Oceania Iraq attacked ?

Wedge, let's not forget, that before the Gulf, Iraq was armed with European equipment. The French couldn't use planes because guess what? They were using the same planes as the Iraqis, F-111's, and since they don't use transponders like civillian craft do, you can't tell French from Iraqi.
Doesn't anyone here, besides me, know that Iraq used to be our friend? If not, let's see if you can't see why. Who do they border? Who did they fight a war with for a decade? I'll give you a hint; similar name, and we've been angry with them since their Islamic Revolution in 1979. That's right, IRAN!!! Iraq was our friend 'cause they didn't like Iran. We sold arms to them during their decade long war, the same war which had Saddam borrow billions from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and the same war which prompted his invasion of Kuwait. Granted, though, that the US sold weapons to Iran to, but hey, nothing's perfect, right?
I think I read somewhere that the Iraqi AK-47's came from China, either as straight AK's or the Chinese copy, the Type 51. Same with most of their old SovBloc stuff.

E_S

 

^ Here Here

 

Ta!

On Australia's side - we're stretched pretty thin now, with Op. Enduring Freedom plus Timor. If we did anything in Iraq, we'd have to pull the SASR out of Afghanistan, and put them to work with 1SOFDelta and the 22SAS. And maybe some logistical and support roles, but at the cost of our Afghan campaign.
Economic benefit for us though, = nothing. Politically, it's sound for Howard to support our "great and powerful friends", as Menzies called them. And since Howard is a bit enamoured with ol' Bob Menzies, he'd love to hear me say that!

E_S

 

You'll make a great Defence Minister Mr Ender Sai And you know a damm lot

I have to agree that our military resources will probbaly be stretched very thinly with our troops everywhere.

With any luck, once the militias have been eradicated from East Timor and they have their own defence force, that'll help I bet. More likely, our soldiers will need a break after that!!

I have a friend who is from Iran, it's actually a much more liberal place than it was 20 years ago. While quite a few people don't fully agree with America's motives, they do love the country a lot, and they would certainly never fly planes into American skycrapers. Most kids' favourite TV station is MTV in fact! I think this just goes to proove that American Military Intervention and Foreign Policy is NOT what is responsible for terrorist activity.

 

Of course it's not. I know a few Iranians too. And I know some Iranian women who, in Australia, choose to wear the veil as a sign of their devotion to Allah. Iran's president, Khatami, is a moderate reformer; it's Ayotallah Khameni and his clerics that are the problem. Islam is being given a bad name by fundamentalists - and if anyone missed it, I urge you to catch the doco on SBS about Islam.
Iran had a beef with the US over the Shah and SAVAK, his secret police. Those who actually lived through it, though, are all but dead. Like Ayotallah Kohmeni.
Though, it was US foreign policy that prompted the Pasdaran, Iran's secret police, to encourage and train terrorists under the name "Islamic Jihad" in response to the events prior to 1979. Remember, Iran and the USSR shared a border, so it was deemed important to keep the Shah in power as he was anticommunist. That's why Iran responded as it did. I think America has to learn, and perhaps to a degree has learnt, that they cannot act now with the assumed impunity they did before - somehow, someone will respond. Initially, they were complacent because in a conventional military sense, they cannot be threatened. Terrorists aren't conventional though.

Wedge, I recommend you go buy Bob Baer's "See No Evil." I got it from a Borders for $29.95. It's essentialy a CIA memoir, and Baer was in Iraq after the Gulf war, and dealt with the Kurdish opposition. I think you'd like it, seriously (with no sarcasm there at all. Totally, 150% serious.)

E_S

 

I've seen that book around I'm sure. I seem to remember having a look at it sometime. I'll give it a better look next time.

Anyway, all I can' really add to all the Iran talk is that you have to put yourself in the situation at the time and not just look back at it in hindsight. You can't fight a leader or regime that's not in place yet. That's why Iraq was then supplied with weapons and training, much like Afghanistan.

And why is it only America's allegience is questioned when this history is brought up? If America were allies with Iraq then surely they're just as guilty of turning on former friends... and even more so in my opinion.

Agreed on the Islam and Muslim thing. The extremists want to make it into a religious thing but it's really got nothing to do with it except for their own quest for a bit of pull in their land.

Also, since when have Iraq been using F111s? I've always thought they were MiG-21 fans. They were 10 years ago at least. Guess it's not really important in the long run.

 

In the Gulf, they were using F111's. Of late, MiG's because they can buy them from China.
America is questioned, IMO, out of jealousy. The latent antiamericanism you find here is largely pointless. It's like that scene with the Palestinians complaining about the Romans in The Life of Brian - very funny, and very true.

Rogue, here's the definition of terrorism given by the Central Intelligence Agency:

"The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
?The term ?terrorism? means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
?The term ?international terrorism? means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
?The term ?terrorist group? means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. "

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

E_S

 

I'm still sure that in 1990/91 the Iraqis flew MiG-21s, 23s and 25s into Iran and Jordan so they wouldn't be considered weapons by America and the poor Iraqis never got them back so in 1998 they upgraded to MiG-29s in a BIG contract with Russia.

 

It's entirely possible, but remember, the Iranian Air Force is made up of MiG's AND F15 Eagles - Iraq was probably a composite army. They wielded the Kalashkinov rifles and Markarov pistols, but pretty sure they had British tanks (as well as crappy old T-72 tanks and BMP's). The SCUD is a Russian weapon, too.

But they never had an Infinity convertible, only Lexus!

E_S

 

Hehe. I noticed last year that Lexus did in fact make a convertible. They must have been insprired by some creative script writing.

 

Is it possible that Saddam could be a puppet for the AMericans to control oil from Kuwait and |Saudi Arabia

Or maybe I must be Ill informed.

 

Yes, you must be ill-informed. Unless of course you can back it up with evidence which I have no doubt the international community would be very interested to hear.

 

Actually, guys, what he's saying is a common belief in the Middle East. They believe Saddam is a CIA plot; or else, why haven't America gotten rid of him. This is a common belief in many countries, and the more you try to deny it the more many believe it. Think about it; the great and powerful USA can't topple Saddam? Yeah right, try "won't".
Now, I know this is silly - he fought his way up through the Ba'ath as a Sunni. But to others it makes perfect sense.

So say sorry!

E_S

 

Actually, I think it is a capitalist and alien conspiracy - the US is using his neural cells to power their nuclear subsmarines so they can take over the world.

Isn't it obvious?

 

Marvin, part of the problem we have with the Middle East is a total lack of understanding of each other's perceptions. It goes back to the time of El Aurens and the bedouin fight against the Turks. In the Middle East, they perceive things differently. They remember Iran. In the late 1950's, a nationalist named Mohammed Mossadeq came to power, and try to natioanlise the Iranian oil fields. Alarmed at this, the CIA instigated the return of the Shah to power, who was pro-US. The Shah, however, wasn't popular, and to repress people, he used his secret police, SAVAK - who'd been trained by Langley. Jimmy Carter even called Iran an "island of stability in a sea of turbulence" or something like that. Then you get the islamic revolution. That capitalised on the feelings of resentment brought about by Western interference in the region, and turned Iran away from the West.
Now, to Iraq; if the CIA can overthrow a government and replace them, why can't they repeat it with Saddam? To them, it's "because he's a CIA puppet." It's a ridiculous theory to us because we know why America hasn't gotten rid of him yet. But we have access to media sources that many an Arab otherwise wouldn't bother with.

E_S

 

On the "El Aurens" point, and keep in mind I absolutely hate what-if questions, but what if Britain implemented a Government in Domascus after WW1 instead what's happened? Would it have been much the same like today with tribal battles, or could it have been different?

Probably not since it's always been a strugle there, but fair dinkum, when they united to fight the Turks... how good was that opportunity to get the region together?

 

If you think that this is has nothing to do with money than you're one of those people who believe what they say in commercials.

The US president is devoting a lot of time and energy promoting this war and so my theory is that he is trying to boost the I and the X and the C to bring his country back up to speed in the international economy. Sure, there was a recession, but they can be very useful and necessary for businesses. Otherwise he wouldn't be wasting so much time and instead concentrate on internal matters.

Oh btw, what was to be gained from september 11 - I've put it down to 3 things: revenge, money and power.

Osama - got revenge, lost power and money.

Bush - no revenge, but got power.

US corporations - no revenge, but got money and power.

So there you go - Osama is an idiot....

 

You honestly believe Bin Laden didn't get a lot of ground roots supporters out of the attacks? That's where he'll be getting his next millions from too. The only thing he lost was his save haven when America liberated Afghanistan.

Anyway, I was enjoying the little discussion on El Aurens and Fiesel's Beduin army. Please take it up again.

 

he lost his power base, had his assets frozen, lost all freedom of movement, had his army decimated, supplies confiscated, senior members killed - and now he has to remain in hiding for the rest of his life (that is if he isn't already dead)

 

He's been in hiding for the last 10 years, not 12 months.

If you can provide some evidence that he has in fact lost ground roots supporters in Arab and muslim communities, please provide it because his profile in most areas of the world (including Australia and the USA) was virtually unknown to most of the community until he raised mention on news with each, of his then small attacks.