Bush Ok's Arms Sales To Iraq???

[antiklaus]

CNN (7/22/04) "President Bush has affirmed that he has approved sales of a variety of weapons to Iraq, many of them ironically, the very weapons of mass destruction his administration had hinted that Iraq originally possessed. "These weapons will ensure the future security of Iraq," Bush said, "Our allies in Iraq need a strong hand to support their fledgling democracy against the forces of tyranny."

CNN made no mention that the resident US appointed leader of Iraq has already recieved numerous complaints of human rights abuses, including the execution of several civilians, and the reopening of several torture chambers for the process of interrogation.

'Aint fledgling democracy grand?

[antiklaus]

At 7/22/04 09:05 AM, antiklaus wrote: CNN (7/22/04) "President Bush has affirmed that he has approved sales of a variety of weapons to Iraq, many of them ironically, the very weapons of mass destruction his administration had hinted that Iraq originally possessed. "These weapons will ensure the future security of Iraq," Bush said, "Our allies in Iraq need a strong hand to support their fledgling democracy against the forces of tyranny."

CNN made no mention that the resident US appointed leader of Iraq has already recieved numerous complaints of human rights abuses, including the execution of several civilians, and the reopening of several torture chambers for the process of interrogation.

'Aint fledgling democracy grand?

FYI, in a post last night I predicted these sales would be ok'ed, and warned of the dire consequences of rearming a nation we have already had to go to war with AFTER the last time we helped arm them.

[Kirk-Cocaine]

It's all for The money.

[Gunter45]

At 7/22/04 09:12 AM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: It's all for The money.

Pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's entirely for the money. Where were we when the Soviets were selling arms to anyone who wanted them? We didn't arm every country with a dime to spend on M-16s and we sure don't now. Money probably has a little to do with it, but we genuinely want the people we assist into power to be able to control that power to avoid a coup de etat once we leave. That is something that we have been historically known to do, and as I mentioned in another post, we haven't had much success with it in the past.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/22/04 09:05 AM, antiklaus wrote: CNN (7/22/04) "President Bush has affirmed that he has approved sales of a variety of weapons to Iraq, many of them ironically, the very weapons of mass destruction his administration had hinted that Iraq originally possessed.

Can you link to the source for that?

[antiklaus]

At 7/22/04 10:46 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 7/22/04 09:05 AM, antiklaus wrote: CNN (7/22/04) "President Bush has affirmed that he has approved sales of a variety of weapons to Iraq, many of them ironically, the very weapons of mass destruction his administration had hinted that Iraq originally possessed.

Can you link to the source for that?

I don't have the original source for that one as I forgot to bookmark it... but these sources certainly confirm it.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...mesticNews&storyID=5736982

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5481810/

is anyone else with me in thinking that his isn't a good idea.

[TurkM938]

It's about the money, but at the same time it is essential to arm any fledgling government, as this is when they are most ripe for intervention. I doubt true WMD's are being sold, but I can understand conventional arms..::quietly looks to Iran as the biggest threat to Iraqi foreign security::

[antiklaus]

At 7/24/04 03:18 AM, TurkM1938 wrote: It's about the money, but at the same time it is essential to arm any fledgling government, as this is when they are most ripe for intervention. I doubt true WMD's are being sold, but I can understand conventional arms..::quietly looks to Iran as the biggest threat to Iraqi foreign security::

According to Cheney, and Rumsfeld, "Iraq is the most immediate threat to US security..."

I doubted it then, so I have to wonder about ANY policies/intel/etc. in the middle east as having credibility.

[Thanatos-DTH1]

At 7/24/04 12:07 PM, antiklaus wrote: According to Cheney, and Rumsfeld, "Iraq is the most immediate threat to US security..."

I doubted it then, so I have to wonder about ANY policies/intel/etc. in the middle east as having credibility.

Bush/Cheney lost credibility by saying that there were WMD, and that Iraq was an immediate threat. So now, in order to restore credibility, they are going to sell them WMD and arm them so that they become a threat, and their misguided ramblings of before will take on the hue of inspired genius. Except for the one glaring fact that we're not at stupid as they think we are.

[theburningliberal]

This is wrong. Saddam wasn't allowed to have WMD, but an American puppet government is allowed to possess them? What happens if we sell them these weapons, and then the government is overthrown by a group not friendly to the US? What then?

[Wraith]

At 7/24/04 12:49 PM, theburningliberal wrote: What happens if we sell them these weapons, and then the government is overthrown by a group not friendly to the US? What then?

Then I would get ready to say bye-bye to some major cities, and hello to a possible war in the entire Middle East, or maybe even WW3.

[CI-Lain]

Well i dont worry about someone overthrowing our puppet government.

Theres two possibilities.

1. I believe in september Iraq is sceduled to have its first election. It is conceivable that an extremist will win said election. Or that we will ed up with a close 3 way draw which may result in major civil dissputes and conflict in which the government ill use its newly aquired weapons to subdue its own people (sounds familiar doesnt it).

2. Were not the greatest at picking good people to arm. I mean hell we sold weapons to inumerable middle eastern nations that used them to kill one another including Bin Ladin and HUssein. Perhaps we havn't chosen a very good leader once agian.

I do believe this raises a big question. People we dont like are incourged and strang armed into not having a viable military structure, yet We and other nations devoted to us are alowed to have them???

[Devaint-Lucifer]

At 7/24/04 12:49 PM, theburningliberal wrote: This is wrong. Saddam wasn't allowed to have WMD, but an American puppet government is allowed to possess them? What happens if we sell them these weapons, and then the government is overthrown by a group not friendly to the US? What then?

well be screwed bush will live in the estates in with saudis and all those who beleive in bush will finallyu see the truth.

[antiklaus]

At 7/24/04 01:44 PM, Devaint_Lucifer wrote:

At 7/24/04 12:49 PM, theburningliberal wrote: This is wrong. Saddam wasn't allowed to have WMD, but an American puppet government is allowed to possess them? What happens if we sell them these weapons, and then the government is overthrown by a group not friendly to the US? What then?

well be screwed bush will live in the estates in with saudis and all those who beleive in bush will finallyu see the truth.

I'm sure he'd be on his crawford ranch with "Bush Laden" sipping teas and laughing at us poor fucks as we have to deal with the monster he made.

[Metal69hed]

"well be screwed bush will live in the estates in with saudis and all those who beleive in bush will finallyu see the truth."

"I'm sure he'd be on his crawford ranch with "Bush Laden" sipping teas and laughing at us poor fucks as we have to deal with the monster he made."

?

[witeshark]

Well there is some possibility that the US supported government will only act as other pro US Middle East governments do and stabilize the region. I, for one, hope it's gonna work that way!

[JoS]

Umm, didnt people get mad when Sadam killed people trying to overthrow the govt, yet isnt it the aim of sellign these weapons to Iraq to be able to do this again, kill people that are tryign to overthrow the govt. As well now we must sell them the weapons we went in to tak eback that they didnt actually have. Oh the irony.

[Gunter45]

People got mad because not only did Saddam kill people, he went out of his way to kill people to make points. And when he got into power, he would regularly execute his advisors and pretty much anyone else who seemed like they might rebel. A little gruesome, especially since they were tortured and raped first, but I guess that's the way you do it if you want to keep a dictatorship for that long.

[antiklaus]

At 7/25/04 01:44 AM, Gunter45 wrote: People got mad because not only did Saddam kill people, he went out of his way to kill people to make points.

As opposed to pointless slaughter? Wow, forgive me if I prefer the guy who has a point to make with his mass murders, instead of just random death and destruction for oil.

::And when he got into power, he would regularly execute his advisors and pretty much anyone else who seemed like they might rebel. A little gruesome, especially since they were tortured and raped first, but I guess that's the way you do it if you want to keep a dictatorship for that long.

And yet we supported him through the majority of his regime, and even armed him. Rumsfeld even called him 'a bastian of stability'

And Abhu Ghraibe had none of these rapes or tortures in place, I suppose?

My only point with this post is that we are going to re-arm a governemnt which is bound to in time turn against us.

It all seems kinda... foolish.

"Fool me once....., shame on .... me.... I won't be fooled again?" who was that guy again?

[Metal69hed]

Not a majority. Before him was a dictator as well, and before that Britian was there.

We supported Iraq because of the Iran-Iraq war. Remember possibly learning about it? Lasted nine years, scared the shit out of the Middle East when Iraq gained ground? Libya, China, Isreal (strangely enough) and North Korea all sent weapons to Iran while Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (yes, Kuwait), Egypt, Jordan, the United States, France, and the Soviet Union also sided with the Iraqis. At that time Iran was a bigger concern but later on Iraq grew into a bigger and bigger problem and scared the Middle East and the UN.

*sniff sniff*

I smell a clusterfuck.

[JoS]

The US has a bad way of picking who to give weapons to. An enemy of my enemy is my friend. And you know the CIA will prevent extremists from winning the next election, perhaps an assisantion?

[antiklaus]

At 7/25/04 10:28 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: The US has a bad way of picking who to give weapons to. An enemy of my enemy is my friend. And you know the CIA will prevent extremists from winning the next election, perhaps an assisantion?

Yeah, but you know that as soon as we pull out there will be a serious grab for the seat of power.

Americanized governance is against the Q'uran's teachings.

You can bet that any weapons we sell to the current government will end up in the hands of terrorists.

[Spookshow]

Niether of the links said anything about WMD's. Weapons but not WMD's specifically. Saddam wasn't allowed to have WMD but he did anyway.

[bumcheekcity]

"I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and services to Iraq will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace," [Emphasis Mine] Bush said in the document.

Interesting... So Iraq having weapons last year was devastating to world peace, but now we can't wait to sell weapons to them?

[Spookshow]

We didn't want SADDAM and the Baath party to have those weapons.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/26/04 08:28 AM, Spookshow wrote: We didn't want SADDAM and the Baath party to have those weapons.

But it's fine to have our installed Dictatorship with those weapons. They are a dictatorship. They have not been elected.

[Spookshow]

Well, when the elections take place, right after the insurgents quit using shields and blowing themselves up, the new power can have them too. YAY WMD FOR EVERYONE!!! :P