RE: [Futurework] Are they going mad?

[Harry Pollard]

Ed,   I've listed the Soviet contribution to Saddam - 2,400 tanks and 400 planes - plus many other weapons, parts, and so on. (Also various planes that France "lent" and their important contribution toward sinking ships - those 30 Mirages they sold to Iraq complete with  Exojets. The Brits found out what they could do in the Falklands!   What weapons did we give him?   Iraq owes the US $4 billion. Best I've been able to discover is that we sent him food and computers. But, then, what do I know?   The anti-US people keep saying we backed him. They probably mean that as Iran was considered our enemy (we, and therefore Carter, were made to look foolish by the Iranians) we patted him on the back and said "Go! Go!"   So, sure we backed him, like a coach from the sidelines, waving on the home team.   But, as Churchill said (pretty loosely) when chided for allying with Stalin: "If Satan were to join us in the war against Hitler, I would at least give him a favorable mention in the House of Commons."   If you know of anything else we did "to back Saddam", I'd love to know it. Many of these stories are beaten to death on the Internet, with no-one criticizing ,until they achieve the stature of absolute truth.   In fact, the Iranian Air Force (that did very well) was composed of F14's and F15's along with a few American reconnaissance planes.    Actually, Saddam did the Israeli trick and launched a pre-offensive strike against those Phantoms. However, the naughty Iranians had reinforced their hangars and the planes remained safe.   So, if you mean we were happy to see Saddam attack Iran - yes.   Hey! Maybe General Dynamics made those Russian tanks and sold them to Iraq.     You can't trust perfidious Albion. Maybe the US is equally perfidious.   Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042 Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ********************************************     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:31 AM To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Keith Hudson' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Are they going mad? Harry, there are no neutral observers.  Nevertheless, some observers are more observant than others.  I'm a couple of chapters into the new Chomsky.  His arguments are well documented and seem to hold.  They do not differ greatly from those of Bachevich, though he does put them more strongly.  And it really was the Americans, not the Russians, who backed Saddam againts the Iranians.   Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Pollard To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 'Keith Hudson' Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:23 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Are they going mad? Ed,   Chomsky and Soros are of course neutral observers of the American scene.      --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003