Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show

[M.Dancer]

The 20 per cent figure would not include so-called dual use equipment (for example, the Bell helicopters Saddam bought from the U.S. for "crop dusting"- the "crops" turning out to be Iranian trops and Kurds, but hey...). So it would be more accurate to say the west supplied Iraq with 20 per cent of its arms in addition to several billion dollars worth of "dual use" equipment. Of course the very fact that the west was providing Hussein with weapons at all undermines your position.

You enjoy fudging the numbers eh or is basic fact checking too difficult?/?

The helicopters are included, in fact, all dual use is included. Keep trying though, there plenty of tinfoil to wrap those nasty conspiracy theories of yours.

United States Bell 214ST Helicopter 1987-1988 31

United States Hughes-300/TH-55 Light Helicopter 1984 30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq#_note-0

So do your wild claims no include gassing by Iarq from Helicopters?

[M.Dancer]

I see your sputtering has reached its apex, destroying what little semblance of coherence you possesed. Fact is, however, it was not a question of being unprepared. The U.S. led coalition allowed Iraqi trops to operate against the insurgency and allowed the use of helicopter gunships to supress the rebellion. They were also ordered not to intervene or support the rebels (U.S. troops at the time reported turning away Shiite rebels who came to them asking for access to Iraqi army weapons). This is all well documented by multiple sources, not some obscure conspiracy theory. Look it up.

You said the US allowed Saddam to crush the rebellions. I'm still waiting for some evidence (and motive) that shows this was a US Governement policy and not an unintended consequence. Not withstanding that the no fly zones were enforced and the Kurds, while not being able to completely disengage themselves from iraq, acted autonomously from Baghad after the rebellion.

So if they were crushed as your conspiracy claims, why wasn't Saddam able to exert autority of the Kurds?

[M.Dancer]

Well I certainly regret the use of the word "install". It wasn't an installation so much as regularly scheduled maintenance. I stand corrected.

But really. Tinfoil tinfoil tinfoil. Talk about rubbing shit into the ground. I wonder, Dancie-poo, since ad homenim attacks are so necessary to your discussing these matters, would it be possible for you to stick a crowbar in your imagination and pry loose a new one today?

Well when you spout comspiracy theory nonsense, what can you expect? The 3 claims you made are right out of the moonbat handbook, and don't tell me you haven't hear that one in a while.....

[Black Dog]

You enjoy fudging the numbers eh or is basic fact checking too difficult?/?

The helicopters are included, in fact, all dual use is included.

Where does it say all dual use technology is included? But fine, let's say it is. the point remains, the west backed Saddam Hussein. Incidentaly, your own wiki link indicates there's some doubt over the full extent of the arms transfers to Iraq during teh Iran/iraq war:

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

The full extent of these hidden transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.

Keep trying though, there plenty of tinfoil to wrap those nasty conspiracy theories of yours.

What conspiracy theories? I'm talking documented facts.

So do your wild claims no include gassing by Iarq from Helicopters?

??

You said the US allowed Saddam to crush the rebellions. I'm still waiting for some evidence (and motive) that shows this was a US Governement policy and not an unintended consequence.

First the U.S. promoted the rebellion:

"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."-George H. W. Bush radio broadcast to Iraq, February 15, 1991

"Rise to save the homeland from the clutches of dictatorship so that you can devote yourself to avoid the dangers of the continuation of the war and destruction. Honourable sons of the Tigris and Euphrates, at these decisive moments of your life, and while facing the danger of death at the hands of foreign forces, you have no option in order to survive and defend the homeland but put an end to to the dictator and his criminal gang."-Salah Omar al-Ali, exiled member of the Iraqi Baath Party and Revolutionary Command Council, broadcasting over the Voice of Free Iraq, a C.I.A. funded dissident radio station

Then, once the uprisings began, the U.S. clarfied its policy on intervention:

"It would be very difficult for us to hold the coalition together for any particular course of action dealing with internal Iraqi politics, and I don't think, at this point, our writ extends to trying to move inside Iraq."- Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney March 5, 1991, (the same day the United States confirmed the existence of the uprisings)

"There is no move on the [part of] U.S. forces...to let any weapons slip through [to the rebels], or to play any role whatsoever in fomenting or assisting any side."-Major General Martin Brandtner, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 5, 1991

"We don't think that outside powers should be interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."- State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, March 6, 1991

That sets out the policy. And here's how it was applied:

When Saddam Hussein's helicopters strafed rebels into submission after the Persian Gulf war last year, superior US forces did nothing despite President Bush's appeal to Iraqis to overthrow "the dictator."

US commander Norman Schwarzkopf claimed Iraqi ceasefire negotiators "suckered" him, winning his permission for transport fights, then using gunships against Iraqi and Kurdish civilians. But new evidence shows Schwarzkopf himself set no helicopter limits. Other information raises questions about whether he acted in the mistaken belief that the helicopter forces would lead an anti-Saddam coup--and whether such a fatal miscalculation was planted in the minds of the U.S. high command by Iraqi agents.

The new evidence begins with the cease-fire talks' transcript, recently declassified by the Pentagon. Information has also come from veteran Iraqi watchers deeply experienced in Saddam's devious ways. Although further investigation is needed, known facts and informed conjecture suggest that deeper reasons exist than so far known about how the war left Saddam in power despite his defeat.

...

The crucial exchange began when Ahmad told Schwarzkopf, "Helicopter flights sometimes are needed to carry some of the officials, government officials or any members.... needed to be transported from one place to another because the roads and bridges are out."

Schwarzkopf then told Ahmad how to mark helicopters to avoid being shot at.

Ahmad: This has nothing to do with the front line. This is inside Iraq.

Schwarzkopf: As long as it is not over the part we are in, that is absolutely no problem. So we will let the helicopters, and that is a very important point, and I want to make sure that's recorded, that military helicopters can fly over Iraq. Not fighters, not bombers.

Ahmad: So you mean even the helicopters. . . armed in the Iraqi skies can fly. But not the fighters? Because the helicopters are the same. they transfer somebody....

Schwarzkopf: Yeah. I will instruct our Air Force not to shoot at any helicopters that are flying over the territory of Iraq where we are not located. If they must fly over the area we are located in, I prefer that they not be gunships, armed helos, and I would prefer that they have an orange tag on the side--as an extra safety measure.

Ahmad: Not to have any confusion, these will not come to this territory.

Schwarzkopf: Good.

...

As the rebellion in Iraq swelled, US policy toward Saddam's helicopters went through curious changes. After Iraqi gunships attacked the rebels, but not Saddam, the administration eventually tried to restrain them. A US warning was issued on March 17, 1991, that the use of Iraqi helicopters in offensive operations posed a threat to allied forces--formal justification for shshooting them down. But by then other considerations influenced U.S. policy, including the military's apprehension about getting "sucked into" an open-ended involvement in a possible civil war. No explicit US threat was made against the helicopters. The Iraqis continued to fly, although with no certainty that they would not be shot down.

Then US policy shifted; on March 26, the White House announced that Iraqi helicopters would not be shot down. Within 48 hours, this had precipitated panicked flight over the Turkish border by thousands of rebellious Iraqi Kurds.

link

Not withstanding that the no fly zones were enforced and the Kurds, while not being able to completely disengage themselves from iraq, acted autonomously from Baghad after the rebellion.

So if they were crushed as your conspiracy claims, why wasn't Saddam able to exert autority of the Kurds?

It's apparent you've no idea what you're talking about. A basic review of the timeline might help you. The Gulf War officially ended in lte february. The rebellion began in earnest in early March. By late March, the rebellions were done and the flood of refugees prompted the UNSC to pass Security Council Resolution 688 on April 5, 1991, which the U.S. and Britain used as a the basis for adopting the "no-fly" zones you speak of. Saddam, feaering a resumption of hostilities against the coalition if he pressed into the Kurdish zones, withdrew most of his troops in October 1991, but established a blockade with soem 100,000 to 150,000 troos in an attempt to starve out the Kurds. That balance persisted more or less until the 2003 invasion.

Again, all this is recorded in mainstream sources; indeed, I'd go as far to say it's pretty much common knowledge. All your bleating about "tin foil conspiracies" does little to disguise your ignorance of this matter.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

The 20 per cent figure would not include so-called dual use equipment (for example, the Bell helicopters Saddam bought from the U.S. for "crop dusting"- the "crops" turning out to be Iranian trops and Kurds, but hey...).

So do your wild claims no include gassing by Iarq from Helicopters?

??

This new quote feature sucks btw...makes making detailed response tedious

[M.Dancer]

Where does it say all dual use technology is included? But fine, let's say it is.

You are the one who brought up the choppers, the choppers are listed.

[M.Dancer]

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988

1983-88

Soviet Union

57.8%

France

13.2%

China

20.5%

USA

0.8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

[M.Dancer]

By late March, the rebellions were done and the flood of refugees prompted the UNSC to pass Security Council Resolution 688 on April 5, 1991, which the U.S. and Britain used as a the basis for adopting the "no-fly" zones you speak of. Saddam, feaering a resumption of hostilities against the coalition if he pressed into the Kurdish zones, withdrew most of his troops in October 1991, but established a blockade with soem 100,000 to 150,000 troos in an attempt to starve out the Kurds. That balance persisted more or less until the 2003 invasion.

Yet they didn't starve and an autonomous kurd state existed. And also apparently Bush did not allow Saddam to continue his reprisals....

Kind of hard to blockade someone when all the suppies they needed came via Turkey or Iran.....

Iraq's Real Coup: Did Saddam Snooker Shwarzkopf?

So what you are suggesting is it was US governemnet policy that they would get conned by Saddam. Still waiting for the motive.

[Black Dog]

This new quote feature sucks btw...makes making detailed response tedious

The new quote feature is the old quote feature. A child can use it.

Yet they didn't starve and an autonomous kurd state existed. And also apparently Bush did not allow Saddam to continue his reprisals....

Kind of hard to blockade someone when all the suppies they needed came via Turkey or Iran.....

And? I stated the U.S. allowed Saddam to crush the rebellion, which they did and he did. Why your stretching this point past that, I don't know. I do know there's mass graves thoughout Iraq that testify to the brutality of Saddam's reprisals against the rebel populations, reprisals which took place literally under the noses of the coalition. These are historical facts, and you, you are just spinning.

So what you are suggesting is it was US governemnet policy that they would get conned by Saddam.

Saddam didn't "con" the U.S. into anything. Iraq explicitly asked for-and were granted-virtually unlmited permission to operate military helicopters in their territory, which they predictably used to smash the northern and southern rebellions. No trickery required.

Still waiting for the motive.

I would have thought that was obvious. At the time, the U.S. didn't want to get sucked into an open ended civil war in Iraq or risk alientating its Arab alies. Nor did they want to risk replacing Saddam with an unknown quanity, such as a Shiite theocratic regime with possible ties to Iran (what they wanted was Saddam's regime without Saddam). Turns out history has a strange sense of humour.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Black Dog

[CLRV]

Speaking of the Kurds, did anyone notice that 1988, the year of the USA's single greatest arms shipment to Saddam, coincides with the year of the now infamous nerve gas attack on the village of Halabja -- the attack the White House first denied and covered up, then whitewashed?

Ah, but it was only .8% when we for some reason spread those numbers over five years. And since the Russians sold more arms to Saddam anyway we can't even consider THAT figure. EVERYBODY knows the Islamic jihad has been giving Russia a get-out-of-jail-free card on all that since then. Russia hasn't seen any blowback for THEIR crimes, have they?so there's no reason to expect the USA would suffer any.

No. The USA is an innocent victim. Again.

[M.Dancer]

The new quote feature is the old quote feature. A child can use it.

And? I stated the U.S. allowed Saddam to crush the rebellion, which they did and he did.

And in other news, the US allowed the Soviets to Blockade Berlin...pictures at 11:00

....still waiting for something from the state department et al showing it was US policy....which you seem to admit it wasn't.....after all.what was that UNSC resolution for.....and if the revolt was crushed, how was then that federal Iraq was not allowed in Kurdish territory...these are uncomfotable truths for your phnatasy world.......

Edited August 24, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

I do know there's mass graves thoughout Iraq that testify to the brutality of Saddam's reprisals against the rebel populations, reprisals which took place literally under the noses of the coalition.

Under their noses? Why, they allowed it, didn't they? Didn't they?

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of the Kurds, did anyone notice that 1988, the year of the USA's single greatest arms shipment to Saddam, coincides with the year of the now infamous nerve gas attack on the village of Halabja -- the attack the White House first denied and covered up, then whitewashed?

The US did not immediately deny the attack. They did however suggest that Iran might be to blame.

[jbg]

But you (referring to Black Dog) have no problem bending them like you bend the truth........There's a word to describe someone like you

And you constantly refer to me as a "pillock"; a word not even in the dictionary (link) but I assume isn't complimentary. Who do you like?

[jbg]

You said the US allowed Saddam to crush the rebellions. I'm still waiting for some evidence (and motive) that shows this was a US Governement policy and not an unintended consequence.

I would never intentionally defend "Black Dog" but in this case I must say there's a kernel of truth in his accusation. In 1974 Henry Kissinger cynically encouraged a Kurdish rebellion against Saddam who, at that point was ex-officio running the government. Later, when Saddam momentarily and tactically pulled his punches, the US abandoned the Kurds to a brutal slaughter.

By way of side comment, isn't it amazing how every disagreement among those people winds up in a brutal, mindless massacre of some kind, however labelled? Only in the last several days have Western-oriented Jews (link) perpetrated a similar bloodletting.

Edited August 24, 2007 by jbg

[M.Dancer]

And you constantly refer to me as a "pillock"; a word not even in the dictionary (link) but I assume isn't complimentary.

Must be one of those defective american dictionaries...you know, for the ebonically challenged......

And I do not constantly refer to you as pillock. Twice or thrice is not constanly you silly prat.

Who do you like?

Besides Henry Fielding, Thomas Cahill and William Thackery, you and me.

[Black Dog]

And in other news, the US allowed the Soviets to Blockade Berlin...pictures at 11:00

Actually, they didn't, as they took measures to end the blockade. Terrible example, just awful.

....still waiting for something from the state department et al showing it was US policy....which you seem to admit it wasn't.....after all.

Is it hard to string a single coherent argument together? Really that hard? All those uneccesary ellipses.

First: policy. I'm not sure why you're barking up that particular tree. My original statement, the one that started your sputtering, was "the coalition allowed Saddam to crush the rebellions". Now "allowed" to me means "let happen." The first question one must ask is "could the U.S. have prevented Saddam from crushing the uprising?" Clearly, the answer is "yes." They had the military force to do so, having just completed driving Saddam's legions out of Kuwait a scant few week's earlier.

Now that we've established they had the ability: we ask why didn't they step in? There were concerns over coalition casualties, concerns over getting drawn into an Iraqi civil war, and others I've mentioned. I've given you quotes from senior U.S. officials (including the then Sec Def) where they state quite unequvicoly that the U.S. would not get involved in "internal Iraqi politics." I suppose one could argue that they were unaware of what was happening or of how Saddam would respond. But that's extremely far fetched. So what we have is a situation where the U.S knew what was happening (and, it could also be argued, was partially responsible for in the first place through Bush and others' exortations to the Iraqi people to rise up), but made a choice not to intervene. In other words, they let it happen. Or, put another way: "the coalition allowed Saddam to crush the rebellions."

what was that UNSC resolution for.....

It was prompted by the burgeoning crisis caused by the flood of Kurdish and Shiite refugees. Now, what do you suppose all those people were running from?

and if the revolt was crushed, how was then that federal Iraq was not allowed in Kurdish territory...

Again: look at the timeline. The rebellions started in March. UNSC resolution 688 was passed in April. The no-fly zones and "safe havens" were established in July to prevent Saddam from punishing the Kurds and Shiites and causing a humanitarian and political catastrophe for Iraq's neighbours states. But by that time, the rebellions were long since crushed along with any hope that Saddam would be overthrown internally.

these are uncomfotable truths for your phnatasy world.......

This is ridiculous. You're not even arguing with me here: you're arguing with the historical record.

Under their noses? Why, they allowed it, didn't they? Didn't they?

If they didn't act to prevent or end it, then yes: they allowed it. Like typing in complete sentences, this is not difficult.

(edited to add)

Oh great, Dancer: you put me in the same corner as that supercillious d-bag jbg. I'm off now, to shower.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

Actually, they didn't, as they took measures to end the blockade. Terrible example, just awful.

.

Yeah and it only took how long?

[M.Dancer]

If they didn't act to prevent or end it, then yes: they allowed it. Like typing in complete sentences, this is not difficult.

"...or end it."

But they did end it.

Thanks for coming.....

[Black Dog]

"...or end it."

But they did end it.

Thanks for coming.....

No they didn't, you dullard.

[M.Dancer]

No they didn't, you dullard.

No of course not. They completely crushed the Kurds and that's why they didn't bother setting foot in the Kurdish regions, ever again, to this day. Because they crushed the rebellion. In fact, the UNSC resolutions were completely unnessesary. Because thay had already crushed the rebellions.

I not clear on what a dullard is. Is that a personal insult? Aren't thoise against the rules? Isn't that what someone does when they have nothing more to offer?

[Black Dog]

No of course not. They completely crushed the Kurds and that's why they didn't bother setting foot in the Kurdish regions, ever again, to this day. Because they crushed the rebellion. In fact, the UNSC resolutions were completely unnessesary. Because thay had already crushed the rebellions.

You'll note that I never said they crushed the Kurds (though driving thousands into remote exile was close). They crushed the post Gulf War Kurdish rebellion, which is a different thing altogether.

Yes, the Kurdish people managed to survive in their pocket of Iraq thanks to th ebelated intervention of the west. But the armed insurrection was over.

I not clear on what a dullard is. Is that a personal insult? Aren't thoise against the rules? Isn't that what someone does when they have nothing more to offer?

Oh the irony:

And I do not constantly refer to you as pillock. Twice or thrice is not constanly you silly prat.

[jbg]

Oh great, Dancer: you put me in the same corner as that supercillious d-bag jbg. I'm off now, to shower.

Proof? Links to support?

[M.Dancer]

You'll note that I never said they crushed the Kurds (though driving thousands into remote exile was close). They crushed the post Gulf War Kurdish rebellion, which is a different thing altogether.

Yes, the Kurdish people managed to survive in their pocket of Iraq thanks to th ebelated intervention of the west. But the armed insurrection was over.

Oh the irony:

40,643 square kilometres. Some pocket. About 1/10th the total size of iraq. Not bad for less than 4 million people.

...and don't forget the oilfields......

[M.Dancer]

QUOTE(Black Dog @ Aug 23 2007, 09:57 PM)

Oh great, Dancer: you put me in the same corner as that supercillious d-bag jbg. I'm off now, to shower.

Proof? Links to support?

What's a d-bag? Is that another personal insult? One that is directed at someone who wasn't even a major participant?