StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Or at least so we've been told by everyone. I wonder how Colonel Ritter feels about his bank account now.

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?P ... q&ID=SA402

They're probably left overs from the Iran - Iraq war in the 80s. You know, the one America paid for.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:They're probably left overs from the Iran - Iraq war in the 80s. You know, the one America paid for.

Which Iraq under treaty was supposed to have destroyed. Irregardless of when they're from they're a violation of treaty and casus belli.

Also, just where do you get the idea that the USA paid specifically for chemical weapons in the Iraqi arsenal? We obviously did support them, but their chemical weapons stock was built up from plants built largely with German and French assistance.

(And I'm curious to hear any proofs that we aided them specifically in gaining chemical weapons, even financially - At least with specific intent to do so.)

For instance, there's this claim that we "armed" Iraq - And yet the Iraqi army never had any US equipment. Our primary assistance was in the form of intelligence (particularly satellite photographs) during the Iran-Iraq War. Their weapons came almost entirely from France and Russia.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: For instance, there's this claim that we "armed" Iraq - And yet the Iraqi army never had any US equipment. Our primary assistance was in the form of intelligence (particularly satellite photographs) during the Iran-Iraq War. Their weapons came almost entirely from France and Russia.

The bulk of their arsenal is from the Soviet Union.The USA supplied them some equipment,for example some air defense related systems (with self destructing chips included btw).I do not think that the USA supplied them a chemical capability.If this happened it was certainly dual purpose equipment.Certainly the USA did not give a damn shit about Iraqui WMD programs at the time.Apparently gasing the iranians and the Kurds was not considered a bad thing at the time...

Admiral Piett wrote:
The bulk of their arsenal is from the Soviet Union.The USA supplied them some equipment,for example some air defense related systems (with self destructing chips included btw).I do not think that the USA supplied them a chemical capability.If this happened it was certainly dual purpose equipment.Certainly the USA did not give a damn shit about Iraqui WMD programs at the time.Apparently gasing the iranians and the Kurds was not considered a bad thing at the time...

Well, have you ever seen a horribly burned person? Considered the sort of agony they can endure? Or the maiming possible from purely conventional weapons?

I don't think chemicals, or even nukes, necessarily make war more awful. Though in the case of nukes they do make it more destructive, by packing in that flight of strategic bombers into a single casing.

Biological weapons are what I utterly abhor, and Saddam's bio-capability in regard to smallpox is something I'd take a thousand times more seriously than nuclear proliferation.

If I recall correctly Iraq received Hawk Missile systems from us.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:If I recall correctly Iraq received Hawk Missile systems from us.

No, but we did give Iran some and part for what they already had via Isreal as part of a deal I'm sure everyone knows of. Iraq also picked up HAWK and HAWK-I parts from several other countries.

Iraq never got anything that actually shoots from America. France, the USSR, China and Brazil supplied 95% of their weapons. The UK, Chile and a few others made up the rest. They did buy some computer equipment from America though.

There chemical capability came primarily from West Germany.

Are you sure? Wasnt it part of the whole Iran-Contra affair ? Or am I thinking of something else? Er..wait mabye Im thinking of Arms for Hostages? I dunno. Im still half asleep.


--- EDIT. My bad. Im thinking of Iran and not Iraq. Im gonna go get some caffine.

You should have been able to guess why "Iran-Contra" had little to do with Iraq

You should have been able to guess why "Iran-Contra" had little to do with Iraq

Im not the most coherent person when I first wake up.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Admiral Piett wrote:
The bulk of their arsenal is from the Soviet Union.The USA supplied them some equipment,for example some air defense related systems (with self destructing chips included btw).I do not think that the USA supplied them a chemical capability.If this happened it was certainly dual purpose equipment.Certainly the USA did not give a damn shit about Iraqui WMD programs at the time.Apparently gasing the iranians and the Kurds was not considered a bad thing at the time...

Well, have you ever seen a horribly burned person? Considered the sort of agony they can endure? Or the maiming possible from purely conventional weapons?

I don't think chemicals, or even nukes, necessarily make war more awful. Though in the case of nukes they do make it more destructive, by packing in that flight of strategic bombers into a single casing.

Biological weapons are what I utterly abhor, and Saddam's bio-capability in regard to smallpox is something I'd take a thousand times more seriously than nuclear proliferation.

I've always thought of nukes as just a bigger, more effective bomb. I've gotten into a lot of strange arguments cuz of that. I think the point of wmd and their limitations is that they're indiscriminate, more so then conventional weapons. supposedly.