Sunday, April 23, 2006
# Posted 8:31 AM by Patrick Porter
The primary contribution of the US to Saddam was the sharing of some intelligence during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam started the war, and official (and unofficial) US policy was "It's a shame they both can't lose." The preferred policy was a stalemate to keep both of them occupied.
While the USA was pretty neutral at the beginning, the war went rather disasterously for Saddam. Fearful at the prospect of a total victory for Iran which would leave them in control of most of Iraq, including its oil supplies, starting in 1982 the USA lent aid to Saddam in the form of intelligence. This aid shifted the balance of the war and resulted in a stalemate. After the stalemate was achieved, the aid was removed.
That ignorance is only possible by the partisan media. It was one of those things that since i already had knowledge told me a lot (well confirmed what i already tought about the dismal current MSM.)
US sold around 60 Helis to Iraq. Liasion UH-1 and Hughes MD500. Some pistols and a unlawfull export of US Saudi aircraft bombs.
Actually that SIPRI values are misleading since they only count the "flyaway" prices. If we count the logistic support necessary for sophisticated weapons , training, airbases and bunkers and samll arms build the USA sells is even less. And entering the Missile program...we have Modded Scuds with German components that when fell in Israel made the German Taxpayers pay 2 of the 3 new Israeli Submarines.... Nothing is in SIPRI.
Not that i think selling for Saddam would have been bad(better saying the badest..) since Iran victory was worst.
And the Lend Lease to Soviets was never blamed...
Iraq was already armed with Soviet-bloc weapons; that's what their troops were trained to use. So they mostly stayed with that 'family': either Soviet originals, or Chinese/Yugoslav knock-offs. They did buy some French aircraft and missiles (STARK was hit by Exocets); also some South African artillery. The US might have sold more stuff to Iraq, but the Soviets (and Chinese) had the compatibility edge, the established relations with Iraq's military, and they were very aggressive on price, I believe. And the US really didn't want to get close to Iraq, even then.Post a Comment