Another Dumb Idea

[Fairweather]

If we're gonna bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, let's just do it. Soon. But countering idiots by selling $20b worth of arms to other idiots is just plain dumb. Then, we'll sell more arms to the Israeli's (who are not idiots) because we sold arms to the Saudi idiots in the first place? When the muslim-kook masses storm the Saudi royal palace do we really want them to have all these really neat weapons at the end of the day? If it weren't for the socialist Democrats licking their political chops daily, I'd be fed up with Bush right about now.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6920458.stm

[mattp]

So you're letting your hatred of the Democratic party prevent you from disapproving of Bush?

 

Couldn't resist. I agree, that our policies with regard supplying weapons or other support often seem rather short sighted. This is not exclusive to Mr. Bush, though. I think Democratic as well as Republican leaders have done this a bunch. Check out the now dated book that is very much a "hate America first" kind of tome, "Endless Enemies," by Quitney. You'll hate the book but you may concude the basic premise has a shred of sense.

 

In a nutshell, Quitney argues that our usual practice of supporting specific leaders or governments who were able to lend us assistance at any point in time has, more often than not, left us holding hands with someone who later turned against us or played us against somebody else. We give weapons to the Saudi's today because they are seemingly on our side, and it may come back to bite us. Just as where we armed Saddam against Iran, or Afghanistan against Russia, or ... I'm not sure his ideas are practical where he suggests we could endorse ideas or policies rather than specific leaders or governments, and in practice I think this means we could have provided operational support for Saddam or the Afghani's without actually giving them weapons or saying that "Saddam is our freind and we're going to overlook whatever bad things he might be doing," but there is something attractive about his basic premise.

 

Could we promote Saudi Arabia as a counterpart to Iran, or support some of their activity in this regard, without ending up wed to the house of Saud and providing arms that may one day be used against us or our allies?

[Serenity]

Saudi Arabia.

 

Supports Sunni militias in Iraq. Sunni militias kill Americans. 18 of the 9/11 terrorists Saudi's. Osama Bin Laden, Saudi national. 45% of foreign fighters in Afghanistan/Iraq....Saudi's. Largest oil producing nation in the world calls for the Crusader army to come, so we'll artificially suppress oil production, and protect the kingdom from the Persian hordes, all the while calling for our military removal from the Kingdom. Prompting us to realign strategically by invading Iraq. Arrogant, manipulative, 100% arab. Possess one of the most worthless military systems in the middle east. Virtually ineffective.

 

Saudi Arabia? What's to like?

[ashw_justin]

They're greedy and we can buy them.(?)

Could be a bad investment.

[murraysovereign]

The beauty of it all is that we wouldn't be nearly as worried about Iran's emergence as a dominant power in the Gulf if someone hadn't gone in and taken out their only serious opponent. With Iraq removed from the balance, Iran becomes much more of a threat, which must be countered by propping up the state which, along with Afghanistan, had more to do with 9/11 than any other. So the US is arming one of the main backers of the 9/11 plotters in order for them to assume the role of someone who had nothing to do with 9/11, but who was removed from the scene in part because of their ostensible (albeit totally fabricated) involvement in 9/11.

 

One Dumb Idea leads to Another Dumb Idea...

[joblo7]

once you understand who the 'real' actors of the ''manhattan renovation project" are, and follow the money, its all predictable, understandable and scary sad.

[gertlush]

Doesn't seem like that big a deal. Iran had all kinds of American toys when the Shah was booted out. Plus you have to pay for all that oil somehow, and think of all the juicy consulting contracts, maintenance etc.

[JayB]

"Just as where we armed Saddam against Iran..."

 

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002

Country $MM USD 1990 % Total

USSR 25145 57.26

France 5595 12.74

China 5192 11.82

Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56

Poland 1681 3.83

Brazil 724 1.65

Egypt 568 1.29

Romania 524 1.19

Denmark 226 0.51

Libya 200 0.46

USA 200 0.46

South Africa 192 0.44

Austria 190 0.43

Switzerland 151 0.34

Yugoslavia 107 0.24

Germany (FRG) 84 0.19

Italy 84 0.19

UK 79 0.18

Hungary 30 0.07

Spain 29 0.07

East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06

Canada 7 0.02

Jordan 2 0.005

Total 43915 100.0

 

 

Did Quitney analyze the massive program that the US undertook to arm Stalin in WWII?

 

Taking secondary effects that may or may not materialize at some indefinite point in the future into account is sensible, but these things have to be weighed against the magnitude of the primary threat, and the probable consequences of inaction. It's not inconceivable that in an equal number of cases the consequences of inaction will be at least as bad or worse. In some cases the analysis may argue for inaction, but I hardly think that a careful analysis would support the conclusion that inaction and neutrality ought to be the default policy of the prudent statesman.

 

Rwanda, the ethnic slaughter in the Balkans, and the ongoing carnage in Sudan demonstrate that inaction is not without costs, or secondary consequences.

[mattp]

Jay,

 

If you want to argue that it was a good idea to support Saddam, be my guest. If you want to try to use the above noted statistic to suggest we didn’t do so, you’re sadly mistaken or lying.

 

You drum up a statistic that, if true, shows we may not have been his biggest arms supplier in 1990. However, in the years immediately before that we sold Iraq equipment essential for a nuclear industry, we supplied them chemical weapons, and other such toys for 1.5 billion according to one source. source Jay will immediately seek to discredit

 

See also

souce Jay will scoff at

 

See also

wikipedia - liberal media incarnate

 

Elsewhere, it has been reported we supplied them poison gas, and that when the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime in 1988, the Reagan administration blocked it.

damn Google anyway!

 

Lastly, it has been noted that in addition to weapons per se, we supplied a lot of "dual use" equipment that could (and later did) supply a war effort - such as main frame computers, helicopters, etc. Russ W. Baker, IRAQGATE: The Big One That (Almost) Got Away, Who Chased it -- and Who Didn't. Columbia Journalism Review March 1993.

 

Just what is your argument? He was good then but turned bad? It was the lesser of two evils? 1990 is the only year that matters? Do you think the same applies to Saudia Arabia, 2007?

 

 

 

 

[Raindawg]

If you want to try to use the above noted statistic to suggest we didn’t do so, you’re sadly mistaken or lying.

 

Matthew Perkins:

I really don't care which one of you has the more accurate assessment here, but don't suggest that someone is lying unless you have evidence to strongly suggest it. You can disagree with him, question his statistics or whatever, but the speculation of devious intent is really inappropriate.

 

[mattp]

Matthew Perkins:

I really don't care which one of you has the more accurate assessment here, but don't suggest that someone is lying unless you have evidence to strongly suggest it. You can disagree with him, question his statistics or whatever, but the speculation of devious intent is really inappropriate.

 

Don Ryan:

you have dragged my name into many threads where I was not an active participant or where names were otherwise not used, and you routinely attack people by name while posting anonymously. If you want, I can return the favor by following you around this website, adding your real name at every post you make. Or should I propose we simply change your screen name to "Don Ryan?"

 

JayB knows what he was doing, he is smart, and he is perfectly capable of firing back on his own. He doesn't resort to the kind of character attack, innuendo, and clown pictures that you find so entertaining.

[Raindawg]

Don Ryan:

you have dragged my name into many threads where I was not an active participant or where names were otherwise not used, and you routinely attack people by name while posting anonymously.

 

We've already been through this. Is your name not mattp, Matthew Perkins (which everybody knows), or is this the secret avatar name you're hiding behind to say naughty things? I'm calling you out because you are suggesting that someone might be lying, which I consider to be a serious matter.

 

[by the way, how many are the "many threads" that you claim I have drug you into by name...I remember one in particular and if I recall, I apologized for calling you something like "M. Perkins" or "Mr. Perkins" because you didn't like being pointed out ins such a way. After your big call for transparency in the "bolt wars" topic, I'm surprised you're even complaining.]

 

If you want, I can return the favor by following you around this website, adding your real name at every post you make.

 

Is this a special moderator's trick you get to do?

 

Or should I propose we simply change your screen name to "Don Ryan?"

 

As I've said before, make that a policy for everyone and I'm on-board.

 

- Don Ryan, but you can call me "Raindawg"

[JayB]

Matthew Perkins:

I really don't care which one of you has the more accurate assessment here, but don't suggest that someone is lying unless you have evidence to strongly suggest it. You can disagree with him, question his statistics or whatever, but the speculation of devious intent is really inappropriate.

 

Don Ryan:

you have dragged my name into many threads where I was not an active participant or where names were otherwise not used, and you routinely attack people by name while posting anonymously. If you want, I can return the favor by following you around this website, adding your real name at every post you make. Or should I propose we simply change your screen name to "Don Ryan?"

 

JayB knows what he was doing, he is smart, and he is perfectly capable of firing back on his own. He doesn't resort to the kind of character attack, innuendo, and clown pictures that you find so entertaining.

 

Those statistics are cumulative for arms purchases between 1973 and 1990, but anyone who observed the weaponry that Iraq put out in the field in the first Gulf War would have noted the fact that everything from their aircraft, to their artillery, to the weapons that their infantrymen carried were not of US origin.

 

There's no question that the US sided with Iraq in the war against Iran, but the nature and extent of the support needs to be viewed in light of the support provided by Russia, China, France, and other weapons powers - and doing so will not support the conclusion that the US "armed" Iraq. As for the other claims, the nature of the materials that US corporations exported to Iraq under license from the commerce department are an odd means of supporting the notion that the US was actively engaged in a clandestine program to provide Iraq with chemical and biological weapons since:

 

-Providing them with the materials through covert means would be much more efficient if the objective was to provide them with weapons that would impact developments on the battlefield. Translating precursors into functional weapons isn't trivial, and can take several years to develop this capacity, by which time the war could have been lost and the materials could have conceivably fallen into the hands of the Iranians.

 

-Exporting them to Iraq via publicly searchable export licenses granted by the Department of commerce is hardly the conduct one would expect for a covert program of this magnitude.

 

-Some of the bacterial strains and other pathogens cited in the reports were provided by *The Centers for Disease Control* and again, shipments were part of a public record. Unless you are suggesting that the physicians and the scientists at the CDC were engaged in a clandestine program to provide biological weapons to Iraq - then you may wish to reconsider this claim.

 

Et - it hardly needs to be said - cetera.

 

Here's more from your Wikipedia reference:

 

"n December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. [12]

 

By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003. [13][14]

 

On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic" (meaning disease producing), "toxigenic" (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[15]

 

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

 

 

To answer your question, though, I do think that supporting Iraq against Iraq was the right call to make at the time, as was furnishing Arms to the Afghanis against the Soviets - but I don't have the time to argue those points at length tonight.

[Dechristo]

pwned

[mattp]

To answer your question, though, I do think that supporting Iraq against Iraq was the right call to make at the time, as was furnishing Arms to the Afghanis against the Soviets - but I don't have the time to argue those points at length tonight.

 

That, of course, WAS my question. I'm not really sure what our options were, or how great the perceived threat we sought to offset really was in either case, but but in both cases we later found these parties acting against our interests and found the need to take them out. Certainly, the history of our involvement with and manipulation of other countries to "offset" or "contain" their neighbor's power in what are sometimes referred to as "proxy wars," or our shoring up ghastly regimes who were friendly to some American business interest, or removing one that we deem offensive, has blown up in our face more than once.

 

In the current situation, do you see any potential for this to happen with Saudi Arabia?

[high_on_rock]

would it cause to wide of a thread drift for someone to educate me as to why the soviets invaded Afganistan in the first place? This is a hole in my knowledge.

[Crux]

Back in the day, the official Soviet propaganda stated the reason was to overthrow the tribal rule that was keeping the Afghans in the dark ages. The political rationale given by the Soviets when they invaded was that they'd been requested to honor a treaty obligation and intervene on behalf of the government in Kabul that was about to be overrun -- by what is now known as the Taliban. As everybody knows now, the forced occupation proved to be a military disaster, especially once the Bin Laden types were armed by the United States with the most effective small arms firepower available, including anti-aircraft weaponry.