This is why Imus should be required listening.

John McCain is a sticky little politician. He makes me mad as hell at times, then he comes up with this. Brilliant.

I don't normally have a lot of use for McCain, but...

Tee hee. Tee hee heh.

snicker.

[chuckle]

I like John McCain, and I'm not ashamed to say so. Especially now. Senator, you rock!

Excellent idea! I would even go so far as to have the Iraqi government demand whatever money they paid to the Russians and French for selling them second-rate military equipment at ridiculously exorbitant prices.

Good plan. But let's apply it wholesale to all arms sold to Iraq during Saddam's reign shall we? That way both...er... Britain and the USA... have to do the same? Only fair!

Sure, Bennie, we'll be glad to cough up the measly $40 mil.

Just as long as the Frogs can scratch up $1 billion, and the Russkies $10 billion...

I think Britain was around $100-$120 mil, can't recall offhand.

Whoopsie, another leftie myth bites the dust. Heh heh heh...

That's right! Let's see...~280 million Americans...40 million dollars...I think I'm willing to sacrifice my fourteen cents to help rebuild Iraq.

leftie myth? all I said was that it should be applied wholesale rather than just to those nations who have obviously irritated all those in favour of war (with all those amusing anti-French antics as a result, but I digress).

The actual figures you state are moot in any event. Do you really think that the US - the world's biggest arms manufacturer - would have sold the smallest amount of weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran when Saddam was an ally of convenience?

What I find annoying though is that what is essentially a level-playing field suggestion is dismissed as "leftie" simply because it casts the US in a poor light. Does this mean to be right-wing is to ignore facts and deflect the blame?

Does this mean to be right-wing is to ignore facts and deflect the blame?

Oh, God no. We could never be anywhere near as good as the Left. We would look silly to try. Nah, the truth is much easier for us to stick to.

The actual figures you state are moot in any event. Do you really think that the US - the world's biggest arms manufacturer - would have sold the smallest amount of weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran when Saddam was an ally of convenience?

Why moot? Because it blows your idea of level...
Who said we sold less - only that they cost less? Perhaps you don't like the idea that things cost less in the 80's or is it that you don't like the idea that we gave a fair price UNLIKE France and Russia? Whatever.

Figures can be found - look it up. If they are true then they aren't moot - they're just annoying. To you anyway.

In point of fact, Ben, the U.S. sold almost no arms to Saddam Hussein.

That is simply a fact.

The only real evidence we have of ANYTHING he got from us, weapons wise, was that in the 1980s, the Centers for Disease Control (note: not the Pentagon. Not the DoD. Not the CIA.) shipped, upon request, a few sample vials of anthrax to a university in Baghdad. Note that this was not a secret, nor is there any evidence that anyone higher than the local lab knew that was done.

That's it.

Do a little research: Iraqi tanks, artillery, the airplanes, infantry rifles, SCUDs and other missiles--all Russian.

Just so you know. You might want to help spread the word about this pernicious myth, because it's getting a little old having to put it down so often all by ourselves.

McCain is just great on national defense.

But I do not believe in any form of campaign finance reform, which was proving to be this guy's chief claim to fame in his aborted run for the presidency three years ago. So he would never get my support for that office.

Why? Because I believe there is no constitutional sanction in this country for any limitation of any type on funding political campaigns at any level. If you have money, or if you have bought your way into a combination with other like minded folks who want to spend their money to buy the kind of government they find amenable to their particular interests, than that is your right.

An unintended consequence of campaign finance reform is that demogogs get elected more on the strength of their personalities than on their policies. This, I believe, is largely what put William Jefferson Clinton into office and kept him in the White House even after he was impeached, even after it was confirmed that he was getting blow jobs and related treats in an from a White House intern in an anteroom of the Oval Office.

I am one of those few people who sincerely believe that the constitutional amendment that enacted direct popular elections for members of the United States Senate, should be repealed. Some of you may find this argument unusual, but one of the originally important rights of the states was for their legislatures to have a monopoly on the appointment of US senators. That was part of the carefully laid out balance of powers written into the Constitution by James Madison and Company. It should not have been altered.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Oh, I would agree that the Campaign Finance "Reform" laws were and are a greivous assault on the first amendment. I was genuinely ashamed of Bush for signing that piece of garbage.

But the fact of the matter is that the benefit will redound to Republicans. As others have pointed out, Democrats are much more dependent on multimillionaires than Republicans. Most Republican contributions are from middle class voters and small business owners, with an average of something like $90 per contribution.

Democrats are going to be at a huge funding disadvantage under these new laws. Not that it should matter all that much, since who has the most money has never, and likely will never, be more than a minor factor in political elections. But it's still rather ironic.

Again and again, I make a point and rather than consider what truth there is in it, people look for ways to rubbish part if not all of the statement.

Fact: the coalition forces sold Saddam weapons.

That's undisputable. The UK and even Spain sold Saddam missile parts as recently as the mid 90s (AFTER the Gulf War!).

The suggestion that nations that sold weapons to Saddam's regime should forgive national debt of a similar amount - but that it should apply to *all* nations who sold weapons, not just those who opposed the war - is hardly being leftwing. It's just being fair.

Level playing field, no?

To suggest that the figures for actual arms sales are moot is hardly deniable either. Do you work for Iraq's military purchasing department? Or are you merely going on hearsay and speculation? Regardless of how reliable the source, any figures are going to be a guess, for both arms sold by the US *and* Russia. The US certainly isn't likely to put out accurate figures right now if they would put it in a hypocritical or costly position.

Do you dispute that?

In point of fact, Ben, the U.S. sold almost no arms to Saddam Hussein.

That is simply a fact.

You cannot prove this one way or another. The only way to know would be to have worked in either the US department of defence or the Iraqi counterpart. I'd guess if you had done either you wouldn't be writing about it on a blog...

My final point was, however, personal conjecture. It just strikes me as unlikely that the world's biggest arms producer would sell less arms to a nation considered an ally than what was at the time the only opposing superpower. It would seem unusual, to say the least. The truth isn't within my grasp so I can only speculate like that, I just find it unlikely.

In any event, the US having *actually* sold less arms isn't annoying to me. Strangely enough I'm not anti-US, I'm just against war (or more specifically, the human cost of war), so what matters most isn't proving some nation's dirty past, but helping to create a better future.

The people of Iraq having the best possible opportunity to rebuild their nation is what I hope for. It would just be somewhat unfair if the nations largely accountable for blowing it up shirked their responsibilities in helping repair the nation, especially since liberating the people seems to now be the primary focus of their aims.

Yes, Ben, you keep making the same points, and then you keep saying things that are patently false while making them.

As it happens, our government does not sell most weapons. But it does happen that we know, with a very high degree of accuracy, what kind of munitions the Iraqis use. It is a matter of public record, not to mention considerable intelligence.

We. Did. Not. Arm. Saddam. Okay? This is not a matter of debate, and it is not a matter of speculation. And so long as you keep repeating this factually untrue statement, it's hard to have any other conversation.

Want the U.S. to forgive the debts just like everyone else? Okay. No problem. Since it's a piddling tiny amount, why not? It's only fair.

And since we did not arm Saddam, we'll have very little to blush about.

Now. Will you acknowledge that we did not arm Saddam, or will we continue having this conversation?

I get such a kick out of people who make absolute statements from belief instead of knowledge.

Let's go in order here:
Actual figures are not moot when you find out that the U.S. dollar figures are only FOUR PERCENT of the French figures, and FOUR TENTHS OF A PERCENT of the Russian figures. In other words France's dollar amounts were 25 times those of the United States, and Russia were 250 times those of the United States. If you can't count that high, there is a huge difference between 40 million, and 1 billion.

And, since I know how to look up the figures, I don't have to rely on a rhetorical stance to ask if the US "really" was the smallest provider: I know. Try looking up the numbers instead of copping a position, please.

And I say "leftie" as it is invariably the left that brings this (very inaccurate) story up. Over and over and over... As Dean said, we're tired of hearing it.

It doesn't put the US in a poor light when you actually consider the real, verifiable numbers involved. Which, BTW, are for the years 1972-2002, so it includes six years where Hussein wasn't even in power.

I have to laugh at your claim that "[the] right-wing ... ignores facts." especially since neither Dean nor I are anything near that. But the true humor is that we have provided you with facts -a courtesy you have not yet returned- and you have dismissed them as "moot". Yeah. :)

I notice in your follow-up post you change from "the US armed Iraq" to "the coalition armed Iraq". One sure sign of a weak position is changing one's argument in the middle of a discussion. :)

What is (apparently) the problem for you is that you just can't accept that these figures are publicly available. You don't have to be a a part of the Iraq government to find these things out, nor can the US government supress figures (or generate bogus ones) without causing a big fuss.

You see, here in America we have what are called, technically, "privately owned companies" who use things called "sales figures". In other words, it has nothing to do with government information handling. Just look up the sales figures for (say) Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc..

You say that the actual US sales figure isn't annoying to you: then why fight the idea so hard? Why argue with someone (well, several people) who are perfectly willing to provide links to the data? Aside from your "personal impressions", that is?

Yes, the truth is very much "within [your] grasp": all you do is take the time and effort to reach out, intellectually.

I can add some (real) rhetorical questions if you like, such as: where do you think organizations like Jane's gets their information? Not to mention the large number of other, independent organizations across the world that are perfectly aware of the true state of events? They aren't making these numbers up.

Also, look at any order of battle list for Iraq; name a single US, British, or Spanish weapon... Go ahead. Just one. That's all I ask. You can't. :) They aren't there.

For folks like Dean and myself this particular topic is about as irritating as the "moon landings are a hoax" claim, as both of them have the same degree of reality involved.

Feel free to be anti-war, if you like, but please don't parrot patently false stories like that. It really irks us when someone pops up, yet again, with the old "we armed Saddam" claim, then starts ducking & weaving when presented with facts (as opposed to beliefs or impressions), then changes the subject. It's just so... tiring. [weary grin]

Dean: please note that he has (in classic style) now dropped the original claim and has changed the subject to "the human cost of the war."

So you want to start, or shall I? Heh heh heh...

Arnold, I agree that every new reform law makes it worse than before. I used to favor a simple "full disclosure of all contributions" rule until I found out how politicos out in California (the eventual winners) used the information to retaliate against individuals, and companies, that contributed to their opponents. Not good.

Also, limiting the amount any single person can contribute means that a candiate has to lean more upon special interest groups in order to afford a modern campaign.

You are one of the few people I know, besides Jerry Pournelle, who has made that observation about the former method of electing Senators.

I'm not sure of the specific benefits of the original method, but, as you say, the founding fathers were pretty good at setting up an effective form of government.

The problem with having state legislatures appoint Senators was that the legislatures fought furiously over it and often couldn't come to agreement.

Now, I suppose that if Governors appointed all Senators, with ratification by only ONE of the bodies in the legislatures, it might be okay to go back to that.

But then, I'd favor a Constitutional amendment limiting Senators to three terms and Representatives to six. And that isn't going to happen either.

No ducking, no weaving, no changing of tact. I don't take back anything I said, nor do I believe my point has altered.

And, since I know how to look up the figures, I don't have to rely on a rhetorical stance to ask if the US "really" was the smallest provider: I know. Try looking up the numbers instead of copping a position, please.

I'd like to see these figures. If you'd like to email me (ben at kapowaz dot net) with the URLs I'd appreciate it.

I have to laugh at your claim that "[the] right-wing ... ignores facts." especially since neither Dean nor I are anything near that

Where did I ever accuse any individual of being right wing? I merely was contrasting how a certain stance is always portrayed as typical of left wing individuals.

I notice in your follow-up post you change from "the US armed Iraq" to "the coalition armed Iraq"

Er, isn't the US part of the coalition?

Also, look at any order of battle list for Iraq; name a single US, British, or Spanish weapon... Go ahead. Just one. That's all I ask.

The article I read in Private Eye (not to hand alas otherwise I'd give you the exact issue number) stated that German, British and Spanish companies (amongst others) sold various missile parts (specifically gyroscopes) to Iraq. Obviously these aren't as conspicuous as a Kalashnikov rifle on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean they're of no relevence.

Dean: please note that he has (in classic style) now dropped the original claim and has changed the subject to "the human cost of the war."

Changed the subject? Er, wasn't helping minimize the human cost of war the whole point of the financial aid? And isn't that what we all want to see anyway? Whilst we may differ in opinion on some things, I'm certain we share the desire to see Iraq restored to a democratic state run by it's own people, living in peace and prosperity... don't we?

Casey:

You mean the US really landed men on the moon? I thought that was a hoax cooked up by OJ.

Oh dear more commies invading this thread again. Fact is whether or not the US sold weapons is irrelevant, guns don't kill, people kill. Rumsfeld and Cheney far from being corrupt are world heros of the order of Churchill, and all this talk of them being war criminals is sickening. At the end of the day protecting US commerical interests HAS to come first before anything or the whole world economy will collapse. If anything the US has been too soft on Iraq but also other countries within the axis of evil. I would also tentatively insert China and Russia to this list.

We are fearing the wrong reaper; it is the axis of beagle we really have to worry about...

Where did I ever accuse any individual of being right wing?

Perhaps this statement that you made earlier - gave us the impression that you calling some here Right-wing:

What I find annoying though is that what is essentially a level-playing field suggestion is dismissed as "leftie" simply because it casts the US in a poor light. Does this mean to be right-wing is to ignore facts and deflect the blame?

Perhaps we read you wrong on that. But weren't you suggesting that at least Casey was ignoring facts and deflecting blame? Hence, the right-wing comparison...

Well there are always gradations of political skew, but the opposite of left is right. That's all I was really getting at. In any event it's an inaccurate gauge of political viewpoint; see http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Ben, I am embarassed to say I can't find a direct reference right now. I know command-post.org and strategypage.com had specifics, but both sites have so much material even a site search didn't turn up anything. This should teach me to bookmark more often! :(

I think Rosemary covered the "riqht-wing" question quite well.

I mentioned "ducking and weaving" since, to my mind, your first post was about how "America armed Iraq" and your later post seemed to focus on the "human cost of war". To me, this sounds like a subject change. Perhaps I read you wrong?

Yes, America is part of the coalition, but there's a difference between "America armed Iraq" and "The coalition armed Iraq" when we're talking about 40+ countries, no? Hence my comment. Besides which the Germans are against the war, ok? heh.

Yes, I'll agree that... Well, maybe not. I was going to say that I agreed with your statement that minimizing the human cost of war is our (the Allies, which I prefer over "coalition") main goal, but I think not.

I think our main goal should be to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for the people of Iraq.

Just skimming the site. As I was I noticed a little discussion about US arms exports to Iraq around April 11th. Ben Darlow was clearly wrong. The US didn't arm Iraq, the USSR did. From 1973 onwards, 57% of all arms entering Iraq came from the USSR, US imports constituted just 1%.

But this doesn't mean that the US hasn't been the bad guy elsewhere. Here are some real facts and figures. Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world. The US dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers.

U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict.

Of the active conflicts in 1999, the United States supplied arms or military technology to parties in more than 92% of them --39 out of 42. In over one-third of these conflicts - 18 out of 42 - the United States provided from 10% to 90% of the arms imported by one side of the dispute.

Between 1986 and 1995 the United States delivered $42 billion worth of armaments to parties in 45 ongoing conflicts.

These are just a couple of truths. The US arms trade is responsible for a great deal of misery. Of course, every other nation with a huge arms industry is the culprit too. But to underplay the role of the US would be deeply saddening.

Another fact by the way. US arms or US military technology were used by adversaries confronting U.S. soldiers in Panama, Somalia, Haiti and guess where else? You've spotted the answer.

It's Iraq.