our contribution to the iraqi chemical and boilogical stockpile was significant. also, the american government and the cia chose saddam and placed him into power thinking that he would be a "stablizing" force to the region. indeed he was that up until he tried to annex a much smaller nation, after getting the ok from america of course.
no we didn't sell him weapons, but that does not change the fact that the cia were the ones who decide he would be a "stabilizing force" in the middle east. the fact is that he was selected and put in power by the americans not the russians, and not anyone else.
we didn't give him weapons because he didn't need them. the.46% of the massive amounts of weapons (keep in mind that the %s reported would include ammunition as well as the weapons themselves so it's hard to actually estimate how many weapons systems anyone sold to iraq) that we did supply him were mostly biological and chemical in nature. that's why we knew he had biological and chemical weapons, because we gave them to him.
if you look at things in terms of the politics it's pretty easy to see why we are in iraq (again) and why the french, germans, and russians opposed both military actions. the reason is oil. france, germany, and rusia all had huge oil contracts with the iraqi gov't. which they stood to lose should the gov't be no more.
how did they get those contracts? by bidding for them the same way anyone else does. the interesting part is that even though american and british companies gave more competitive bids, saddam awarded the contract to the other nations. this was an obvious slap in the face after the first gulf war and u.n. sanctions. even more interesting is the fact that foreign nations aren't getting any of the new oil contracts... what we can't buy we take buy force right and buy at a cheaper price. cheaper for the american oil companies that is, not for america.
what i'd call laughable is using a % spanned across 29 years with no account for the changing political climates over that vast period of time, which also surely contains the amount of ammunition imported, to defend an argument.
i don't feel compelled to list sources as no source was given for the % data, however, most of this can be easily found on the history channel (it's the best on tv and i watch it all the time) and in various news articles.
Slashdot Mirror
our contribution to the iraqi chemical and boilogical stockpile was significant. also, the american government and the cia chose saddam and placed him into power thinking that he would be a "stablizing" force to the region. indeed he was that up until he tried to annex a much smaller nation, after getting the ok from america of course.
no we didn't sell him weapons, but that does not change the fact that the cia were the ones who decide he would be a "stabilizing force" in the middle east. the fact is that he was selected and put in power by the americans not the russians, and not anyone else.
.46% of the massive amounts of weapons (keep in mind that the %s reported would include ammunition as well as the weapons themselves so it's hard to actually estimate how many weapons systems anyone sold to iraq) that we did supply him were mostly biological and chemical in nature. that's why we knew he had biological and chemical weapons, because we gave them to him.
we didn't give him weapons because he didn't need them. the
if you look at things in terms of the politics it's pretty easy to see why we are in iraq (again) and why the french, germans, and russians opposed both military actions. the reason is oil. france, germany, and rusia all had huge oil contracts with the iraqi gov't. which they stood to lose should the gov't be no more.
how did they get those contracts? by bidding for them the same way anyone else does. the interesting part is that even though american and british companies gave more competitive bids, saddam awarded the contract to the other nations. this was an obvious slap in the face after the first gulf war and u.n. sanctions. even more interesting is the fact that foreign nations aren't getting any of the new oil contracts... what we can't buy we take buy force right and buy at a cheaper price. cheaper for the american oil companies that is, not for america.
what i'd call laughable is using a % spanned across 29 years with no account for the changing political climates over that vast period of time, which also surely contains the amount of ammunition imported, to defend an argument.
i don't feel compelled to list sources as no source was given for the % data, however, most of this can be easily found on the history channel (it's the best on tv and i watch it all the time) and in various news articles.