There is some fiber optic anti aircraft missile technology there too. It was sold to China during the last administration, who in turn sold it to Iraq.
Yeah, some of that stuff could get pretty convoluted.
Iraq's military establishment, in contrast to Iran's, disposed no US built weapons systems in its Table of Organization and Equipment. Iraq's military machine was chiefly Ex-Soviet/Russian, French, a bit of British, some German, and a smattering of other European manufacture and origin, along with a little from N. Korea and China.
timber, That may be true, but we really don't know if any of our allies sold it to others, then ended up in Iraq after resale after resale.
I believe it safe to assume any US military technology disposed by Iraq, if any in fact was, was obtained other than through legitimate channels.
Well, there were some early-Vietnam-era UH1A helicopters ... I'm not sure how they got those ... it might have been legitimate acquisition of demilitarized surplus, reconverted to military capability by Iraq. I have to go play darts pretty soon, or I'd look it up. I'm sure the info is trackable.
Were you referring to mobile hydrogen generators, or any old British bits?
No, Steve ... 50 or so 'Sixties/Seventies manufacture Chieftan Tanks, as well as assorted logistic support vehicles ... "Lorries" to you, I believe.
timberlandko wrote:There is no acceptable reason for Iraq to have been in possession of proscribed munitions.
What is an acceptable reason to have munitions? Would defense against the threat of an invading army count?
Now, CdK, I specifically referrenced "Proscribed Munitions", not munitions in general. Not a fine point at all, nor condusive to spin.
timber,
There was no prohibition placed on Iraq in regard to those missles IIRC.
Just wondered Timber because I used to work for a Brit company making and selling hydrogen generators which we sold, amongst others, to the Iraqi army in the 80's. Some of the stories my colleagues recounted from Baghdad, and nearer the front convinced me Saddam was not a very nice man. I moved on to other employment shortly after.
Lorries. Thats correct. We will have no trucking about on this forum. :wink:
Yes there was ... they were among the categories proscribed by the post-Gulf War 1 accords. Gotta go play darts now ... back later.
Timber, can you cite that? I was under the impression taht while the weapons did not fall into the categories that Iraq agreed to prohibit but rather that they simply violated the sanctions.
In the case of the sanctions the violator would be the arms merchant.
In Iraq they are wmd's ...... in N. Korea they are nukes ... why is that?
which are more lethal?
Gelisgesti wrote:In Iraq they are wmd's ...... in N. Korea they are nukes ... why is that?
which are more lethal?
Well, technically the Weapons o'Mass Destruction category includes Nukes. The difference is that Korea actually has them (as well as Bio and Chem weapons), therefore we will not attack them.
Gels, The WMD's in Iraq still has not been found. As for nukes in N Korea, they may have a couple with the potential to build a dozen more. So, who will they use it against?
If Kim wants to go the way of Saddam or Osama, he'd better be careful about 'threats' and usage.
Hell no, they got rocks . . . no oil, but if you've ever seen Korea, you'll know they'll never want for rocks. We got lots a rocks, and get all the important ones we really, really want from the South, so to hell with Joe Ching . . . you don't think the Shrub really wants to risk a bloody nose, do you . . .
True. Korea is unlikely to provide a "feel good victory."
