, indeed there was a popular uprising in some areas of Iraq just after the Gulf War, but when it failed to receive any support from coalition forces as the rebels had expected it is was easily and brutally crushed by Saddam. As I said before armed civilians are never any match for an army, any internal uprising woul dof needed the support of the Iraqi army which was entirely controlled by Saddam and his henchmen.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 10:43 AM
It's a myth that an armed citizenry is any real protection against a dictatorship,
It depends on how much support the dictator has from the Army. An armed, popular uprising could very well pose a serious threat to a dictator if the Army decides that engaging in firefights with its own people is unpalatable.
russ_watters
Sep8-04, 10:45 AM
It's a myth that an armed citizenry is any real protection against a dictatorship.... Caveat: in the American Revolution, individuals had weapons that matched those of the military and that is part of why it was possible then. Today, while the smaller guns may be similar, the vehicles and larger arnaments are not.
JohnDubYa
Sep8-04, 11:01 AM
But you still have to have an army willing to kill its own civilians. For example, in the US there are nearly as many guns as there are houses. Trying to subdue an uprising on that scale would be impossible, especially considering the mass desertions that would occur if many in the Army thought they were fighting for an unjust cause against their own people. (Now, how possible is it to get a sufficiently large-scale uprising to defeat the Army is anyone's guess.)
The easier solution is to have an unarmed populace that the army can push around at the dictator's whim.
Mercator
Sep9-04, 08:41 PM
How true this is. Now substitute the US with Iraq and you will better understand what is happening there.
JohnDubYa
Sep9-04, 09:47 PM
I think we all understand what is happening there. It is no surprise to any of us that the Iraqis have a sufficient number of armed nutcases to cause problems for our troops. Regardless, we stay until the Iraqi government has most of these issues under control.
You assume that just because many american soldiers would desert rather than shoot their own country that the Iraqis would too, this is not necessarily true. First off all there's saddams private army that will whack you if you desert, then theres the fact that there are not quite 10 different culture groups all of which are on different levels of opression from saddam, and then theres the religious and exterior arab forces at work, each telling you what to do. this doesnt leave much leeway for a soldier to have morals.
JohnDubYa
Sep10-04, 09:02 PM
You assume that just because many american soldiers would desert rather than shoot their own country that the Iraqis would too, this is not necessarily true.
I never made any such assumption. I never even mentioned Iraq, and none of my comments were aimed at the Iraqi situation.
devil-fire
Sep14-04, 04:33 PM
to get a real rebellion going its takes some organization. even if Everyone in a town wanted to shoot a military patrol it would likely not happen because they would not think they would have the support of others and because of the lack of support, they would not shoot the patrol. the rebellions i have some knowledge of (mind you, this is few, history has not been my strong point) there were instigators who gathered support and verbal agreements from people like "when the shooting breaks out, ill be on side with you guys against saddam" and there weren’t many of those people in iraq because so many of them got caught and never seen from again, or caught and some thing horrible happens to them. So to imply that iraq was not heavily armed because they would have taken out saddam themselves is kind of weak to me.
i recall reading somewhere on the internet that saddam was armed by an arms dealer who had the full support and encouragement (although unofficially) from the usa just before the gulf war because at the time, it was thought by parts of the american government that saddam was going to invade iran (iran was hostile to US interests at the time) but after he got all the support he was going to get, he turned around and invaded kuwait
here is a link to an interview with an arms dealer http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/soghanalian.html
this is a quote from the link, about 3 and a half pages down
"You went from selling arms transferred from Eastern Bloc [Communist] countries to Lebanon, and then to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries?
Well, before I went to Iraq there were other places I was asked to assess, like Mauritania, the Polisario forces that they were fighting there. Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina. And then finally Iraq. We used to help the countries whose way of thinking was pro-Western. At that time it [Iraq] was pro-American, of course. Europeans didn't have an interest in them, so we had to keep those nations alive for their struggle.
How closely did you work with the American government on this?
I don't like to explore of the possibilities of what department of this or that, but very, very close, very close. "
even if the USA supplied the arms, would those same arms not need replacement parts? i don’t know a lot about guns but don’t they need to be basically gutted and replaced after X many rounds fired? i could be totally wrong about this since i have no experience about maintaining a firearm
JohnDubYa
Sep14-04, 05:33 PM
Support from the US?
1991: Convicted on six counts of conspiring to export arms to Iraq without the required federal licenses, a violation of the U.S. Arms Control Export Act. The case, which included two former officials of Hughes Helicopter Corp., involved the sale of 103 combat helicopters and two rocket launchers in 1983 during the Iran-Iraq War. In 1992 he was sentenced to six years in prison and a $20,000 fine. The U.S. attorney had asked for maximum of 24 years and a $240,000 fine.
where are the iraqi rebels getting their weapons from? i thought that everyone or almost everyone from the former iraqi military who would have accses to small arms chaches either surrendered , were captured or were killed early in the invasion? is it just the small arms culture that has always been in iraq that is supplying weapons to these fighters? what kind of arms control is currently in place in iraq?
Saddam beleive in the right to bear arms for his people. Something we have in common. Weapons are everywhere in Iraq as well as in the US.
But, Bush doesn't want American values in Iraq, especially when they also believe in defense of the Homeland.
phatmonky
Sep14-04, 08:26 PM
Saddam beleive in the right to bear arms for his people. Something we have in common. Weapons are everywhere in Iraq as well as in the US.
But, Bush doesn't want American values in Iraq, especially when they also believe in defense of the Homeland.
this is pathetic. Can we return this forum to SOMETHING besides hyperbole and rhetoric? :rolleyes:
devil-fire
Sep14-04, 08:29 PM
the interview i linked too also had this in it
"1993: A federal judge reduced the conviction for sales to Iraq from six and a half years to two years; prosecutor would not explain. Soghanalian's attorney later said it concerned intelligence Soghanalian gave to U.S. law-enforcement officials to break up a $100-bill counterfeiting operation in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon. "
and
"You were convicted in 1991 for conspiracy on a weapons deal to Iraq. And now this recent conviction for wire fraud. Do you feel betrayed by the U.S. government?
Let me give you an example of the first charge they brought. I was charged on conspiracy with Hughes helicopter executives. ... Fine, so I'm conspiring with them. And yet, when the two others went in front of another judge, they got acquitted. So what am I conspiring to do if they went home free? I was convicted. Of course, that stays on your record saying you're a felon. I was convicted for six and a half years. But I did not serve six and a half years. When they needed me, the U.S. government that is, they immediately came and got me out"
it also states the man "has lived for more than 20 years in the United States as a permanent resident"
JohnDubYa
Sep14-04, 10:52 PM
If he really had US support, why was he prosecuted at all? Why did the Attorney General ask for 24 years?
And is it really so unusual that someone would not serve his full sentence? I mean, that never happens in other cases?
Sorry, but what you have there is real shady evidence of any US support for his arms sales. Actually, it amounts to no evidence at all.
russ_watters
Sep14-04, 11:47 PM
Missed this before: But you still have to have an army willing to kill its own civilians. For example, in the US there are nearly as many guns as there are houses. Trying to subdue an uprising on that scale would be impossible, especially considering the mass desertions that would occur if many in the Army thought they were fighting for an unjust cause against their own people. That's another caveat: since the soldiers are citizens and would likely agree that the government needs to be overthrown (in the hypothetical case that the vast majority of the citizens do), they'd likely join the rebellion. So in this case, guns in the posession of the citizens aren't really necessary anyway. ... just before the gulf war because at the time, it was thought by parts of the american government that saddam was going to invade iran (iran was hostile to US interests at the time) but after he got all the support he was going to get, he turned around and invaded kuwait devil-fire, you have your timeline screwed up there: this arms dealer was selling Iraq American weapons long before 1991 and Iraq did go to war with Iran using our weapons.
JohnDubYa
Sep14-04, 11:51 PM
That's another caveat: since the soldiers are citizens and would likely agree that the government needs to be overthrown (in the hypothetical case that the vast majority of the citizens do), they'd likely join the rebellion. So in this case, guns in the posession of the citizens aren't really necessary anyway.
Soldiers are usually not allowed to take their guns home with them.
russ_watters
Sep15-04, 12:38 AM
Soldiers are usually not allowed to take their guns home with them. No, that isn't what I meant. The premise was that the civilians with guns would be fighting the military. My point was that the military would choose not to fight the civilians.
JohnDubYa
Sep15-04, 01:31 AM
All of the military, or just some of them? There will always be Loyalists. Without weapons, how would the citizenry fight the Loyalists?
russ_watters
Sep15-04, 10:38 AM
All of the military, or just some of them? There will always be Loyalists. Without weapons, how would the citizenry fight the Loyalists? Enough of the military for a coup in military leadership. We're talking about some pretty extreme cases here: in the Civil War, for example, the miliary split on its own and took sides.
devil-fire
Sep15-04, 09:53 PM
If he really had US support, why was he prosecuted at all? Why did the Attorney General ask for 24 years?
And is it really so unusual that someone would not serve his full sentence? I mean, that never happens in other cases?
Sorry, but what you have there is real shady evidence of any US support for his arms sales. Actually, it amounts to no evidence at all.
i dont think the attorney general supported this guy, but i think people in the us gov gave this guy a lot of room to do his thing. the guy got off of a recomened maximum sentence of 24 years in just 2 years by offering intelligence in the past (why would past actions get him out? perhaps the possibility of furture unmentionable actions instead?). this person also refers to the usa as a friendly entity with a cooperative relationship.
this is the internet so Nothing on it is "proof" unless the source is credable. i consider this to be a credable sourse
i dont understand the comparison between the american civial war and possible situations in iraq. in iraq if a unit defects, their wives, children and close relitives are going to be killed aswell as a much longer death for themselves. it would be a trade of lives really, between their lved ones and people they dont know who they have been ordered to kill. there were some thousand kurds killed by the iraqi army via chemical weapons and there were no large scale defection i know of because of it
russ_walters, after looking into the statment some more, you were right. my first stament of "just before the gulf war because at the time, it was thought by parts of the american government that saddam was going to invade iran (iran was hostile to US interests at the time) but after he got all the support he was going to get, he turned around and invaded kuwait" was actualy missleading.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.