Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Iraq war (Read 7854 times)
|
|
rdeacon
|
No, it’s disturbing that you think childish quips are a legitimate form of debate. That's not what I think. I think the most childish part of this debate so far has been your insistance that my strikethrough humor is so out of sorts. Let it go. We’re talking about the culturing of simple, household bacteria that grow easily. The agents used in biological warfare do not culture as easily as things like e. coli, and the weaponization process is extremely complex. Not to mention that it takes more than a few pounds to do anything, as a weapon. Now Saddam is too inept to weaponize a biological agent? No, you’re arguing that the particular phraseology used by the author is critical, and your claims are not sourced with quotes. And the Washington Post is not a legitimate source, in any case. Their reporting is of tabloid quality. Check their article, it's sourced as well. No, they cannot. You must take them through several chemical reactions, first. It's not crucial to my argument, you're the one who said it. Did we, now? It’s obviously impossible that anyone would want pesticides to protect crops, eh? Re-read my post. I was talking about the mustard gas. A) Helicopters are not weapons. And tanks aren't weapons either, their turrets are. This is a stupid rhetorical argument, helicopters traded from one military to another are a military arms deal. B) You want to quote what it says in that report? That little deal about “civilian use?â€
I never said the federal government doesn't lie. We were declared neutral and unable to give Saddam military assistance. Call something for "civilian use", even if it's a fleet of military helicopters, and you get to make the deal. You should read up on our relationship with Iraq in the early 80's. Not a healthy one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
You’ll have to specify in more detail what “past occupation†might mean.
from an hour ago to the time US troops set foot in Iraq. US eliminated the regieme which governed/controlled Iraq you mean the US eliminated the regime they put in power in the name of democracy - right? Much as I dislike dictatorships, they do a remarkable job of keeping various factions under control. the purpose of US support of Saddam was not controlling internal factions but rather to counter balance Iran which had gone fundamentalist after we put (our puppet) the Shah in power after deposing the democratically elected Mossadegh because he thumbed his nose at US corporate interests. the fact remains that long-standing tensions are kept under control. So, the US destroyed the one thing holding them in check. Therefore, the US has a responsibility to clean up its own mess the only responsibility the US military has is to DEFEND this country. the question then becomes - are we furthering that goal or not? I say the continued occupation - which was justified because they were suppose to have weapons that could threaten the US main land and we now know was a blantant lie - is now being used to "bring democracy to the middle east" via the barrel of a gun (a classic bait and switch tactic) has never EVER worked and in the long run will hurt our goal as it is uniting the arab world against us. I view it as a far better alternative than simply walking away better for who? the Iraqis? the corporations? our national security? which would work with the Iraqis to secure their nation from whom? I don’t know whether choosing the lesser of available evils qualifies as “support,†but there you have it. you have to define what the other "evil" is... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lorrey
|
Well over 1500 of our military- men and women who joined to DEFEND their land- have been sacrificed for absolutely jackshit, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on a totally worthless effort to "free" a nation of primitive savages who want to transform it into a goddamned Islamic theocracy, an.. Islamocracy, if you will.
This is an incredibly ignorant and racist statement that demonstrates the typical provincialism of the nationalist libertarian faction and their bunkertarian extremist priests of litmus test purity. They are, at heart, racists, who do not think that the individual liberties of anyone who is not a trailer-trash-American is worth getting in a fuss about. Every one of those 1500 Americans who died were VOLUNTEERS. Not a single one was drafted, so despite your echoing back to the Libertarian Party origins of anti-Vietnam protesting, you can't claim the same arguments. Every volunteer knew the risks and accepted them. Furthermore, despite what you may think, they were executing a strategy in the 'war on terror', one known as the 'bug zapper' defense. You don't put your bug zapper right next to your patio, you put in the far corner of your yard, so the bugs are attracted to that point where they will get killed, not to your patio. The US military did the same function in Iraq, attracting US haters from around the muslim world to come and attack them there, rather than attacking US civilians here in the US. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
Every one of those 1500 Americans who died were VOLUNTEERS that died based on a known lie that the Iraqi's had WMD that could threaten the US main land. now we are there based on a bait and switch tactic of bring democracy to the middle east via the end of a gun. they were executing a strategy in the 'war on terror' another bait and switch - oh great! Mike - you can't have a war on terror as terror is a tactic and will turn out about as effective as the war on drugs. are you for the war on drugs too? should we install a few bug zappers in South America too? This is an incredibly ignorant and racist statement that demonstrates the typical provincialism of the nationalist libertarian faction and their bunkertarian extremist priests of litmus test purity and Mike uses the term "racists" to label anyone who believes that liberty around the world is important concept but calls into question whether or not it can be delivered to someone like a commodity via the barrel of a gun who have never historically had any indigenous institutions to support it backed by US corporate interests. known as the 'bug zapper' defense another bait and switch... could the military please change their recruiting TV commercial to the "bug zapper" theme so that the parents of these 18 year olds can understand that their children are being used as cannon fodder for US empire building purposes? so despite your echoing back to the Libertarian Party origins of anti-Vietnam protesting, you can't claim the same arguments Mike - the modern libertarian (small l) movement (not party) started in the 1950's when the "old right" conservatives split into neo-cons and paleo-cons over Buckley's insistence that we support big government at home to fight communism abroad and now they (and apparently you) are in bed with former Trotskeyites who are still pushing for world revolution under the banner of democracy but in my eyes are just furthering empire which is what the "old right" stood up for against FDR entry into WWII. sleep tight...don't let the bed BUGS bite! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2005, 11:22:22 am by Greenbacks »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lorrey
|
You make a lot of assumptions. That I believe that all human beings are naturally endowed with inalienable rights, and that it is morally unjustifiable to say that the rights of one man are worth defending while anothers is not simply because one lives on one side of a fictional line in the sand and the other lives on the other side, or because one is a christian-American while the other is a, to quote Nick "brutal savage goddam-islamist", or because one persion is a bunkertarian-American and the other is an Iraqi Kurd, in no way makes me any sort of Trotskyist, neo-con, or other sort of conservative. I in no way support the establishment of any sort of empire, as the idea of an empire of liberty is an oxymoron.
Conversely YOU, on the other hand, display the sort of realpolitik corruption of principles in that you are perfectly willing to tolerate petty totalitarians oppressing your fellow man so long as they stay in their own country and serve Americas interests (the sort that JFK called "our son of a bitch"), or, worse yet, serve the interests of the Russian empire, or the Chinese empire. It is YOUR atitude which is Imperialist.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
You make a lot of assumptions you too... That I believe that all human beings are naturally endowed with inalienable rights, and that it is morally unjustifiable to say that the rights of one man are worth defending endowed by whom? I in no way support the establishment of any sort of empire, as the idea of an empire of liberty is an oxymoron. then YOU are on the wrong side of the fence & history because that is exactly what you are doing as the US IS an empire today (not becoming one) - the only global empire ever to have been establish on this earth without those benefitting from it actually knowing it. I can assure you though the rest of the world knows and rather than using the founding ideals of this country to inspire others around the world to free themselves from tyranny we are actually CREATING the tyranny that we supposedly despise. you are perfectly willing to tolerate petty totalitarians oppressing your fellow man so long as they stay in their own country and serve Americas interests no I say we should never have put them inplace at all to futher our empire as it CREATES a backlash against the principles that we supposedly are adhering to and promoting... or, worse yet, serve the interests of the Russian empire, or the Chinese empire. such as? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2005, 01:03:17 pm by Greenbacks »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lorrey
|
You make a lot of assumptions you too... That I believe that all human beings are naturally endowed with inalienable rights, and that it is morally unjustifiable to say that the rights of one man are worth defending while those of other men are not endowed by whom? "By nature", to quote a founding father. The human animal is an evolved creature, subject to evolution, neural network processing, laws of biology, chemistry, and physics which make this universe and everything in it function. The human animal's natural rights are grounded in the objective truth of reality. I realize that you likely are some sort of post-modernist moral relativist. I in no way support the establishment of any sort of empire, as the idea of an empire of liberty is an oxymoron. then YOU are on the wrong side of the fence & history because that is exactly what you are doing as the US IS an empire today (not becoming one) - the only global empire ever to have been establish on this earth without those benefitting from it actually knowing it. I can assure you though the rest of the world knows and rather than using the founding ideals of this country to inspire others around the world to free themselves from tyranny we are actually CREATING the tyranny that we supposedly despise. Part of the rest of the world 'knows' this because they are prone to listen to paranoid schizophrenics and to act on their advice all too willingly without any rational introspection or critical analysis. you are perfectly willing to tolerate petty totalitarians oppressing your fellow man so long as they stay in their own country and serve Americas interests no I say we should never have put them inplace at all to futher our empire as it CREATES a backlash against the principles that we supposedly are adhering to and promoting... Who says we put them all in place? Saddam was a soviet creature, the Ayatollahs were a French, and North Korea is a Chinese construction. or, worse yet, serve the interests of the Russian empire, or the Chinese empire. such as? Such as the World Workers Party/IWW and its Stalinist-Maoist cadres, which controlls ANSWER and a number of other left-wing groups due to an entryist campaign they've waged over the past decade. They control Indymedia, among other left wing propaganda outlets that folks like you sop up like nectar. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
"By nature", to quote a founding father I believe it was "endowed by our creator" but I may be wrong can you cite which founding father said "nature" I realize that you likely are some sort of post-modernist moral relativist. actually the Straussians who you are in bed with are the moral relativists... please see reference to the"noble lie"...you've been duped Mike! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Straussexcerpt: Strauss, neither a liberal nor a democrat, admired the moralism of classical political philosophers such as Plato. He disparaged modern liberalism for its giving primacy to individual liberty at the expense of social cohesion. A fundamental concept in Strauss's political ideology is the "Straussian text." This is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. Because Strauss holds that philosophy is dangerous—it calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends—it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men's attachment to their societies. Strauss not only believed that the great philosophers of classical antiquity wrote Straussian texts, he approved of this. It represented a kind of class system of the intellect, paralleling those which governed the relationships between rulers and ruled, owners and workers, creators and audiences, which exist in politics, economics, and culture. Strauss believed that modern political philosophy tried to abolish this distinction, and he considered it as a kind of "Bolshevism" of the mind. Strauss argued that contemporary liberalism was the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, as practiced in the advanced nations of the Western world in the 20th century. He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society. As Strauss saw it, "good politicians" need to reassert the absolute moral values that unite society and this would overcome the moral relativism that liberalism had created. To do so, they needed to propagate myths necessary to give ordinary people meaning and purpose as to ensure a stable society. Modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, and Strauss wanted government to take a more active role in promoting morality. Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical in Strauss's view because the populace needs to be led; they need strong rulers to tell them what is good for them.Part of the rest of the world 'knows' this because they are prone to listen to paranoid schizophrenics and to act on their advice all too willingly without any rational introspection or critical analysis. you've been duped Mike by the dupers! Saddam was a soviet creature really? it is widely known that his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim who had become to friendly with the soviets. you've been duped by the dupers Mike - that makes you a dupee... They control Indymedia, among other left wing propaganda outlets that folks like you sop up like nectar. spoken like a real super duper Mike! what would Murray Rothbard think of this libertarian movement today as apologists for US empire within the ranks of the LPNH itself? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Green
|
Such as the World Workers Party/IWW and its Stalinist-Maoist cadres, which controlls ANSWER and a number of other left-wing groups due to an entryist campaign they've waged over the past decade. They control Indymedia, among other left wing propaganda outlets that folks like you sop up like nectar.
The IWW and World Workers Party have no connection to one another. The IWW are anarcho-syndicalists, and I am planning on joining the group since I've been to many of their local events lately. This year is their 100th anniversary (founded in 1905) so they predate Leninism by more than a decade. IndyMedia is not controlled by any one group. It is open-source, and comes out of the anti-corporate-globalization protests columinating in Seattle 1999, which was largely Anarchists and other non-authoritarian left-wingers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
That's not what I think. I think the most childish part of this debate so far has been your insistance that my strikethrough humor is so out of sorts. Let it go. No. If it were an isolated incident, it might be worth ignoring. But your whole tone here has been similar. Now Saddam is too inept to weaponize a biological agent? Not without massive help. And I’m not aware of anyone ever demonstrating there to be even a shadow of a possibility that such help came from the US government, as opposed to, or, maybe the Russians... Check their article, it's sourced as well. No. Post the actual sources, yourself, if you feel they have merit. It's not crucial to my argument, you're the one who said it. Ah, but it is. You’ve claimed that raw chemicals are “weapons ready,†when they clearly are not. Re-read my post. I was talking about the mustard gas. Sigh... Mustard gas is also often produced using certain pesticides as precursors. The precursors for mustard gas (HD) are common chemicals (such a hydrochloric acid and thiodiglycol, just to name two), all of which have numerous legitimate, non-weapon-related uses. Thiodiglycol, for example, is used in pesticide production, plastics production, textile dyeing, paint production, and a variety of other industrial uses. And tanks aren't weapons either, their turrets are. This is a stupid rhetorical argument, helicopters traded from one military to another are a military arms deal. Of course, Bell selling 214ST’s (just to take one of your examples) to Iraqi civilians clearly is “one military to another.â€:  I never said the federal government doesn't lie. We were declared neutral and unable to give Saddam military assistance. Call something for "civilian use", even if it's a fleet of military helicopters, and you get to make the deal. You should read up on our relationship with Iraq in the early 80's. Not a healthy one. Yeah, like those Bell 214ST’s. They are commonly used to support oil rigs, so clearly Iraq could not possibly have had civilian use for them, because we all know that Iraq is devoid of oil...  from an hour ago to the time US troops set foot in Iraq. That includes the post-war occupation, so I’ve already addressed that. you mean the US eliminated the regime they put in power in the name of democracy - right? No, the US did not put Saddam in power. The US helped him stay in power. the purpose of US support of Saddam was not controlling internal factions but rather to counter balance Iran... I didn’t make any claims as to why the US supported Saddam’s regieme. I stated that dictatorships do control internal factionalism. Totally unrelated to US support for Saddam... the only responsibility the US military has is to DEFEND this country.
the question then becomes - are we furthering that goal or not? No, any person is responsible for the direct results of his actions, not just the actions themselves. What sort of person would go in, destroy the government of Iraq, and then just say “see you later, if you manage to survive the coming chaos and fascism� I say the continued occupation - which was justified because they were suppose to have weapons that could threaten the US main land and we now know was a blantant lie I don’t know any such thing. A) If someone is honestly mistaken, then he has not lied. To lie requires that you make a statement which you know at the time to be false, and do so with the intent to deceive. If both of those conditions are not met, then no lie has been told. B) Even if you could somehow read Bush’s mind and prove that he did not have a reasonable level of certainty that such weapons were under Saddam’s control (which would be unlikely, seeing as all the major powers believed him to have them), that still would not make it “blatant,†since he very well might have had them. And they very well might still be in Iraq, or one of the neighboring countries. I don’t know that they are, but I don’t know that they are not, either. ...is now being used to "bring democracy to the middle east" via the barrel of a gun (a classic bait and switch tactic) has never EVER worked and in the long run will hurt our goal as it is uniting the arab world against us. Regardless, I have never claimed that it was a perfect situation. better for who?
the Iraqis?
the corporations?
our national security? All three, most likely. from whom? You want a list? I don’t think we have room. Start off with members of the Ba’ath Party, looking to regain power. Then add some foreign agitators who have a whole slew of different causes. Toss in some theocrats who want to oppress anyone who does not meet up with their strict standards. And then consider some neighboring countries who have long-standing grudges. you have to define what the other "evil" is... There isn’t just one. But let’s consider one: certain groups wish to re-establish the totalitarian regieme that existed under Saddam. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
No, the US did not put Saddam in power. The US helped him stay in power.
Saddam Hussein's first contacts with U.S. intelligence dating back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al- Karim Qasim. The attack failed and Saddam fled to Egypt where he continued on the CIA payroll. Qasim was eventually killed in '63 and Saddam presided over the mass killings of suspected communists names & intelligence supplied by the CIA. What sort of person would go in, destroy the government of Iraq, and then just say “see you later, if you manage to survive the coming chaos and fascism�
essentially we were serving a search warrant...when you do that sometimes things get broken. but it was based on a lie - we knew there were no WMD before we went. I don’t know any such thing.
A) If someone is honestly mistaken, then he has not lied. To lie requires that you make a statement which you know at the time to be false, and do so with the intent to deceive. If both of those conditions are not met, then no lie has been told.
B) Even if you could somehow read Bush’s mind and prove that he did not have a reasonable level of certainty that such weapons were under Saddam’s control (which would be unlikely, seeing as all the major powers believed him to have them), that still would not make it “blatant,†since he very well might have had them. And they very well might still be in Iraq, or one of the neighboring countries. I don’t know that they are, but I don’t know that they are not, either.
Joe - have you read the papers recently about the British intelligence's "smoking gun"  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511they were fixing the policy around the desired end result - removing Saddam...we were duped and apparently you still are. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Saddam Hussein's first contacts with U.S. intelligence dating back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al- Karim Qasim.
The attack failed and Saddam fled to Egypt where he continued on the CIA payroll. Qasim was eventually killed in '63 and Saddam presided over the mass killings of suspected communists names & intelligence supplied by the CIA. Let’s suppose that this is 100% accurate, just for the sake of discussion. It still doesn’t say that we put him in power. It may say that we aided him, but “put him in power†has clear connotations of the actor being either the sole supporter, or the single most important supporter. essentially we were serving a search warrant...when you do that sometimes things get broken. No, this was not a single-issue campaign. Regardless of whether any of us agree with it or not, Bush made it clear that there were several issues that he felt justified the invasion. Weapons were one. Saddam’s human rights record was another. And Saddam’s support for terrorists was a third. Joe - have you read the papers recently about the British intelligence's "smoking gun" http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511they were fixing the policy around the desired end result - removing Saddam... Nothing in that says that the intelligence didn’t say that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The most that the actual quotes in there say is that a certain degree of “spin†was applied. And there’s not likely a politician alive who doesn’t engage in some degree of spin... we were duped and apparently you still are. No, I have an open mind. I don’t just say “oh, some fool reporter says that Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, so I’ll just blindly believe him without a shred of evidence.†I know that Saddam had such weapons at one point, since he killed quite a number of people with them. I’ve seen no evidence to support their destruction at some time after that. Therefore, there is no reason for a rational person such as myself to simply assume that they no longer exist. I don’t assume that they certainly do exist, either. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
rdeacon
|
Odd, my notification didn't go off about this one. No. If it were an isolated incident, it might be worth ignoring. But your whole tone here has been similar. Interesting, as I establish my tone based on the attitude of the person I'm debating. Not without massive help. And I’m not aware of anyone ever demonstrating there to be even a shadow of a possibility that such help came from the US government, as opposed to, or, maybe the Russians... Quite an assumption. No. Post the actual sources, yourself, if you feel they have merit. Fine, I'll drop the point, I left this thread sitting for a few too many days for me to have much enthusiasm left for it. Ah, but it is. You’ve claimed that raw chemicals are “weapons ready,†when they clearly are not. I've never claimed that raw chemicals are weapons ready. Mustard gas is also often produced using certain pesticides as precursors. Yes, and the report didn't say that Saddam Hussein would be producing pesticides that incidentally would lead to the production of mustard gas. His purpose was the production of mustard gas. Of course, Bell selling 214ST’s (just to take one of your examples) to Iraqi civilians clearly is “one military to another.†Civilians? Yeah, like those Bell 214ST’s. They are commonly used to support oil rigs, so clearly Iraq could not possibly have had civilian use for them, because we all know that Iraq is devoid of oil. And dynamite has many legitimate uses in construction and mining, but if i sell it to Tim McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden you have every right to be suspicious about where it's going to end up. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 26, 2005, 09:48:34 am by rdeacon »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
No. If it were an isolated incident, it might be worth ignoring. But your whole tone here has been similar. Interesting, as I establish my tone based on the attitude of the person I'm debating. You’re posting links to pure propaganda, and you have the gall to question others’ tone? Not without massive help. And I’m not aware of anyone ever demonstrating there to be even a shadow of a possibility that such help came from the US government, as opposed to, or, maybe the Russians... Quite an assumption. Is it? I don’t even see an assumption in there. I've never claimed that raw chemicals are weapons ready. Yes, you did. Post #17. Yes, and the report didn't say that Saddam Hussein would be producing pesticides that incidentally would lead to the production of mustard gas. His purpose was the production of mustard gas. The particular phraseology chosen by a writer at The Washington Post is not “proof.†The Washington Post is hardly a bastion of impartiality or journalistic integrity. If they feel they can get more “sensationalism†by using weighted phrases, they will. Of course, Bell selling 214ST’s (just to take one of your examples) to Iraqi civilians clearly is “one military to another.†Civilians? What’s the question? According to your own source, they were sold pursuant to a civilian contract, and only later “appropriated†by Saddam’s government. Yeah, like those Bell 214ST’s. They are commonly used to support oil rigs, so clearly Iraq could not possibly have had civilian use for them, because we all know that Iraq is devoid of oil. And dynamite has many legitimate uses in construction and mining, but if i sell it to Tim McVeigh or Osama Bin Laden you have every right to be suspicious about where it's going to end up. We’re not talking an attack helicopter. We’re talking a heavy-lift transport. That’s more along the lines of wire (which could possibly be used to wire up a charge, or just to install a phone jack) than dynamite. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
rdeacon
|
You’re posting links to pure propaganda, and you have the gall to question others’ tone? Government reports are "pure propaganda"? Oh wait, I often think that too. Is it? I don’t even see an assumption in there. Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition Yes, you did. Post #17. I never said raw chemicals are weapons ready. I said that we sold Saddam weapons ready agents because we sold him every aspect needed to deploy them - hence the gun, bullets, and instruction analogy. The particular phraseology chosen by a writer at The Washington Post is not “proof.â€Â The Washington Post is hardly a bastion of impartiality or journalistic integrity. If they feel they can get more “sensationalism†by using weighted phrases, they will. You're misattributing my sources. The Reigel Report cited the mustard gas sale, not the media article. What’s the question? According to your own source, they were sold pursuant to a civilian contract, and only later “appropriated†by Saddam’s government. Please point this out to me, because I must have missed it. We’re not talking an attack helicopter. We’re talking a heavy-lift transport. That’s more along the lines of wire (which could possibly be used to wire up a charge, or just to install a phone jack) than dynamite. It need not be a traditional "attack" helicopter to be classified as double use. Bell helicopters are heavy-lift, but they serve a variety of functions, including deployment of everything from Agent Orange and other chemical weapons to missiles. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
