I think some of you misinterpret Endymon32. I've taken the liberty of breaking up the discussion part of his post into smaller parts -- if one was speeding past the list, it would be easy to miss this section.
Quote:
Originally posted by Endymon32
Clearly, the vast majority of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union and other Communist nations. Behind them, however, it's largely European countries that armed Iraq. The best I can tell, the U.S. provided Iraq with some spare parts for systems Iraq acquired elsewhere, relatively trivial support compared with even what France provided (much less the Soviets).
Even on the level of parts and logistical support, America's contribution was small compared with that supplied by those nations. Hysterical reports to the contrary of how America armed Saddam are belied by the facts of Iraq's TO&E on the eve of the Gulf War.
Therefore, it is deceptive to the point of dishonesty for anyone - especially anyone from Europe - to say America armed Iraq. People are only able to get away with this like they do with inflated civilian casualty figures for the Afghanistan campaign - feeding off of people's ignorance. The ignorant then take the accusation at face value and pass it on.
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia.
|
The point here as I see it is not that America did not arm Iraq; rather, our contributions are miniscule compared to the contributions of others. It does not, in any way, excuse the US. I believe Endymon32 means to make the point that most of Iraq's weapons are not of American origin, and while the statement "America armed Iraq" is partially true, it is like saying that the Augusta National Golf Club is diverse because it has a half-dozen minority members.
However, the first sentence of the post, "Let's end this lie that America armed Iraq," is misleading. Actually I find it somewhat humorously ironic, as it is as partially true as "America armed Iraq."
Quote:
Originally posted by SLM3
So, are you saying the US did help arm Iraq? Which story are you going to decide on? I find you keep changing your stance to suit whatever argument you come up with next.
|
In his initial post, Endymon32 includes numbers for how much we sold Iraq; if one's story was "America never helped arm Iraq," it might be better to not include actual monetary amounts. It appears (to me, at least) that Endymon32's story has been rather consistent.
Quote:
Originally posted by SLM3
Your arguments are narrow and therefore useless. Take a step back, look at the big picture, and then make your decisions.
|
Endymon32's point is that the big picture is that the contributions of anti-liberation countries to Iraq's military far outweigh America's contributions. Likely, Iraq's military would not be much different without American equipment.
The narrow (and useless) argument is that America sold something, anything, to Iraq. Therefore, America armed Iraq.
-- Alvin