US "heroes" kill 9 children

On 11 Dec 2003 07:13:43 -0800, (Scott MacEachern)
wrote:


And I am aware of teh scale of European arms sales to Iraq over the
same period, thank 'ee. I was responding to one example of persistent
attempts to minimise America's involvement with Saddam Hussein's
regime over the same period.

In that case - based on the evidence presented - the only conclusion
is that the US did not provide any substantial military aid to Iraq.

What it boils down to is that the US wanted the Iran-Iraq war
stalemated - and worked both sides to ensure that this happened.

We weren't even that subtle about this - when asked about this war the
US Secretary of State said: "We hope they both lose."



"...there is always a well-known solution to every
human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken

"Jarg" wrote...

These critics hate the US

Not particularly. I don't have much use for historical amnesia, though.

Scott

In article ,
(Scott MacEachern) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote ...
In article ,

Funny... everyone else says that Halabja was gassed by bombs dropped
from planes.

Well, no, actually they don't... as you say, some people say that
helicopters were used, others do not.

The handful of reports that suggest helos were used at Halabja seem to
be confusing other reports from differnet towns, and even those are
pretty fragmentary.

The attack at Halabja was fighters dropping 250 pound chemical bombs.

That's the common report we've gotten from actual eyewitnesses.

Some editorial writers have grabbed the "they used helicopters to gas
Halabja" meme, but it's just wrong.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:52:18 -0500, Scott MacEachern
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:40 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

You know, people keep claiming that "supported him for so long" bit,
when all that happened was a short-term information trade during the war
with Iran, along with some sales of a few small helicopters (cancelled
after they started using them for non-civilian purposes)

Forty Bell 214STs and approximately 85 Hughes 300s and 500s

All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)

were
delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
'a few small helicopters'.

Compared to the 215 Russian and 169 French military types in 1990, they
were.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm)

64 Russian and 100 French military types remained by 2000;
(http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm).

And none of the American helicopters were still in service by 2000.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:38:02 GMT, Colin Campbell
(remove underscore) wrote:

In that case - based on the evidence presented - the only conclusion
is that the US did not provide any substantial military aid to Iraq.

Well, we will have to disagree over that. I tend to regard 120+
helicopters and reconnaissance information as 'substantial military
aid'.

Scott

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:42 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)

Yup. I also know about the various versions of the Hughes 500 ....
Hughes Defenders, AH-6/MH-6 and so on. In any case, this is not the
newsgroup where I'd expect to find dismissal of the military
importance of transport and training systems.


were
delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
'a few small helicopters'.

Compared to the 215 Russian and 169 French military types in 1990, they
were.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm)

120 US helicopters is insignificant compared to 169 French
helicopters? When do they start being significant? 130? 140? 150?

64 Russian and 100 French military types remained by 2000;
(http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm).

And none of the American helicopters were still in service by 2000.

According to the IISS Military Balance for 2000-2001, there were still
Bell 214s, Hughes 300C, Hughes 500D and Hughes 530Fs (?) still in
service with the Iraqi army. They don't break any down by numbers of
the helicopter systems in use, from any country.

Scott

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:57:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

The attack at Halabja was fighters dropping 250 pound chemical bombs.

That's the common report we've gotten from actual eyewitnesses.

I would be interested in knowing the source of that actual report,
then. (No dissing in this case, I would like to know where it comes
from, and to be able to judge for myself whether it is definitive.)

Scott

In article ,
Scott MacEachern wrote:

Well, we will have to disagree over that. I tend to regard 120+
helicopters and reconnaissance information as 'substantial military
aid'.

If $5 million in copters (over 15 years ago) is "substantial," then what
do you consider the billions in sales by Russia, along with the years
upon years of *actual* military aid and training?

"Overwhelming" should be in the phrase book somewhere...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Scott MacEachern wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:42 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)

Yup. I also know about the various versions of the Hughes 500 ....
Hughes Defenders, AH-6/MH-6 and so on. In any case, this is not the
newsgroup where I'd expect to find dismissal of the military
importance of transport and training systems.

As far as transport copters, the Iraqis had plenty of actual big Russian
transport copters, four-seat Bell machines aren't even going to rate.

120 US helicopters is insignificant compared to 169 French
helicopters? When do they start being significant? 130? 140? 150?

When they start being attack helicopters, like the French and Russian
birds.

According to the IISS Military Balance for 2000-2001, there were still
Bell 214s, Hughes 300C, Hughes 500D and Hughes 530Fs (?) still in
service with the Iraqi army.

Like those MiG-25s that were "still in service" buried under six feet of
sand, I suppose.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Scott MacEachern wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:24:42 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

All support, not attack types. (You *do* know what a Hughes 300 is,
right? Useful for initial training, not so useful for battlefield use.)

Yup. I also know about the various versions of the Hughes 500 ....
Hughes Defenders, AH-6/MH-6 and so on. In any case, this is not the
newsgroup where I'd expect to find dismissal of the military
importance of transport and training systems.

They didn't get AH-6/MH-6, did they?

were
delivered to Iraq, and were in service just before GW1. That's hardly
'a few small helicopters'.

Compared to the 215 Russian and 169 French military types in 1990, they
were.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm)

120 US helicopters is insignificant compared to 169 French
helicopters? When do they start being significant? 130? 140? 150?

No, it was 120 (lots being Hughes 300s) compared to 384 others.