"Russia first."
In the 80s? I thought the USSR was backing Iran then. If not, why is the pecking order material?
I didn't realize you where just talking about the 80s but the Soviets were still selling Iraq weapons then. Perhaps they where not longer well out in front of France and Germany. As for selling to Iran the USSR was selling to just about anyone with money.
The pecking order matters because a lot of people try to claim that we were the main, or at least a major arms supplier for Iraq, or that Iraq was a close ally of ours or that Saddam was an American client. None of which is true.
This might be the worst example of conventional weapons sales to Iraq, but they were not WMD and Iraq could have bought helicopters from lots of other countries. Russia, or even France would not have hesitated to sell them.
You keep making that point like it makes everything okay.
It was ok, if selling weapons to third world countries (or in Iraq's case a third world country with more money because it has oil) is ok. In hindsight it can be argued that it would be better if we had not sold them the weapons, but it really wouldn't have been much better. They would have gotten helicopters anyway. In fact they already had helicopters before we sold some to them and I think they bought more after. Selling weapons to an enemy country is not ok, but Iraq was not an enemy then. If Iraq could not have gotten the weapons from other sources then selling them to Iraq may have been stupid but Iraq could have bought them elsewhere without dificulty. The net practical effect of the sale is that the money went to the US instead of France. There was also a concern that Iran might overrun Iraq, and if the weapon sales helped prevent that then they were not all bad.
Well, then nothing matters.........we should have sold Saddam missiles and nukes since he can probably get them from other places anyway.
He can't easily get nukes from other sources, and long range missiles are 1 - a little harder to get then the weapons we sold him and 2 - against the UN SC resolutions. (which of course where not in place then but we also didn't sell him nukes or long range missiles then). As for selling anti-tank missiles. It probably would have been better had we not sold them but I'm not all broken up about it.
And this guy never got to the chemicals and anthrax we sold Iraq. And I think uranium was on that list as well.
I don't think we sold them chemical weapons or anthrax or enrinched uranium. If we did that would be a bit different then helcopters and trucks.
Are you defending what should be considered rather questionable dealings on the part of the US because they happened under two Rep. regimes, or do you think its unAmerican to criticize American interactions with other nations no matter how nefarious they are.......or is it unAmerican to criticize a Rep. president but its okay to trash a Dem. one?
None of the above.
I just think that some people, perhaps including you make too big of deal of these weapon sales. If you can prove we sold them antrax, nerve gas and enriched uranium then I would have a different opinion.
So please, I would really like to understand the rules you all play under.
To a large extent we all play under different rules, just like you and Al do. You all have different opinions and stress different ideas even if you are often on the same side on some major issues.
Tim |
