Bill, Those folks would be wrong.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. As I said, Iran had made Carter and the US look foolish. Saddam was a war with Iran, so Saddam was all right with us. When those 2400 tanks invaded Iran supported by 400 planes, every one of the tanks and every one of the planes was Russian. As I mentioned, if you wanted to find American weaponry, you would find it in Iran. The trouble is that while statements are made about the US and about Bush (and both deserve some statements) they are often not provable, but by continual use becomes fact. As I said, I would like to know why we were owed $4 billion. It could've been for food, industrial supplies, for the oil wells -- anything. However the 2400 tanks and the 400 planes were Russian. Again, as I said, Russia also built-up Saddam's forces at the end of the eight years for the final push into an exhausted Iran. It's all recorded. You can find the facts easily enough -- but once propaganda is forced into our minds it may be difficult to get rid of it. At this point, I looked up your reference URL, but found nothing there that was particularly incriminating. The CDC sent germs and suchlike to Sadamm as they do to a hundred countries. We arranged for a lot of food to be sent to Saddam. We arranged for some howitzers and computers to get to him from Chile and South Africa. In return, with the aid of his 2400 tanks, 400 aircraft and his HP computers, he invaded Iran. We thought that was great. And we didn't even have to give him a couple of hundred Shermans. Harry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 6:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's preliminary step to withdrawal? Harry, There are some folks who feel that our support for Saddam was a bit more than "Go to it, buster!" viz: http://citizensnotspectators.org/archives/000070.html Bill On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:59:33 -0800 "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Keith, > > Much speculation, as always good. Just a point that I've mentioned > before. > > You said: > > "One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent change of > heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring democracy to > the Middle East and that this was what his invasion of Iraq was all > about. This, despite the US being close allies of dictatorships in > Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam Hussein himself for 15 > when encouraging him to wage years of warfare on Iran." > > The war was with communism. At one point, 49 of the 51 African nations > were dictatorships - military, or otherwise. Did we end our > "friendships with Africa because of that? Dictatorship is the > government of choice in much of the world - if choice is the right > word. > > Our support for Saddam was of the nature of "Go to it, buster!" > We didn't send him arms (the 2,400 tanks and 400 aircraft that invaded > Iran were Russian - the French supplied some Mirages > later.) > > Iraq owes us $4 billion but I don't know what for - could be food and > suchlike. At least four times much is owed to France and Russia. > Probably for refitting the armies and air force for the final invasion > of Iran which ended the war, after a carnage that resembled the First > World War. > > Sadam's weapons were Russian and French - not American. > > After Iran had made Carter and the US look foolish, we didn't like it > much, so probably were very happy with Saddam's intention to invade. > > So, where were American weapons of war? Probably in Iran. > Certainly their Air Force was composed of F14's, F15's, and some other > American planes. (A couple of American shiploads did slip through the > blockade with spare parts for the planes, but the slipping didn't last > long when France sent Saddam 30 Mirages armed with Exojets.) > > That's all! > > Harry > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith > Hudson > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 7:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Bush's preliminary step to withdrawal? > > One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent change of > heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring democracy to > the Middle East and that this was what his invasion of Iraq was all > about. This, despite the US being close allies of dictatorships in > Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam Hussein himself for 15 > when encouraging him to wage years of warfare on Iran. No longer, it > would seem, did Bush invade Iraq because of international terrorism, > nor because of Weapons of Mass destruction. (The Special Task Force of > 2,000 American troops which have apparently been searching for WMDs > for months have not turned up anything yet. WMDs were never there in > the first place, as the UN Inspectors believed, and as further recent > evidence suggests -- see the article below.) > > The US death toll reported in today's Independent article below > (142) has already been augmented this morning by another four soldiers > killed in a downed helicopter and possibly two more in other incidents > on the roads. > For electoral reasons a year from now, Bush may now already be > deciding to leave well before next summer. One or two particularly > dramatic terrorist attacks could cause the American electorate to > swing ferociously against Bush at almost any time from now onwards. > > Of course, some believe, including the present writer, that Bush > invaded Iraq in order to ensure that US and UK oil corporations would > be able to develop the immense northern oilfields from which Saddam > had mischievously excluded them. But, in the biggest mistake that Bush > (or, probably, Cheney) made, these corporations refuse to be involved > until there's a legitimate Iraqi government in place and not the > American-imposed Coalition Provisional Authority. > > Two or three more speeches along the lines that Bush has just made > would allow him to segue right out of Iraq -- throwing it a > constitution and holding an election along the way which will ensure a > Shia majority. If he makes sure that the Shias have sufficient > well-armed forces at their disposal, this ought to ensure that the > previous oppressors, the Sunnis, will be subjugated (or chased into > Syria) and, if and when Saddam emerges from hiding, he will be quickly > caught and executed. > > This scenario may seem unlikely -- even absurd at the moment -- but I > don't see any other way out of Bush's predicament and possible > humiliating defeat next November. He's not gained what went to Iraq > for -- WMDs or oil -- so he might as well leave now as craftily as he > can. He's been able to con most of the American electorate so far, so > he ought to be able to swing this new strategy across them as a piece > of international statesmanship in the name of bringing democracy to > one more country. > > Just one postscript for non-UK readers: there are likely to be large > demonstrations against Bush when he arrives. The usual state > procession down the Mall has already been cancelled and it's > exceedingly unlikely that Bush will be able to show his face in public > in the usual way. > > Keith Hudson > > <<<< > BUSH CALLS IRAQ MISSION 'WATERSHED FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY' > > Rupert Cornwell > > Washington -- Less than two weeks before what may be a stormy state > visit to London, President George Bush yesterday cast himself as a new > Ronald Reagan, vowing to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle > East and beyond > -- just as Mr Reagan did with the Soviet Union, in his "evil empire" > address to the British Parliament 21 years ago. > > Speaking on the day he signed into law the Bill authorising $87 > billion of extra funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Bush set out his > vision of a modernised and democratic Iraq serving as example > throughout the region. > > Separately, administration officials confirmed that they had received > a behind-the-scenes proposal, supposedly from Saddam Hussein, offering > a deal last March to stave off the looming war. > But the contact was rebuffed by the CIA. > > Though experts said the move may have been of little significance, > critics presented the episode as further proof that Mr Bush would let > nothing interfere with his determination to go to war. > > In his speech yesterday Mr Bush once again made no reference to > mounting US casualties in Iraq, including two more fatal attacks > yesterday, bringing to > 142 the death toll since he declared the end of major combat > operations. > Nor did he refer to the strains on the military, and yesterday's > Pentagon announcement that 132,000 troops and reservists will be sent > to relieve units who have been in the region for a year. > Instead he stressed that failure in Iraq would embolden terrorists > around the world, but "the establishment of a free Iraq will be a > watershed event in the global democratic revolution." > > That, clearly, is the message he will deliver during his address to an > audience of dignitaries in London on 19 November, the centrepiece of > his state visit. And his references to the dismissive reaction to Mr > Reagan's speech in Westminster Hall left no doubt that he is expecting > more of the same for himself. > "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of > Ronald Reagan," Mr Bush yesterday quoted from a newspaper editorial of > the time, recalling how some observers had pronounced the "evil > empire" speech to be "simplistic and naive, and even dangerous". In > fact the current unpopularity of Mr Bush and his administration -- > widely perceived in Europe as high-handed, arrogant and ignorant -- > eclipses that of Mr Reagan in 1982, at the height of the Cold War. But > Mr Bush stressed he would not be deterred. > > Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of > freedom in the Middle East had done nothing to make the world safer, > the President told the National Endowment for Democracy here. "It > would be reckless to accept the status quo," > he declared, defending his doctrine of preemptive action as "a forward > strategy of freedom". He attacked the "outposts of oppression" in > Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma, but praised Morocco and other > Arab states such as Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan, who are gingerly taking > steps towards democracy. He called on Egypt and Saudi Arabia to move > faster along the path of reform, and delivered familiar tirades > against leaders in Iran and Palestine who were blocking their peoples' > aspirations to freedom. > > The Independent -- 7 November 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, > <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
