The Iraq thread 4

[denoir 0]

In the 70's, not the 80's. In the 80's, the US was the biggest supplier of weapon systems, communication gear and not to mention satellite imagery, anthrax strain etc

I doubt that Rummy personally visited everybody who bought an American-produced weapon. You'd have to be a pretty good customer.

IIRC in the '80s, the US was indeed the number one supplier. So I don't believe you that it was low on the list. Show me the list.

[billybob2002 0]

In the 70's, not the 80's. In the 80's, the US was the biggest supplier of weapon systems, communication gear and not to mention satellite imagery, anthrax strain etc

I doubt that Rummy personally visited everybody who bought an American-produced weapon. You'd have to be a pretty good customer.

You want me to dig it up...

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf

http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atmethods.html -meth..

[denoir 0]

Thanks, but that's not really helpful as it is a list of actual conventional weapons sold. Furthermore it's incomplete in every possible way missing 95% of data on US exports. So it doesn't really say anything.

And they say so in their disclamer as well:

Quote[/b] ]

When using SIPRI data for arms transfers made to Iraq after 1990, the following points should be taken into account:

a) Although the SIPRI Arms Transfers Project has monitored reports of transfers of major conventional weapons to Iraq since 1990, none of these reports have been sufficiently well documented to confirm a transfer has taken place.

b) The SIPRI Arms Transfers Project only reports transfers of complete major conventional weapon systems. Thus, reports that indicate Iraq has obtained parts of a given weapon system, even if confirmed, would not be registered as a transfer.

....

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thanks, but that's not really helpful as it is a list of actual conventional weapons sold. Furthermore it's incomplete in every possible way missing 95% of data on US exports. So it doesn't really say anything.

erm...

Quote[/b] ]When using SIPRI data for arms transfers made to Iraq after 1990, the following points should be taken into account:

....

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore it's incomplete in every possible way missing 95% of data on US exports

Quote[/b] ]

SIPRI covers only what it terms as major conventional weapons, defined as:

1. Aircraft: all fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, including unmanned reconnaissance/surveillance aircraft, with the exception of micro-light aircraft, powered and unpowered gliders and target drones.

2. Armoured vehicles: all vehicles with integral armour protection, including all types of tank, tank destroyer, armoured car, armoured personnel carrier, armoured support vehicle and infantry fighting vehicle.

3. Artillery: naval, fixed, self-propelled and towed guns, howitzers, multiple rocket launchers and mortars, with a calibre equal to or above 100-mm.

4. Radar systems: all land-, aircraft- and ship-based surveillance and fire-control radars, with the exception of navigation, weather and range-only radars. In cases where the radar is fitted on a platform (vehicle, aircraft or ship), the register only notes those radars that come from a different supplier than the supplier of the platform.

5. Missiles: all powered, guided missiles with conventional warheads. Unguided rockets, guided but unpowered shells and bombs, free-fall aerial munitions, anti-submarine rockets, target drones and torpedoes are excluded.

6. Ships: all ships with a standard tonnage of 100 tonnes or more, and all ships armed with artillery of 100-mm calibre or more, torpedoes or guided missiles, with the exception of survey ships, tugs and some transport ships.The statistics presented refer to transfers of weapons in these six categories only. Transfers of other military equipment such as small arms/light weapons, trucks, artillery under 100-mm calibre, ammunition, support equipment and components, as well as services or technology transfers are not included

I think communication gear and satellite imagery are not counted.

[denoir 0]

Sure enough, between 85-1990 the PDF lists 75 million USD in US sales. For that time period the GAO registered $1.5 billions in approved dual-use technology transfers to Iraq.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/nsi94098.htm

So again, that list you posted is saying absolutely nothing.

[chops 111]

People who are still protesting about the war need to stop now, ok you've made your point, you didn't want there to be a war but it happened. FULL STOP, you can't go back and change this. Just support the rest of the guys out there, they need us right now!

sim

I'm not being sarcastic when I say I am beyond stupified as to how sending soldiers to their graves/mentally scarring them for life is supporting them

Suport the soldiers by condoning their continual destruction of the people and the country they are supposed to be bringing democracy to (after the first two reasons for war were admitted to be ficticious)?

100,000+ civilian casualities in Iraq, and counting and your worried about the troops feelings? Forgive my lack of sympathy.

Ironic that it's the poor rural areas of the US that supply the bodies for Iraq, the very places ravaged by big business cronies in Washington, the same one's profiting from this crime.

"SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" "SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" "SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" Never criticize any decision involving the use of military force! Keep them in hostile places till they die!

Nothing was learned from the destruction of Vietnam.

[billybob2002 0]

Sure enough, between 85-1990 the PDF lists 75 million USD in US sales. For that time period the GAO registered $1.5 billions in approved dual-use technology transfers to Iraq.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/nsi94098.htm

So again, that list you posted is saying absolutely nothing.

erm..

Quote[/b] ]The bulk of the items licensed were computers and other electronics, and other items such as civilian helicopters and machine tools were also licensed. Dollar wise, the largest amounts involved three licenses, totaling more than $1 billion for heavy duty trucks. Commerce subsequently informed us that these trucks were never actually shipped to Iraq. A Commerce official told us that Commerce was informed by the exporters that the purchasers for these trucks withdrew from the sales agreements at the last minute.

That group would not include majority of those item because:

Quote[/b] ]

SIPRI covers only what it terms as major conventional weapons, defined as:

....

So, lets go back....

Quote[/b] ]biggest supplier of weapon systems

Back it up because the GAO report only talks a little about weapon systems.

Look at http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf between the 1980s for all countries.

[Acecombat 0]

The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program

Who armed Iraq?

IRAQ: The crimes of a US ally

Maybe those can be of help?

[denoir 0]

That group would not include majority of those item because:

Quote[/b] ]

SIPRI covers only what it terms as major conventional weapons, defined as:

....

That's exactly my point. The complete weapon systems (tanks, aircraft etc) were bought in the '70s from the Soviet Union.

In the '80s however Iraq switched from buying their weapons to making their weapons which meant that they bought components rather than complete systems. And this is where the west, including the US came in.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]biggest supplier of weapon systems

Back it up because the GAO report only talks a little about weapon systems.

Nah, that was only to get you to find the report   I don't know who the biggest supplier was, probably the Soviet Union then too (spare parts, if nothing else).

Quote[/b] ]Look at http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf between the 1980s for all countries.

The problem there again is missing data. Also, you should check out their sources - those that did the table say themselves it is of questionable reliability.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atmethods.html

Quote[/b] ]The sources for the data presented in the arms transfers register are of a wide variety: newspapers; periodicals and journals; books, monographs and annual reference works; and official national and international documents. The common criterion for all these sources is that they are open-published and available to the general public. Conventions, abbreviations and acronyms used by the Project can be found here.

The most frequently used sources for information on arms transfers are commercial periodicals specializing in military issues such as Defense News and Jane's Defence Weekly. Some governmental publications also contain considerable amounts of information. These include defence white papers, the UN Register on Conventional Arms and Pentagon notifications on government to government arms transfers to the US Congress. Coverage of arms transfers by local sources is represented mainly by translations of articles in the global press provided by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Press releases and web sites of arms producing companies are also useful sources of information on arms transfers. The SIPRI Arms Production web page provides links to many arms producing company web sites. A number of NGOs are actively gathering information on arms transfers and although they rely mostly on sources mentioned here, they can introduce interesting new pieces of information to the public domain. In the field of aviation, detailed information is provided by a number of sources published by and for enthusiasts. The internet also offers a growing number of websites related to arms and arms transfer issues. Links to some of these sites can be found here.

The type of open information used by SIPRI cannot provide a comprehensive picture of world arms transfers. Published reports often provide only partial information, and substantial disagreement among reports is common. Order and delivery dates, exact numbers, types of weapons and the identity of suppliers or recipients may not always be clear. Therefore, the exercise of judgement and the making of estimates are important elements in compiling the SIPRI Arms Transfers database. Estimates are always kept at conservatively low levels.

[Acecombat 0]

Ok who else saw the Galloway debate and thinks the US senate is getting too cocky here. OF all the entitys in the world who the HELL are they to be moralizing someone on a somewhat petty charge compared to all their lies and blunders and CRIMES committed right under their noses and to some extent approved by them .

[walker 0]

Hi all

Gallaway bassicly pointed out the US Senate had lied about him in their report.

He pointed out that Chalabi who George Bush Junior wanted to jail and even arrested a few months back was the main source of their alegations, he showed them his bank acounts, went through each of the stories and showed it was either a made up story from the more questionable parts of the media with not an ounce of corroboration or in some cases outright fraud.

He also pointed out that members of the US government and business had much closer links with Sadam and the oil for food scandal than any of those accused the Senate report

Having pointed that out I think the whole report and those in the Senate and especialy those involved in making up the storys are now what has to be questioned.

Here is an exerpt:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....10.html

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Holy crap that ruled! pwned!

[walker 0]

Hi all

More from George Galloway's testimony the bit where he points out that the senates documents were forgeries and that the time he was supposed to have been receiving money from the oil for food program as described by the senators was physically imposable as Oil for food program had not even started then. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/

Galloway also pointed he did not visit Iraq until a year later than the made up date in the senators report.

Talk about embarasing. I would not expect a junior school child to make the kind of errors that the senators on this commitee have made in their report.

This senate commitee are a pack of sub seven year olds.

Shakes Head in wonder walker

[Acecombat 0]

Holy crap that ruled! pwned!

You should have seen in LIVE on tv , the way the guy spoke with such clarity and the strong tone that he had. I dont know if hes guilty of the things they say he is but he doesnt seems to acting like someone whos done something wrong , usually guilt is written all over peoples faces they stutter and all but this guy was wowee. Compare it to when Bush speaks and you got a complete opposite , even Blair.

What i also didnt understand was in the end why was the senate guy getting all too personal , this wasnt the Jerry springer show the questions they asked him like do you consider this bad? Wtf ... what does it matter if he thinks its bad or not a guys leaning to ones side or the other doesnt changes ground facts of what he did or didnt do.

And as expected only the dem part of the US senate found out about the US companies involvement in this fiasco as well and not reps and once again an 'investigation' is under way which no will hear about after this ....

[walker 0]

Hi all

News media and Journalists are aghast

The minutes from George Galloways testimony have been removed from the US senate's site.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.c....gID=232

under pannel 2 the pdf is missing

This is probably against US law.

The reports have also been removed from C-Span as well.

http://www.capitolhearings.org/

If this is deliberate it is a truly shocking case of tampering with the Senate record.

Regards Walker

[Bordoy 0]

I hoppe the US senate crucify him. I hate Galloway with a passion. He deserves to be thrown out of the country with what he has said. Plus he got into parliment by using the racial tension in Bethnal Green, where a majority of the population are from the middle east, asia area. Thats why he won the seat, because he loves Saddam.

Come on you Senators

[walker 0]

I hoppe the US senate crucify him.

Hi Bordoy

I am afraid your hopes have been completley shattered

It is rather noticable in the reports that Galloway pointed out that the senators reports were lies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7883488/

and he went on to point out that most of the oil for food scandal money was taken by US companies with the conivance of the US government.

He also pointed out that then the US administration of Iraq had managed to disapear something over 7 billion dollars more of Iraqi oil and that it had done this on the back of a war started on a pack of lies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....10.html

he gave the senate commitee that had wrote the lieing report about him a complete drubbing.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bordoy 0]

aaaah crap.

Well i can still live in hope of someone else getting him, though not physically obviuosly.

[Acecombat 0]

Why do you hate him , what has he said thats so bad that you wanna kill him?

[denoir 0]

I'm watching it right now (they have a feed on http://news.bbc.co.uk/).

He's good  

[Bordoy 0]

Why do you hate him , what has he said thats so bad that you wanna kill him?  

I said NOT physically. Thats it mate, read it one more time just for understanding puposes, got it now?

Ok he goes and tell all Brtish soldiers to dis-obey all their orders and not fight.

Then he goes and tells the Iraqi's, try and kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Basically, he's a traitor.

[denoir 0]

Then he goes and tells the Iraqi's, try and kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Source for that?

[Bordoy 0]

Then he goes and tells the Iraqi's, try and kill as many British soldiers as possible.

Source for that?

Was too long ago in a newspaper and one of the respected ones aswell. Not the Daily Mail or The Sun.

[Bordoy 0]

Watch what happens when Galloway goes under pressure and is interviewed by someone who dis-agrees with him, the great Jeremy Paxman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm

[EiZei 0]

The closest thing he has said AFAIK is to "stay strong against the invaders" and that the invading goverments are going to "burn in hell."

Personally I think this guy is a mirror image of "kill and/or convert em' ragheads" types.