The Iraqi Resistance : Melbourne Indymedia

As we sit here people across Iraq are united in a mass uprising against thier American oppressors. These events come at an important time. The USA and Australia are gearing up for an election, actions in Iraq will severely influence the political campaigns and policy.
In Iraq the US is getting nervous. The solidarity building across Iraq between Suni and Shi'ite muslims is a step forward in the Iraqi's struggle for freedom.
Soldiers in the new Iraqi army in Fallujah refused to fight with the Americans 2 days ago and elsewhere the police have abandoned thier stations and handed thier weapons over to protestors.
The recent insurgencies have given ordinary Iraqi's confidence to once again demonstrate against the US occupation after being forced to stop last year at gun point.
The last two weeks shows clearly that the US was never fighting for the Iraqi's liberation. The fact is that most Iraqi's are supporting the uprising because they know that the US is a bigger threat to thier freedom than Saddam ever was.
It is important that we show our support to the Iraqi resistance fighters. They are on the front line of the class war regardless of what thier individual agendas may be.

Is this the Iraqi Resistance of which you speak of?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/82B928DF-E13A-4FFB-A33B-20DEEC583234.htm

".... anyone who is opposed to war, racism and capitalism support the Iraqi fighters in thier plight against the world's deadliest terrorist, the USA...."

Dear halfwit,

What makes you think the "Iraqi Resistance" is opposed to war, racism and capitalism?

After all, the Ba'athist element of the "resistance" were amongst the world's leading exponents of war and racism while in power, and though utterly incompetent and corrupt, they made a fair fist of capitalism, too,

Only idiot leftists in the West imagined they were "quasi socialist".

"....The last two weeks shows clearly that the US was never fighting for the Iraqi's liberation...."

And you think Sadr, an Iranian proxy, WAS interested in Iraqi freedom????

He is a radical, right wing, religious fundamentalist murderer complete with a black-shirt paramilitary.

The reason he's cowering in a Mosque in Najaf, and snatching hostages left, right and centre, is because he has little actual support, no leadership qualities whatsoever, and practically no chance of survival.

Believe me, this is NOT some Nelson Mandela or Ho Chi Minh, bozo.

Okay, I guess to be a leftist slogan parrot, you have to be dumb. But you are special.

Oh and btw this is NOT CLASS WAR. The majority of US soldiers are Working Class themselves therefore its exactly what the ruling elite want.

Where does it say that the Ba'athist are the new Nelson Mandela or Ho Chi Minh opposed to war, racism or terror? Hmm? No where.

What it said was:

".... anyone who is opposed to war, racism and capitalism support the Iraqi fighters in thier plight against the world's deadliest terrorist, the USA...."

"The fact is that most Iraqi's are supporting the uprising because they know that the US is a bigger threat to thier freedom than Saddam ever was"

But its easier to argue against some cliched stereotype than gilberts ACTUAL article, isnt it?

matt, I think the point was that there are no apparent leaders of ability stepping forward at this stage of Iraq's history. No equivalent to Nelson Mandela or Ho Chi Minh.

Don't kid youself that Sadr is some kind of liberating hero.

And it is foolish to belittle the tyranical nature of Saddam's regime. It was a mother of a brutal dictatorship - and the USA is still committed to handing sovreignty back to Iraq at the end of June, after all.

The real problem I see it is there is very little to prevent Iraq's many political and social factions from tearing the country to pieces if a power vacuum emerges in Iraq.

And the possibility of ANOTHER Saddam like figure emerging.

Yes the vast majority of US soldier ARE working class, you can bet the dead ones where too. But that just proves my point. Most soldiers enter the US army because economically it is the only alternative to poverty under a system that is stacked against them. The truth is that I support these troops, not their actions (although I would if they turned thier weapons on thier commanding officers). George Bush doesn't support these troops, that is why he is sacrificing them in the name of profit for the rich while he slashes welfare benifits to military families and attack civil liberties all in the name of "freedom". These soldiers don't want to be in Iraq. A lot of them don't support Bush. But the fact is they are fighting for the rich whether they want to or not and anyone who resists that should be supported. As for the Islamic leaders. The media no doubt has a field day distorting facts to make the public believe that all the resistance is, is a few fundamentalists. They carefully ignore the mass pro democracy marches where protestors are shot by US troops and the fact that religious boundaries are being broken down to the distress of the US officials. It seems that thier old tactic of divide and conquer has fallen flat in Iraq, maybe we should get over it here.

Believe what you want from the media (maybe you have the WMDs) but the US never intended on restoring sovreignty to iraq in June. The fact is that if they are censoring the media now, why would free democratic elections be only 2 months away. I don't think so. And anyway there have been local elections held since the occupation began any any anti-American candidate who was elected was simply removed forcibly from his position. What we will see in Iraq will be a pro-US puppet government installed which represent the interest of the tiny minority of Iraqis who do support the occupation. As for the rest of them, you can bet they wont be voting.

Remember who Saddam worked for; the CIA.

I dont think the Iraqis need any more of the USs help or their "leaders of ability".

Gilbert, took a lot of guts to write such a piece mate. Well done!

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Australia is easily one of the most ignorant countries on planet earth.

So it's always easy for people to label people 'Lefties' as though sitting on the 'Right' gives them the dillusions of grandeur necessary to make such brash statements.

I bet these people also could tell you about what's happening to the children of Iraq and Afganistan as their homelands have been bombarded with Depleted Uranian.

The Iraqi resistance is vitally important for World Peace, and no one explains it better than John Pilger in his recent interview with Tony Jones on Lateline.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1063309.htm

Yes he does make Mr. Jones look as though he doesn't have a clue.

A special note to all of those who felt the need to bag out Gilbert: The World ain't a one-sided coin! Do some real research before you shoot your mouths off!

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Australia is easily one of the most ignorant countries on planet earth."

Have you considered Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyzstan, and Niue?

Oh, you mean you have?

I'm sorry. As you were.

thinks that the poorer a country is the dumber it is. Not so. I can assure everyone here that I have lived in seveleral countries and travelled to even more and Australia is definately the most ignorant.

To quote a German friend "I feel like my brain is rotting away here... I havent been able to have an intelligent converstation with anyone since I got to Australia".

“…the dumber it is”

“dumber”

I like that.

I am sure that non-citizen actually meant to write: “Thomas is of the belief that there is a direct correlation between a nation’s GDP and the level of education and knowledge of its citizenry”.

But non-citizen is tired and irritable so we shall forgive this oversight from an intellectual giant along with his ability to spell.

It is safe to assume that non-citizen is not acutely familiar with Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyzstan, nor Niue. Which only leaves us with only 187 more nations to go to determine his frame of reference before we delve into his personal definition of “ignorant” and the empirical measures he has used.

(Unless non-citizen and his Don’t Mention The War friend have based their assessment of Oz on their observations of Indymedia’s own Leon, bkm(c), and brian, to which we simply say “Ahhh….we understand you now!”)

Thats responble for my bad spelleeng, limited words and the trolls inability to read.

He did say "one of the most ignorant", not THE most ignorant.

Given that you are in a confessing state of mind, can we also take your last post as being an implied admission of an inability to form a cogent argument?

J.P.K. made the claim that "Australia is easily one of the most ignorant countries on planet earth". I have not attributed any other quote to J.P.K. and am quite surprised that an intellectual goliath such as yourself - one with a German friend, no less - has misread this thread.

Unless, of course, you were distracted by your surfing of http://www.anarchistswithwealthyparentsrule.com, in which case I can completely understand your confusion.

"one of the most"

Unless J.P.K is familiar with the level of ignorance or otherwise of at least a significant percentage of the 191 UN-seated nations (which include Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyzstan, and Niue) then he is in no position to make his claim.

In fact, Australia my be one of the most enlightened nations on "planet earth" as far as we are all concerned because J.P.K provides no basis for his allegation to the contrary.

And J.P.K. makes it worse. He prefaces his claim with "...There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that..."

No doubt. Zip. Zero. No. Doubt.

But it doesn't end there. This is the howler that J.P.K. follows up with:

"So it's always easy for people to label people 'Lefties' as though sitting on the 'Right' gives them the dillusions of grandeur necessary to make such brash statements."

Did anyone say......brash statements?

Here endeth the lesson.

(If the Parkinsonian-like tremors in your typing fingers compel you to astound us further with your brilliance, can you put the readers out of their misery end explain why your Kraut colleague was not "...able to have an intelligent conversation with anyone since [they] got to Australia..."? Oh, on second thought, don't bother. I have re-read your posts. I can now see why.)

The attempt at a new identity was good while it lasted spentarse.

Or has there been a dreadful accident with your petri dish of spinifarci culture in the lab?

The blob?

Mr. Thomas,

You're really beginning to bug me. Why?

Because you feel the need to put everyone down in the same breath with which you claim to enlighten us all.

What the real problem mate? The Australian Newspaper won't run your articles? Do tell.

Also, please enlighten us with your claim to fame? You've worked for the Department of Defence? Intelligence? Or are you simply a seasoned Web Surfer?

We await your response with baited breath!

Matt said

"Remember who Saddam worked for; the CIA..."

Abbas Khalaf the Iraq ambassador to Russia said:

"All our economic infrastructure, energy industry, defence industry, agriculture and 98 per cent of our military equipment are of Russian origin. If the sanctions are lifted, Iraq would have no choice except close cooperation with Russia."

http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0208/0743.html

Aww, gee, Matt. Stop the silly slogans

During the 80s relations where friendlier between the US and Saddam. The Reagan administration showered Saddam with gifts and he obliged by showering innocent Iranians with biological and chemical weapons. As long as those Sunnis and Shi’ites kept hating each other we could all be sure that no nasty democracies could emerge in the area and complicate those plans for world domination. 
But when Saddam found out the Americans where two-timing him with Iran and giving them presents too he became very angry and didn't want to see the Americans anymore. 
But that didn't stop those nice Americans from throwing thier old pal a lavish retirement party last year complete with fireworks. 
U.S. Firms That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program* 
1.Honeywell (R, K) 
2.Spectra Physics (K) 
3. Semetex (R) 
4. T.I. Coating (A, K) 
5. Unisys (A, K) 
6.Sperry Corp. (R, K) 
7. Tektronix (R, A) 
8. Rockwell (K) 
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A) 
10. Finnigan-MAT-U.S. (A) 
11. Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K) 
12. Dupont (A) 
13. Eastman Kodak (R) 
14. American Type Culture Collection (B) 
15. Alcolac International (C) 
16. Consarc (A) 
17. Carl Zeiss--U.S. (K) 
18. Cerberus (LTD) (A) 
19. Electronic Associates (R) 
20. International Computer Systems (A, R, K) 
21. Bechtel (K) 
22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R) 
23. Canberra Industries, Inc. (A) 
24. Axel Electronics, Inc. (A) 
Key: 
A = nuclear weapon program 
B = biological weapon program 
C = chemical weapon program 
R = rocket program 
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and building of military plants 
*According to the German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, which identified this list as a since-deleted portion of Iraq's 11,000-page report to the U.N. Security Council.

Parsons Memory Fails Him
by Chris Wolstencroft Parsons - proudly lesbian Wednesday April 14, 2004 at 12:02 PM

"Matt memory fails him"
by Popcorn Wednesday April 14, 2004 at 10:21 AM
(above)

========================
Are you the knuckle-dragging fool who is 'puzzled' by why the 9/11 terrorists left their passports 'at home'?

Popcorn Parsons - Friday March 26, 2004 at 04:57 PM
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/65225_comment.php#66181
========================

*********************************************
========================
Are you the knuckle-dragging fool who is 'puzzled' by why the 9/11 terrorists left their passports 'at home'?
========================

Hey Chris! Are you the ratepayer funded fraud who keeps repeating this fabrication?

Where are your referenced quotes?

===========================
Mr PopcornFX Parsons:

Are you the Manly Council Psychological Asault Officer who generated several thousand words of hate-fuelled abuse about nazi-cockroaches, typing skills, pissing down throats and ejaculating over dead children [all of which I can reference] in a desperate attempt to deflect IMC readers attention from the reports on Israel's 911 Urban Moving Systems activities that were puiblished in the Bergen Record, the New York Times, ABC(US), FOX, Ha'aretz and Forward [all of which I can reference] ?

Or is Manly Council just a David Irving fiction?
==============================
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/64216_comment.php#65087
*********************************************

Did you forget?

"....The Reagan administration showered Saddam with gifts and he obliged by showering innocent Iranians with biological and chemical weapons..."

Hey, stupid. Did you read what the Iraqi ambassador said?

Also, as I understand it, Iraq's chemical wepaons stockpile were mostly German imports (they're good at that sort of thing).

They also got chemical weapons from Italy.

In fact, even Australia had a bit of a look in.

A confidential report issued on 21 August 1990 by Helmut Hossman. the Economy Minister of then West Germany, confirmed that the German companies had the lion's share in these transactions. The report said that since 1983, West German companies have exported to Iraq huge quantities of raw materials, equipment, and small industrial factories to produce poison gases.

But don't let a few silly old facts get in the way of your slogans and ranting;

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

- after all, as a fascist, your job is to tell lies and cheer on the Ba'athist murderers

Of course Germany, Italy, Russia probably supplied Saddam with weapons as did the USA. They are all imperialist nations. Iraq is a political pressure point, the huge oil reserve and geographically strategic location are of interest to any nation. Sending Saddam deadly weapons of mass destruction no doubt won the imperialists brownie points when dealing with the dictator.
But the fact is that Germany, Italy and Russia did not invade Iraq on the excuse that it was because of weapons of mass destruction. The very weapons they supplied. So that hipocracy cannot be applied, however it can to the USA. These European states chose not to invade no doubt because they knew it would bolster support for the USA in the region and they knew they would lose thier cheap oil supplied via the OPEC treaty. Maybe they had read the reports from "Project For A New American Century," a right-wing think tank (sounds like a contradiction) consisting of famous neocons such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz among others. I like the bit where they say that the U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The references to world domination are of interest also:

"America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.'

"A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status as the world's leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post–Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter"

I think we always knew the UN was really farce:

"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force"

Remind you of anything, Mein Kampf maybe?..

Now who's the fascist?

"...Of course Germany, Italy, Russia probably supplied Saddam with weapons as did the USA. They are all imperialist nations....."

Gilbert - did you read what the Russian Ambassador said?

Have another look. 98 per cent of Iraq's weapons.

That was when Russia was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?

You know? Hence, the Iraqi Air Force for example is equipped with MIGS? And SCUDS? And FROG SAMS?

They're Soviet era Russian weapons, dick head.

That's when - from 1974 till 1991 - the USSR was a formal ally of Iraq's. And the Left liked to praise Saddam as "quasi socialist"

You were probably too busy tie-dying t-shirts and shrieking slogans and bashing young libs to notice.

It seems you *did* forget about those lies you wrote at the expense of MAnly ratepayers, Ms. ZvingerFX-Wolstrencroft-Popcorn-Parsons. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Good stuff, Gilbert.

What was that you were recently saying about Andrew Wilkie and Bechtel , Chris?

remind us....

I'm with you Berty. All this 'first they laugh, then they fight, then you win' is a load of old bollocks.

NVDA must be the biggest joke going in neo-con circles. What a pack of suckers. The meek shall inherit fuck all. A few uber-sucks might get a piss-ant job organising the inconsequential rabble. These cockheads lead from the rear and implore the cannon fodder to wear the baton blows with dignity. Pigs arse!

They laugh at you, they beat you up and then they laugh at you again is more like it.

I'm with you Berty, let's go 'em. If you don't fight you lose.

That's the spirit lad.

Hey, Bechtel. Have a look again

The Iraqi Ambassador says "98 per cent of Iraq's weapons" came from Russia.

That leaves two percent for everyone else - including the NEXT two biggest France and China.

You can spam this site till your piles turn into raisins, but it changes nothing.

quote:
===========================
The Iraqi Ambassador says "98 per cent of Iraq's weapons" came from Russia.
===========================

Really, Chris?

(zero-bandwidth repost)

You can spam this site with ratepayer-funded lies for PNAC-Zion 'till your piles turn into raisins, but it changes nothing, Chris.

Yes, the USSR supplied Saddam with weapons. That is because they where an imperialist nation as I stated before. They did it for the same reasons all of the other forementioned countries did. As for whether or not a few stalinists considered Saddam socialist or not, who cares, neither where they.

Anyway, you have managed to side track the issue of the US occupation of Iraq quite well. The fact is that the people of Iraq know what role the US played during Saddam's regime, and they don't want the occupation. Not because they are pro-Saddam as the media like to portray, not because they are all islamic fundamentalists, but because they know the only way they can acheive freedom is by kicking the Americans out.

I'm really getting into these PNAC documents too... Have a look at this:

"The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower.' America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace;' to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies"

So the US recognised that the USSR was supplying Iraq with weapons and did the same thing to protect themselves and gain some authority in the region.

They are worried about China now that the USSR has gone:

"Raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status.

"The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it is essential to retain the capabilities US forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia, and to hold together a de facto alliance whose other main pillars are Korea and Japan maintaining forward-based US forces is essential".

"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"

Wow Southeast Asia. I wonder who they are planning to "liberate" to set that base up?

a new Isola
by wannabe urban planner Wednesday April 14, 2004 at 07:48 PM
somewhere east of dandyhole

Gilbert's right on the money when he first quotes and then says:

"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"

Wow Southeast Asia. I wonder who they are planning to "liberate" to set that base up?

You can take your pick of Malaysia, Indonesia or the Phillippines...or even northern Australia

In his 1968 Novel "Stand on Zanzibar" John Brunner
wrote of the US and China being engaged in what was termed the "Pacific conflict Zone" in the year 2010, a conflict that was being fought on both sides of the Pacific....

Funnily enough part of the plot revolved around the newest US state of Isola (the southern Islamic islands of the Phillipnines, Mindanao etc.) being used as a forward base against an expansionist communist China

In the novel, Isola is also used to harbor and support rebel pro-US forces against the government of Yatakang (Indonesia)

well worth a read (its a slog at 660 pages) if you want a really out there (and in many cases relevant) look at the future as it was seen to be headed in the late sixties.

Brunner's spot on when he describes 'muckers' (people that lose it and gun down or blow up fellow students or employees)

However, as yet there is not a low level class/civil war in the western seaboard of the US, (partly sponsored by the Chinese) being conducted by leftist partisans......

"Abbas Khalaf the Iraq ambassador to Russia said: ..."

The Iraqi Ambassador to Russia? Hmmm, no agendas there, no-one to please, no troubled waters requiring a liberal dose of oil. Completely impartial! I wonder if he's related to Comic Ali?

And the source of the article was a 'Russia Business List'.

Scintillating scholarship Crisco! I'm inspired, can I've a go?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who Armed Iraq?

By Paul Rockwell

"According to the December declaration, treated with much derision from the Bush administration, U.S. and Western companies played a key role in building Hussein's war machine. The 1,200-page document contains a list of Western corporations and countries – as well as individuals – that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades.

Embarrassed, no doubt, by revelations of their own complicity in Mideast arms proliferation, the U.S.-led Security Council censored the entire dossier, deleting more than 100 names of companies and groups that profited from Iraq's crimes and aggression. The censorship came too late, however. The long list – including names of large U.S. corporations – Dupont, Hewlett-Packard, and Honeywell – was leaked to a German daily, Die Tageszeitung. Despite the Security Council coverup, the truth came out."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15322

Who armed Iraq?

By Andy Oppenheimer

"An investigation of US corporate sales to Iraq, headed by Republican Congressman Donald Riegle and published in May 1994, listed some of the biological agents exported by US corporations with George Bush's approval as head of the CIA and later as vice-president under Ronald Reagan. The Iraqis are reported to have acquired stocks of anthrax, brucellosis, gas gangrene, E. coli and salmonella bacteria from US companies. "

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml

I could go on all night...

Don't miss this one though,

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/specific_data_index.html

or this

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

and this

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4685

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On second thoughts, you're still serving up the same sloppy shit spentarse.

You're fucking pathetic. Break out the Crisco and drown your sorrows you sad sack of shit.

No Bigs Uprise
by Sydney's Local-Government Freepers Thursday April 15, 2004 at 02:57 AM

<blockquote>
Oh? So, the uprising in Iraq didn't eventuate?
- SpiniFX Parsons</blockquote>

Beautiful PNAC
by Sydney's Local-Government Freepers Thursday April 15, 2004 at 04:49 AM

In response to the simple, and indisputable observation that Russia provided 98 per cent of Iraq's weapons - a fact nobody seriously doubts - self-hating mischling bkmc responds;

"....Who armed Iraq?...."

"An investigation of US corporate sales to Iraq, headed by Republican Congressman Donald Riegle and published in May 1994, listed some of the biological agents exported by US corporations with George Bush's approval as head of the CIA and later as vice-president under Ronald Reagan...... "

"...I could go on all night..."

So, what's stopping you?

At best, non Russian sources could have supplied 2 per cent of Iraq's weapons - and West Germany supplied most of that 2 per cent's chemical weapons component.

So, fill us in with the details you COULD show us?

But somehow seem reluctant to share with us?

Tell why the Iraqi ambassador is wrong? You know, some facts and figures instead of hollow promises of what you "could do all night". Without staining the sheets that is?

Document the relative volumes of US supplied wepaons - in contrast with those supplied by Russia, China, Germany, France, North Korea, etc?

Shouldn't be hard.

It's easy to point to the Russian MIG 21 and MIG 25s

The French artillery pieces.

The Russian, Chinese, Korean and even Iraqi-manufactured SCUD and FROG missiles based on original Russian designs and assembled by Russian technicians.

The Chinese manufactured patrol boats. The French helicopters. The German cheimcals.

Instead of just boasting about the "biological agents" (?) you COULD show us, show us.

tell us what they are? And how they were used?

C'mon, son. Speak up.

Rebeccaifex writes:
"In response to the simple, and indisputable observation that Russia provided 98 per cent of Iraq's weapons - a fact nobody seriously doubts - self-hating mischling bkmc responds;"

Numerous facts regarding the arming of Iraq have been posted for months and years.
This is a fact which nobody seriously doubts - self-deceiving cheerlings excepted, apparently. Not only are you a fraud, you are BORING.
Run along now......

"...Numerous facts regarding the arming of Iraq have been posted for months and years..."

Okay, Nige old boy.

Could you give the folks a few links?

You know? Something that would allow people to see for themselves?

You know, the relative contributions to Iraq's arsenal by both American and non-American weapons suppliers?

Just to show that the Iraqi ambassador was wrong about Russia supplying 98 per cent of the goodies?

C'mon.

Should be easy, no?

.....why would you say that when I've "put up" so many times before?
Anyway, I shouldn't let the assanine obfuscations of a fool stop me from exposing facts, so here goes....

"Could you give the folks a few links?"

For a start, have a look at gilbert's "where has the love gone?" post above.

"Just to show that the Iraqi ambassador was wrong about Russia supplying 98 per cent of the goodies?"

No, that's your pet obsession - I'll let you beLIEve what you want, I'm confident in the reader's abilities to see through it.
Did the Soviet Union exist in 2002? I don't think so - http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/63849_comment.php
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/62859_comment.php

For a broad overview of the Geopolitical forces operating in the Middle East and why it is foolish to take sides with any of them - http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/56953_comment.php

Stick with being junk food for moviegoers, Popcornifex.

"...Did the Soviet Union exist in 2002?...."

No, Changeling.

But it DID exist in 1991, at the start of Desert Storm - and pretty well one of the last things Mikhail Gorbochev did before the USSR collapsed was to try and broker a peace by getting Saddam out of Kuwait.

He failed - because in a short time he was toast himself.

I mean, what exactly are you suggesting?

That the USA armed and supported Saddam Hussein AFTER Desert Storm????

That is 2002 the USA was "backing" Saddam?

You are the incarnation of Occams Razor in reverse, old boy.

The LESS likely something is, the MORE willing YOU are to swallow it.

Occam's worn out eraser.

In certain respects, the collapse of the Soviet Union almost guaranteed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's disgusting regime.

There was no longer a powerful Iraqi ally to restrain Saddam's idiotic, incompetent foreign policy.

No reason why the USA should tolerate him with a more moderate Iran.

And nobody capable of preventing a determined US government from overthrowing him.

And as usual, stupid Saddam Hussein goading the USA to have a go.

"....What was that you were trying to say, Chris?...."

What part of the 2 per cent of Iraq's weapons NOT supplied by the USSR does this represent?

Ad what part of the TOTAL?

Let me guess - something less than, say, 0.001 per cent or something?

And why do you keep harping on so trivial a matter?

Why are you - in spite of the clear evidence - so desparate to "show" that the USA "supported" Saddam Hussein?

Or are you plain stupid???

MANY countries traded commodities of a strategic value with Iraq - Australia for example.

I believe we were Iraq's MAIN source of food grain - a strategic commodity.

I suspect you are fixated with this because you desparately NEED to divert discussion away from the central fact of Saddam's relationship with the USA - the Yanks overthrew him.

And you did NOTHING except try to prevent this.

Reda my lips - the USSR supplied NINETY-EIGHT PER CENT of Iraq's weapons.

Chris Popcorn Parsons - quote:
======================
My concern was based on the premise that the regime was brutal and fascistic
======================

An Israeli soldier prays beside his tank at the entrance to the Palestinian controlled city of Jenin after the Israeli army entered the city April 7, 2002. Israeli soldiers faced the toughest resistance yet in their West Bank offensive, trading round-the-clock fire with Palestinian gunmen Saturday in Nablus and Jenin.
REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen

A Palestinian woman looks at dead bodies in a house in the refugee camp in the West Bank town of Jenin April 13, 2002. Israeli tanks swept into three West Bank towns in defiance of U.S. demands to end its offensive, shortly after U.S Secretary of State Colin Powell called off talks with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic

The burned remains of a Palestinian boy lay amidst toys in a house destroyed by Israeli soldiers in the Jenin refugee camp Saturday, April 13, 2002. In their search for Palestinian militants, Israeli forces destroyed hundreds of homes in the camp, using tanks, helicopters and bulldozers. Israeli forces retain tight control of the camp and surrounding towns and villages as part of a military offensive that begun March 29.
(AP Photo/Jerome Delay)

A British man working with a UN aid agency was one of two people today killed in fighting in a refugee camp in the West Bank. He was identified as Ian Hook, 50, who headed a UN project to rebuild homes in a Jenin refugee camp.

An 11-year-old Palestinian boy was also killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,845428,00.html

I can only imply from your lack of response that you must approve of the brutal fascism of military-Judaism, Chris.

Nearly a week after the publication of shocking pictures showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the damage to America’s image just keeps growing.

The U.S. Army has investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. That revelation comes as Washington launches an unprecedented campaign to rescue its reputation.

.
.
.
We seem to be having problems with that story. We’ll move on to the next one.