umm i could have sworn the iraqi's are using AK's and rpg's with t-52's??? hmm we must have gave them that. we armed them but the MAJORITY of the weapons they have and use are soviet made. they fought us with soviet made weapons' date=' thats why it was easy to defeat the iraqi army. part of the reason.[/quote']

 

White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war

 

Julian Borger in Washington

Tuesday December 31, 2002

The London Guardian

 

 

According to an affidavit sworn by Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official during the Reagan Administration, the US “actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required.”

 

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

 

 

 

AND....

 

17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons...

 

One of the companies is Inter national Military Services, a part of the Ministry of Defence, which sold rocket technology to Iraq. The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.

 

The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.

 

In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab.

 

The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter-productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades.

 

 

So we helped them fight Iran by giving them everything.

 

The Saddam Hussein-US intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end on August 2, 1990 when 100,000 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.

 

 

Now, after the first Gulf War, this time it was easy to go in an take on their 'ARMY' and whatever we wanted because they had minimal arms left. Easy oil.

 

NOW - BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group have each won the right to purchase 2 million barrels of Iraqi crude in what industry sources said was the first sale of crude pumped in Iraq since war ended.

 

BP said it planned to ship its oil to the U.S. while Shell refused to say where it expected to sell its crude.

umm i could have sworn the iraqi's are using AK's and rpg's with t-52's??? hmm we must have gave them that. we armed them but the MAJORITY of the weapons they have and use are soviet made. they fought us with soviet made weapons' date=' thats why it was easy to defeat the iraqi army. part of the reason.[/quote']

 

 

do you deny we trained Bin Laden too?

you guys dont read. i didnt deny we gave him weapons. but the weapons he used mostly were SOVIET ones. if i remember correctly we didnt actually trian bin laden himself but the taliban.

the weapons he used mostly were SOVIET ones

 

Yeah, I read....:)

 

I was just pointing out that WE supplied him with weapons.

you guys dont read. i didnt deny we gave him weapons. but the weapons he used mostly were SOVIET ones. if i remember correctly we didnt actually trian bin laden himself but the taliban.

 

 

oooh that makes it all better then.... :rolleyes:

oooh that makes it all better then.... :rolleyes:

 

 

seeing as how the soviets were a far greater threat then the taliban is or will ever be..yeah. we did what we needed to do. we did in ww2 and it worked, so we supported one enemy(taliban) to fight another(soviets). it was a smart move that got the job done.

sure did... it helped bring out economy and the world stock markets to a halt 5 years ago.. thousands of lives gone, and 2 buildings destroyed to the ground. Yeah... thank goodness for the Taliban. :)

It did no such thing. the taliban didnt do this AT ALL. it was alqeada and binladen. the taliban were not responsible for 911. nice try though.

What?? nice try though??

 

 

 

But, you got one thing right...the taliban were not responsible for 9/11.

Taliban ...Al-Queda... whats the difference.... they're all terrorist groups in my opinion.....

the taliban are immaterial to what happened on 911. the only role they played was letting al queada and binladen train in their nation.

Taliban ...Al-Queda... whats the difference.... they're all terrorist groups in my opinion.....

 

the difference. one attacked america the other did not.

the difference. one attacked america the other did not.

 

 

because they haven't been given the opportunity, thats why. But they are still terrorists..... period.

Anyway none of these groups have the scope to do anything major....the next 'attack' that relates significantly to the US will be yet again self inflicted.

There are so many people watching out for the cover up now. 100% more than there were on 9/11.

Just watch....keep your eyes and ears open.

because they haven't been given the opportunity' date=' thats why. But they are still terrorists..... period.[/quote']

 

Yeah so....

Yeah so....

 

 

go back and read....

I did.

its impossible.. isn't it.

no.

It did no such thing. the taliban didnt do this AT ALL. it was alqeada and binladen. the taliban were not responsible for 911. nice try though.

 

So why Invade Afghanistan if it had nothing to do with the Taliban (who ran Afghanistan).

 

So why invade Iraq, if it has nothing to do with 9/11?

 

Freedom?

Democracy?

Oil??

 

 

 

I can say what I want, I live in a country with true freedom. . . . no Patriot's Act here.

So why Invade Afghanistan if it had nothing to do with the Taliban (who ran Afghanistan).

 

So why invade Iraq, if it has nothing to do with 9/11?

 

Freedom?

Democracy?

Oil??

 

 

 

I can say what I want, I live in a country with true freedom. . . . no Patriot's Act here.

 

can I move in with you?? :cry:

So why Invade Afghanistan if it had nothing to do with the Taliban (who ran Afghanistan).

 

So why invade Iraq, if it has nothing to do with 9/11?

 

Freedom?

Democracy?

Oil??

 

 

 

I can say what I want, I live in a country with true freedom. . . . no Patriot's Act here.

 

seem to be forgetting alqueada bases in afghanistan.....thats why.

 

iraq well lets just say it was continuation of the gulf war along with bush going after terrorism. remember bush didnt declare war on alqeada but all terrorist and iraq being a supporter of terrorism LIKE afghansitan. thats is why.

 

oil? we could have bought the oil for a far cheaper price then teh war but i guess its better to spend billions and ruin his political career all to pay more money for oil...yeah thats likelyl

 

NEVER will be a truly free country. but america is one of the closest to it.

NEVER will be a truly free country. but america is one of the closest to it.

 

 

You are joking. YOU think it's free??? IT becomes less free every day....It's becoming a police state. YOU need to get out and look around at really how free it is. (or is not, as the case may be)

out of most the nations of the world. america is one of the most free. we are far from a police state. but as nation go, were are some of the most free people.

Gareth.. he's blinded by God knows what..... its pointless..

 

apparently he agrees with us losing our civil liberties, the Patriot Act, the tapping of innocent people's phone, the 'racial profiling' thats done at our airports and random searches... he agrees with all of this.. OH because its all in the name of 'national security'.............right. The same people who governed over FEMA and we all know what a great job they did during Hurricane Katrina..... but of course.. there was no 'racial bias' there either right??? Those people were just too lazy to get out town... so what if they didn't have cars or means to evacuate..... they were just lazy!!! :rolleyes:

 

but thats neither here nor there.....

 

(note: these views are not what I believe to be truth.. just what I have observed from 'others' posts)