SCL:
Thanks for almost contributing. Bye bye now.
Oh? Rushing off somewhere? I have some Immodium if you need it.
SCL:
No thanks. Cannot you tell by my avatar that I am already tight-assed enough?
Thanks anyway. Coming to church this Sunday? I will be delivering a sermon on the evils of Liberal America and why they will all be going to HELL.
Love Fredd
Yes I do remember and hence my claim that WEST Germany did supply less conventional weapons than the US.
To add the EAST German sales is a bit unfair, isn’t it? (Should be added to Russia instead)
Again you fail to explain why only conventional weapons count.
And how dare you to cite the leftist NY Times for your argument!?
There is nothing to disprove, I just asked you to back up the numbers and provide the links to the sources you quote from.
No argument about the 1% conventional sales, but as long as you don’t provide the stats related to the other claims I can’t say you are right or wrong.
I’m sorry Rascal but why shouldn’t East Germany count. Evil nation.
Okay. Fair enough. 4 percent is mostly East Germany but you would not have known that had I not explained that to you myself so give me some credit.
But oh Rascal:
The 50 percent plus is for weapons of mass destruction and their development NOT conventional weapons sorry.
love freddie
heee heee heee
See once again. Always happy to help…
The United States was not alone in supplying Iraq. I have produced a graphic here from the New York Times, which my organization produced, that shows the worldwide contribution to Iraq’s programs. You’ll notice by looking at this graphic that German firms sold as much to Iraq to its mass destruction weapon programs as the rest of the world combined. We produced this pie chart, which is divided down the middle with Germany on one side and the rest of the world on the other. German firms helped increase the range of Iraq Scud missiles. Those increased range Scuds killed our troops in Saudi Arabia and they also killed Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv.
One polite letter from The Guardian (Nov 18, 2003):
Dear Mr President,
Today you arrive in my country for the first state visit by an American president for many decades, and I bid you welcome.
[b]You will find yourself assailed on every hand by some pretty pretentious characters collectively known as the British left. They traditionally believe they have a monopoly on morality and that your recent actions preclude you from the club. You opposed and destroyed the world’s most blood-encrusted dictator. This is quite unforgivable.
I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.
It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second.[/b]
Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left’s idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il… and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time.
Frederick Forsyth
Novelist
Turgidson: Strangelove. What kind of a name is that? That ain’t no kraut name, is it, Stainsy?
Stains: He changed it when he became a citizen. It used to be Merkwurkdigliebe.
Turgidson: Hmm. A kraut, by any other name, huh, Stainsy?
visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
Sellers as President Merkin Muffley:[quote] “Gentlemen, no fighting in the War Room!”[/quote] 
Dr. Strangelove, the best political satire ever filmed.
[quote=“Closet Queen”]Sellers as President Merkin Muffley:[quote] “Gentlemen, no fighting in the War Room!”[/quote]
Dr. Strangelove, the best political satire ever filmed.[/quote]
Wthout a doubt!
Col “King” Kong:
Survival Kit contents check. In them you will find: one 45 caliber automatic, two boxes of ammunition, four days concentrated emergency rations, one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills, one miniature combination Rooshan phrase book and Bible, one hundred dollars in rubles, one hundred dollars in gold, nine packs of chewing gum, one issue of prophylactics, three lipsticks, three pair of nylon stockings – shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff…
[quote=“fred smith”]Imaniou:
If you are going to “pop in” have the decency to read the pages of posts preceding our argument. What you have supplied has been discussed. It was not a surprise but compare what Germany, France and Russia were actually giving the man. Notice how quite Rascal is about the subject. haha. Looks like he got more statistics than he wanted to deal with.[/quote]
Actually, I have been reading this thread and others in this forum, but your posts on here made me want to respond. I rarely jump into a discussion without reading every single post beforehand at the risk of being too cautious in joining. I look up information to make sure that where I am coming from is where I want to be, trying to find articles that are the most neutral to the subject to link to and quote.
I wish I could say that for… oh, nevermind. 
I do not get into politics lightly which is why I avoid responding most times, to keep my sanity and avoid the feeling that I would be more productive banging out Jingle Bells with my head on a brick wall. Sometimes, however, I have a lapse in judgement. Thank goodness you were there to bring me back to my senses when it comes to arguing with the regulars of this particular forum. You can put the wall away for now, I’m outtie. 
Hey Hey! No need to come in here and badmouth the regulars of this forum… :raspberry:
Cheers, yo. But I’m taking off my boxing gloves all the same.
This is all pretty funny…it underlines a major problem regarding what others are using this forum for which sadly enough is pandering revisionism for their views and polemics. I think that Fred needs to be pegged for it big time. I won’t trade words with him cause he’s too friggin ridiculous. His rant isn’t worth sorting out and even if you do he
Damn good thing you’re here to set us all strait!
[quote=“kevort”]It
The mere fact that we helped Saddam in the past does not remove justification for recent hostilities. There are good arguments against the current hostilities; that’s not one of them.
Vork, if you’re going to bitch because the U.S. sent reference-strain samples to Iraq, at a time when there were no regulations against selling them to ANYONE – there was even a private individual who bought some anthrax from the Ames complex, IIRC – then you should also have the honesty to bitch about the Pasteur Institute in France, which also sold Saddam Hussein reference samples of dangerous biowarfare agents at around the same time.
Does that mean you’re quitting the ring, or that you’re going to go bare knuckle from now on?
Kevort:
What’s your beef? Wanna mention a specific fact that is wrong? Notice how V and Rascal disappeared pretty quickly from these thread when they were buried under evidence. I can sure try to do the same if you have a specific complaint. Do you have anything more though than Kennedy was assassinated and it was all a plot by some cabal in New Orleans or what?
Yeah Fred, I see you really ride 'em hard. The only problem with this hard hitting swinging manner of polemic discussion is it’s inherently revisionist. I think you are well aware of this; it’s reflected in your cronic attempts at irony, Teddy Roosevelt you are not. To their credit they did not seem to be contributing for the kind of dribble that they got from you. There’s quite a bit of posting here that serves the purpose of the tirade of a few. Your whining tends to spread the worst of it. I won’t give you the answers that you claim to seek unless I am sure that you are not going to spew on it with bad intent. One doesn’t learn a damn thing from such mental exercises as Lobotomy.
The big bad historical voodoo of the Iran-Iraq war was there were specific reasons why there was very little direct traceable aid to Saddam…it was legislated as illegal. The historical controversy was that during crucial times during the Iran-Iraq war grain credits and other export trade credits were provided to prop up Saddam. These funds were used either directly or freed up other funds for him to purchase dual-use industrial equipment that showed up as sources for both his military and nuclear needs. That is how they went beyond the legislative ban for some 750 million dollars. I think the estimated total was 1.4 Billion of money thrown away.
Trying to find some sort of percentage of funding between countries in a nefarious war is an accounting fudge that will not reveal much of anything.
This Suspri project is suspect on it’s overt intentions. The other side of the Iran-Iraq problem of funding both sides of the same war was also a scandal. remember it was another ridiculous one called the Iran-Contra scandal. Looking back on it from a backwards viewpoint one should at least agree that there was a much effort to stop this kind of covert funding of everything and that is sadly no longer a manner to try and keep things straight. I assumeFred, you do want the US to be able to account properly for all the stupid things that are funded don’t you?
One amusing point is that at the beginning of the war the media kept using the word stark as an adverb to describe threats. Both Bush and Blair were credited with giving a “Stark warning to Saddam”, that was the term the media used… But none seemed to remember that it was Saddam who had already torpedoed the Uss Stark and at the time US foreign policy was so focused on other things that it didn’t really have a credible response or know what to do. Isn’t it odd that of all the things that come up as reasons to teach Sadam a lesson, that incident isn’t among them…even the neo-cons don’t bother with it? Very strange blimp in our sense of memory I guess.
Why is sipri not suspri suspect? Lots of ssss’s? Too many?
No one here denies that the US to some extent helped Saddam. We were not the ones saying absolutely not, never. What I have been saying is given the far more eggregious behavior and the extremely limited and tactical nature of the US contacts with Saddam, why would anyone dream of calling Saddam our man? Now, you are making it seem that we have refused to hear anything at all about US and Saddam contacts. I fail to see how you jumped to that level. Now, do you agree with the proposition that Saddam was “our man?” I think that I have clearly proved that he was not.