BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 04:51 PM

It is amazing how the war guys ignore the facts of recent history.The UK and USA war machines were both up to other people necks in blood...and they did it for oil and control of the Middle East.
The Scott Report [HMSO 1996] gave a devastating account of how the British govt colluded with British business to supply Saddam with the armaments of war.
And the USA lined up its banks, businesses and military might to do the same.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,roberta
Date: 07 Jun 06 - 01:55 PM

Surely the marine T shirt read
join the marines
meet intersting people
and blow them up!
hup hup hup hup!!!

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 04:31 PM

A billion, in America, is a thousand million. That would be written

1,000,000,000
If we wanted to make a book with a billion dollar signs, printed 1000 per page as before and with pages printed on both sides, our book would be 500,000 pages long.Now that's a very long book!

Interestingly, in England, the British define a billion as a million million. That would be 1,000,000 times 1,000,000 which would be written 1,000,000,000,000. The British book would be 5,000,000 pages long.

1,000,000,000,000
You can find out more about the British numbering system at the following website called Numbering Systems and Place Value:

http://www.mazes.com/numberingsystems.html

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 04:06 PM

In the US a 'billion' means 1000 million or 10 to the nineth power.

In Gt. Britain a 'billion' means 1,000,000 million or 10 to the power of twelve.

The US term for a British 'billion' is 'trillion, a term seldom used outside discussions of the US Federal budget or distances between stars.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,ROBERTA
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 03:38 PM

A British billion is one thousand million which even in this day and age can buy a lot of bang!
Roberta

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 02:46 PM

Just to be pedantic: Court Martial - singular. Courts Martial - plural. And the Veterans Administration hasn't existed for ten years.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 12:45 PM

There is no excusing what happened in Haditha, or it's like in any previous wars, police actions, etc.

Unfortunately the folks that are deserting are prolonging the tour of duty for others and increasing the likelyhood of repeated tours.

All servicemen are schooled that they have the duty and obligation not to follow illegal orders. Of course then they have to prove the orders were illegal (meaning they get to cool their heels in the brig until enough staff can be put together for a courts martial (and it is "Courts Martial" note the "s").

Early out? During a war? I suppose anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath. There are many servicemen that are being held over in Iraq and Afghanistan because they have no-one to replace them (critical ratings). The best way out is for someone to "out" you as a homosexual and then give the Sarge a big sloppy kiss. If you survive this encounter this administration will bounce you quickly (causing death and destruction isn't bad for morale somehow, but being gay is, go figure).

Under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)(which is on-line if you'd care to take a look (p.s. it's pretty draconic)) and the Manual for Courts Martial, any serviceman accused of a violation of the UCMJ that merits non-judicial punishment(we call them Captain's Masts) may refuse the judgement of the officer conducting the mast (no they don't have to be Captains) and request a Courts Martial. A lawyer will not be provided by the military but the accused may hire a civilian attorney to represent him. The Friend of the Accused is just there to ensure that the the rules and regulations of the UCMJ and Manual for Courts Martial are followed supposedly guaranteeing a fair trial to the accused.

Unfortunately it has been my experience that most military personnel who signed on out of patriotism and a sense of duty are most often people who believe everything the administration says. My experience with the people most likely to desert are the ones that signed on for the "free college education", the ones that came into work on their reserve weekends and did nothing but read the newspaper.

There has to be something more than the pay and benefits because they aren't much and are quickly being eroded. The commisary and exchange have been handicapped by Congress and one can now get better deals at Cost Co., Sam's Club, etc. Housing, energy, medical (they actually recommend we get a secondary insurance to cover costs not covered by Tri-Care for our dependents (and no, we don't get lifetime free medical even if it is in print)) and other costs sap the basic pay. Don't even bother to look at the Veteran's Administration!

I wish everyone involved in this a lot of luck, I too will pray for peace and be ready for war.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 11:32 AM

I saw a good t-shirt this morning, on a young lady of about 16: "US Marines, Pray for Peace, Train for War." Sounds like all of the people in the military that I've ever been associated with.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 11:27 AM

Anyone who joins the military knowing he/she is expected to slaughter women and children belongs not in the military, but in a mental ward.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 06 - 11:21 AM

Ifor,
Come. ...come Iffor!

You were asked to provide evidence of the military equipment and weapons supplied by Britain to Iraq. This you have done as follows, you have quoted:

Britain supplied Saddam with something to shoot at with WEAPONS purchased from Russia/China/France - Chieftain tank hulls

Britain suplied Saddam with Racal Jaguar v military radios so that those shooting at the tank hulls could tell one another whether or not they had hit them.

Britain supplied Saddam with weather ballons, in order to let those chatting away on those really lethal radios know what the wind speed, direction, temperature and humidity was.

Britain supplied Saddam with flight simulators for basic flight training - now one of those could have killed someone with a serious heart condition - but Saddam and his sons preferred watching as people were lowered into industrial meat grinders while still alive - which makes death by flight simulator appear just a shade tame by comparison when it came to their ideas of entertainment.

Britain supplied Saddam with Cymbeline Mortar Location radar, just in case somebody fired in their direction by mistake, those people with those ever so deadly radios could ask them to please stop.

None of that stuff Ifor, taken individually, or collectively, could, in any way shape or form be described as weaponry.

GUEST,gunsrus - 05 Jun 06 - 05:00 PM

"The USA was also a big supplier of weapons,funds military intelligence and resources to Saddam Hussein for quite a few years during the Iran-Iraq conflict which cost a million casualties in often world war one conditions.
gunsrus"

From 1983 to 1990, the U.S. government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran.

So gunsrus, if what the US as, how did you put it, "a big supplier" of weapons only contribute less than 1%, where did the remaining 99+% come from? Let's take a look shall we?

The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10 % of the world market during this period) are estimated to be:

Soviet Union - 19.2 billion $US - 61% of total
France - 5.5 billion $US - 18% of total
People's Republic of China - 1.7 billion $US - 5% of total
Brazil - 1.1 billion $US - 4% of total
Egypt - 1.1 billion $US - 4% of total
Other countries - 2.9 billion $US - 6% of total

Now what was that figure that the US Government approved - $US 200,000,000 - sounds a lot, and in the list given above that forms part of the 2,900,000,000 $US attributed to others (US definition of a billion, i.e. one thousand million is being used). So that makes this major and crucial contribution on the part of the United States of America 0,402%. Astounding gunsrus, I honestly can't see how they managed without the contribution received from the good old US of A.

Hey gunsrus and Ifor, recognise the three names at the top of that list - Russia, France, People's Republic of China. They all have a number of things/interests in common haven't they? Shall we list them?
- All permanent members of the UN Security Council
- All have major oil interests in Iraq
- All staunch long term allies of Saddam Hussein

No bloody wonder they opposed the war, but that stance was not for one tiny moment linked to any thought on saving life. It did have rather a lot to do with oil and making money from arms sales, especially after the imposition of sanctions when Saddam was paying them 10 times the going rate.

By the bye, did those chaps at the Guirdaon state whether the billion they were talking about was British or American? Because if it was a British Billion that would be 1 million, million, which if true whould have made Britain the largest, or second largest, single contributer particularly if they were talking in pounds Sterling, and we definitely now that that was not the case.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 11:28 PM

Keep in mind that Teribus is NOT an American. He just loves us, that's all. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 06:20 PM

The pro war guys on Mudcat such as Terribus simply do not seem to know what happened in the fairly recent past! Is it because the news is so skewed in the Americam mainstream media?

The USA was a big supplier of armaments,military equipment and cash to Saddam before he invaded Kuwait and blew it with the US .
In 1989 Saddam was supplied with the following equipment by the USA
HELICOPTER ENGINES
VACUUM PUMPS FOR A NUCLEAR PLANT
SOPHISTICATED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
COMPUTERS
BACTERIA STRAINS
HUNDREDS OF TONNES OF RAW SARIN
The work of the US -Iraq business Forum was supplemented by Kissinger Associates ,formerly headed by Henry Kissinger,the former US secretary of State and the man who showed his concern for Human Rights and Democracy in Chile in the early 1970s.

The US started its support for the tyrant by giving him vast amounts of credit
Then in the mid 1980s it started shipping him arms and military equipment
By the late 1980s the US was supplying Saddam with essential battlefield intelligence.

The source for the above can be found in Said k Aburish 's book Saddam Hussein -The Politics of Revenge
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,gunsrus
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 05:00 PM

The USA was also a big supplier of weapons,funds military intelligence and resources to Saddam Hussein for quite a few years during the Iran-Iraq conflict which cost a million casualties in often world war one conditions.
gunsrus

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:22 PM

Teribus,
Come. ...come Terribus!

In your original postings you asked me to provide evidence of the military equipment and weapons supplied by Britain to Iraq. This I have done,I have quOted you the source ...a very reputable team of journalists emplyed by the Guardian ...they used a mass of documentary evidence to reveal the skeleton in the British arms to Iraq scandalwhich amounted to a billion pounds worth of British arms and military equipment sent to Iraq.

Business was booming for the arms dealers and Downing St politicians!
The bill was unpaid by Saddam but was paid to the arms dealers and manufacturers by the British taxpayer....this at a time when Thatcher was running down our health service and butchering the mining industry .

You seem reluctant to accept the point that Britain sent this military hardware to Iraq to support Saddam...but you make the point that the "weapons sent were somehow inferior. They may well be but that is not the point I was making.

I will quote part of the lenghty article to you and others reluctant to believe that Britain was a major supplier of military equipment o Saddam
"In 1987 Marconi Command and Control got a bank loan of of £10 million ,backed by the taxpayer to sell Amets-the artillery Meteorological System -to the Iraqi army.Crucial for accurate artillery fire ,Amets uses weather ballooons linked to radar to measure wind speeds.
The Export Credit Gurantee Dept ended up writing a cheque for £8.2 when Marconi failed to get its money."

Of course you war guys seem to have selective amnesia when it comes to arming Saddam's Iraq.

However, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Scott Report into British Arms dealing with Iraq will know some info about the extent of the arming of Saddam by Britain.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 03:41 PM

"In 2001 2.65% of the forces went absent... in 2005 it's 2.63%,"


So, Less soldiers are deserting now than were deserting before the war.... Maybe they actually think that they are doing some good?


Can't have that.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 03:35 PM

GUEST,Albert - 30 May 06 - 03:27 PM

Point 1 Guest Albert - I was not and did not "rubbish" the Lancet Article - I only pointed out what it actually said as opposed to what a great deal of people such as yourself and George Galloway THINK it said. I leave it to others far more qualified in statistics and the conduct of surveys to comment on the validity and accuracy of the article - most condemn it as being wildly inaccurate and totally unrepresentative.

The article assessed the bulk of Iraqi civilian deaths was due to Air Strikes - 100,000 people, a "conservative" estimate. Guest Albert, do you know how many people died during the bombing of Hamburg? I believe it was somewhere in the region of 146,000. the bulk of those having died in 5 nights and days of intensive area bombing by RAF Bomber Command and the American 8th Air Force. Continuous day and night operations involving upwards of 1000 heavy bombers per raid. Now at no time have the US or UK ever had that many aircraft deployed for operations against Iraq. Now let's look at the aircraft and their payloads, the amount of ordinance they can carry, apart from the B-52 comparative bomb loads are minute, and the B-52's were generally used to launch cruise missiles, not carpet bomb as they did during the Vietnam War. So forgive me Albert if I have difficulty in believing that far, far fewer aircraft, carrying far, far fewer and far lighter bombs, flying far fewer missions could inflict anything like the casualties mentioned in the Article sent to The Lancet

Point 2 Guest Albert - While the US military may have publicly stated that it does not count the Iraqi dead - Iraq Body Count does and their figures (worst case), at the time the Lancet Article appeared, were nowhere near the "conservative" 100,000 stated, in fact at the time their worst case figures were about one-fifth of that number.

Point 3 Guest Albert - My so called "cheap squalid points" only indicate where you use inaccurate or completely false information upon which you base your point of view.

Point 4 Guest Albert - Certain sections of the Iraqi people have had a long history of being subject to a wide variety of weaponry to a far worse degree than at present. Subsequent to actions taken in March 2003 that situation will improve.

Point 5 Guest Albert - By all means Albert you may recall, "with shame that the US and the UK were big supporters and funders of Saddam." But you would be wrong in believing so. Go to any analysis of the Iran/Iraq War and you will find that US assistance was only ever offered when it looked like Saddam/Iraq were going to lose. Such an outcome was not considered to be in the bests interests of the region as a whole and for any nation dependent upon middle eastern oil -At that time Albert the USA was not, the "tiger" economies of the far east were. Even today Albert the US gets only about a fifth of their needs from the region.

GUEST,Ifor - 04 Jun 06 - 04:41 PM

Thanks Guest Ifor, after a period of six days, we find that the "weapons" supplied by the UK amounted to:
- Chieftain tank hulls - obsolete tank hulls - used to test the effectiveness of AT ammunition - hardly a weapon.
- Radios - surprised at Saddam going for those. Historically the UK has never had a good track record in supplying it's forces with decent comms kit - again hardly a weapon.
Marconi Artillery Meteorological Systems - something that tells you air speed, direction and temperature - not crucial for anything - again hardly a weapon.
- A fighter pilot training complex - what a fully equipped "fighter" airfield, or are we just talking about a flight simulator here - I think that you will find it's the latter - hardly a weapon. Surprised at this, Saddam seriously distrusted his Air Force and kept them on a very tight leash. Any simulator bought from the UK could only be for basic flight training, most likely on conversion training to jets - All Saddam's Air Force equipment came from Russia or France.
- Cymbeline mortar Location radar - purely defensive - hardly a weapon.

The Guardian Article which is the source of the above mentions reparations, I am unaware of there ever having been any stated intention on the part of anyone to seek reparations for anything. The "so-called" sell out of Iraq's natural resources, that the anti-brigade were rabbiting about from before day one has never materialised, so much for the arguement that this was all about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,freddie
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 02:15 PM

The date of the above benefit concert is wed 28th June !

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Freddie
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 02:14 PM

A Night of Conscience
A benefit evening has been organised to help pay the legal bills of jailed British serviceman Malcolm Kendall- Smith who is inside for refusing to serve in Iraq because it is an illegal war.

Commedians Mark Thomas and Mark Steel together with the composer Michael Nyman and a host of others will be performing on stage
at
7.30pm St James Church, 197 Picadilly , London wij9ll

The event is being introduced by veteran radical Tony Benn.
Tickets are priced at 15 pounds and all proceeds go to help pay the 20000 pounds legal costs of Malcolm.

For further info go to the Stop The War Coalition's website

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 04:41 PM

Reply To Teribus
On the 29th May Teribus questioned my statement that the British taxpayer had to pay for a billion pounds worth of weapons bought by Saddam after he defaulted with the payments.
The weapons were bought by Saddam during the Gulf War and his bill was guaranteed by the Thatcher govt. Saddam defaulted with the payments and the taxpayer had to pay up.
The source for the story is an article in the {London ] Guardian of 28th Feb 2003 by David Leigh and Rob Evans entitled "HOW £1 BN WAS LOST WHEN THATCHER PROPPED UP SADDAM"
Among the weaponry supplied by Britain were
Chieftain tank hulls
Racal Jaguar v military radios
Marconi Artillery Meteorlogical systems [amets ]..crucial for artillery fire
A fighter pilot training complex
Cymbeline mortar Location radar
.................
The article ends
"Even if Britain now obtains reparations for Pres Saddam's one billion loan defaults after a succesful US -UK invasion it will go nowhere near to the cost of the war to Britain. This has been estimated at 3-5 billion depending on how much occupying and administering Britain has to do".
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Iansko
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 01:52 PM

The nonsense that is being spouted here....we wrote into the german army regulations at the end of WW2 that german soldiers were allowed to disobey orders if they believed these orders to be wrong.....but wait, british and US soldiers are more superior than that so they don't have that get out !!

And as far as being as bad as hitler or stalin......did u not forget that bungling murdering idiot of a president called "Reagan" ....who trained and armed and paid your old buddy in Afghanistan....Osama bin laden!!! donkeys led by donkeys!!!

Ian

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 31 May 06 - 07:52 AM

Sarcasm, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,ALBERT
Date: 31 May 06 - 03:43 AM

Foolestroupe says Oliver North for president ....
He was another gungho warguy who dealt in arms and death to the Middle East and Central America where the US military honed its practice of unleashing the death squads and murder gangs in poor Nicaragua and tortured El Salvador.Something similar has been happening in Iraq
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 May 06 - 08:20 PM

Let's for a moment think of the death toll this war has given us. These were people. Most had nothing to do with the politics of it. If some who support this action in Iraq, saw what it does at ground level to people and families, I doubt you would hold these views. The truth behind it is oil, they won't admit that, but we all know that's the core of it. Bush and Blair deserve to roast in hell.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 May 06 - 08:02 PM

"Oliver North for President!"

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 30 May 06 - 03:27 PM

Teribus
You are wrong to rubbish the Lancet article and my refering to it...but there again you warguys have been wrong on just about everything in Iraq.
Les Roberts the lead researcher from John Hopkins Bloomberg university in Baltimore stated that the figure of 100000 Iraqi civilian casualties was a "conservative "number and many of these casualties were women and children.
The editor of the Lancet also wrote at the time that the research had been peer reviewed.
Thousands have been slaughtered since that time ...tonight the news has been full of the marine massacre at Habitha where some 23 civilians ..including women,children and old folk... were slaughtered by marines on the rampage.
And let us remember that the Fallujah bodycount was not included in the Lancet research.
Furthermore the US military has publicly stated that it does not count the Iraqi dead.
Teribus .....you make cheap squalid points but the reality is the wargang have slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
They have used the whole range of weaponry from high expolsives to cruise missiles from depleted uranium shells fired in the thousands to some kind of modern napalm.In addition US marines have admitted to using indiscrimately phospherous shells in the attack on and the destruction of, Fallujah.
Despite the barbarism ,the slaughter and the terror inflicted on the Iraqis [let us remember with shame that the US and the UK were big supporters and funders of Saddam ]it is increasingly clear that the US and the UK are being dragged into another Vietnam .And we know how that ended for the wargang..
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 06 - 02:27 PM

GUEST,Albert - 29 May 06 - 03:41 PM

"The criminal act perpertrated by the US and UK govts   has led to the deaths of over 100 000 Iraqi civilians..men ,women and children
This figure comes from the respected British medical journal THE LANCET published over a year ago with statistics from American and Iraqi researchers."

Ah but Albert the Article in that respected British Medical Journal " THE LANCET" did not say that 100,000 Iraqi civilians...men, women and children had been killed - Did it??

What it actually said was that military action by the US and UK MAY HAVE resulted in up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians deaths.

Not quite the same thing Albert. If you can't grasp the difference, try this:

"Albert you have won the Lottery"

"Albert you MAY HAVE won the Lottery"

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 May 06 - 02:27 PM

This story about Bush and his poodle Blair`s invasion of Iraq is undoubtely a blunder of mindblowing consequences, the Islamic world bitterly resents all they have done.
They have the blood of countless thousands on their hands, and never have I heard so much hatred directed at two people by friends of mine who never before had political thought in their heads, while including the Arab world in their detestation of the invasion, I can also include the many others in the western world, not only 1000 British troops have called it a day so have the majority of the worlds people.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,freddie
Date: 30 May 06 - 07:41 AM

New Labour MPs showed their contempt for military families last week when they overwhelmingly voted to threaten life imprisonment for military personnel who refuse to serve in the occupation of subjugated territories.
Currently military personnel can only face life imprisonment for deserting or refusing to fight in wars.Only 19 MPs voted for an amendment opposing the govt's plan to extend the penalty to those refusing to take part in the occupation of foreign territory.
Moving the amendment Labour MP John McDonnell paid tribute to the stand taken by Ben Griffin of the SAS and Flight Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith who have both refused to serve in Iraq on the grounds that it is an illegal war.
freddie

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 30 May 06 - 04:23 AM

The Lancet article is a serious study into the deaths of Iraqi civilians....it also stated that the number of female casualties was high ..presumably because their homes were being bombed or shot up.

The right wing warguys have been foaming at the mouth ever since the article was published ..they have been howling ....but of course the US military has been widely quoted as stating it does not do civilian body counts.

Interestingly and shockingly the BBC reported today that there are now 1000 casualties a month in Iraq ...three years after Bush reported "mission accomplished".

Well he was right about one thing ...Operation Shock and Awe was indeed shocking and awful.......for millions of innocent Iraqis who are being traumatised and terrorised by the forces unleashed by the invasion and occupation of their country.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 29 May 06 - 10:28 PM

On the subject of what sort of assistance was provided to Saddam's regime by the US during the Iran/Iraq war and after...

"So Casey turned to Bush and in the summer of 1986 the Vice-President made what was widely reported as a peace mission to the Middle East. Secretly, however, on July 30, 1986 Bush initiated the transfer of military intelligence to Saddam when he went to Jordan and told King Hussein to relay a message to Saddam that Iraq had to be more aggressive in bombing inside Iran. On August 4, Bush met with Mubarak in Cairo and repeated the message. In the past, Saddam had rejected US advice to escalate bombing, but now, in desperate need of US money and weapons, he began to comply. Meanwhile, the CIA fed highly classified tactical intelligence to Iraq. The US also supplied Saddam with technical equipment so Iraq could receive satellite intelligence assessing the impact of its air strikes.

"During the 48 hours after Bush's visit with Mubarak, Iraq flew 359 missions over Iran. Over the next few weeks, Iraqi planes continued to strike deep into Iran, bombing oil refineries, including the oil facilities on Sirri Island, 460 miles from the border, a daring feat for Iraqi pilots who were running out of fuel.

"In addition, to intelligence, there was money and [the] contention, [according to a former US official], that 'the US aspect of Iraq's war effort...must be somewhere in the neighborhood of .0001% of the total' vastly understates the US role in helping Iraq. All told, the Reagan and Bush administrations provided Saddam with more than $5 billion in loan guarantees.

"Even after the August 1988 cease fire between Iran and Iraq, even after the State Department told James Baker that Iraq was working on chemical and biological weapons, and even after discovering that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, President Bush pressed for a billion dollars in agricultural loan guarantees, and waived congressional restrictions on Iraq's use of the Export-Import Bank."


On the subject of "dual use" items, the US was very restricted in its ability to sell or give Saddam any "dual use" technologies because Iraq was on the "state terrorist list". That is until the Reagan administration had Iraq removed from that list so that it could provide assistance to Saddam's war efforts in the form of dual use technology...

"Once Iraq was off the state terrorist list, export controls on dual-use technologies were less restrictive. As an example, the Iraqis were sold sixty Hughes MD-500 'Defender' helicopters, and then ten Bell Helicopters UH-IS, models which had been used extensively in Vietnam. And while Saddam's government promised these helicopters would be used for civilian purposes only, an eyewitness spotted at least thirty of them being used to train military pilots. Other helicopter sales followed, including forty-eight said to be for 'recreation' purposes, such as transporting VIPS, but which were also diverted to military uses." (With Friends Like These: Reagan, Bush and Saddam 1982-1999, by Bruce W. Jentleson, p. 44)

"In 1984, Italy's state-owned Agusta helicopter manufacturer sold $164 milion worth of helicopters to Iraq. The order was for military helicopters fitted out for anti-submarine warfare, but Rome had needed permission from Washington because the choppers were sold by Agusta Bell, which made them under license from Bell Textron in the United States. [Italian PM Guilio] Andreotti, when asked in 1993 about the sale of Agusta helicopters to Iraq, sat stiffly at his desk in Rome and confirmed with a terse 'si' that they had indeed been sold as part of a top-level understanding between President Reagan and Prime Minister Crazi to try to assist Saddam. 'Certainly the policy were all following at the time was a policy of great support for Iraq,' said Andreotti" (Spider's Web: The secret history of how the White House illegally armed Iraq by Alan Friedman, p. 85)

"The removal of Iraq from the state terrorism list also freed the Reagan administration to aid Iraq militarily in its war with Iran. The first concrete expression of this new freedom was the decision to sell Iraq sixty Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters and ten Bell UH-1 helicopters, ostensibly for civilian purposes. It was a proposal that caused a serious division within the administration.

"The sale of 'civilian' helicopters has long been a classic way of providing military support to a favored state or ally in the face of congressional opposition, and the ploy had been used before by the Reagan administration -- with El Salvador, for example. Although exported as a civilian kit, the weaponization of a civilian helicopter requires only adding armored plating, strapping a frame to support the weapons to be attached, attaching the weapons, and ideally adding an electronic integration system, all of which takes a matter of hours. Even where they are not weaponized, the helicopters can quickly ferry troops to remote or inaccessible areas, and as such have an important utility."


So the chemical weapons plant the the US provided Iraq with the plans for (mentioned in freda's post), would have been subject to those same restrictions had the Reagan administration not removed Iraq from the "state terrorist list".

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: The Curator
Date: 29 May 06 - 08:48 PM

Seemly George Bush and Tony Blair wish for a media blackout on the number of US and British troops being killed in Iraq being reported ? It was on the radio today. Can anyone confirm this ?

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 May 06 - 06:53 PM

Courtesy of "Iraq body count"...

Somewhere between 38059 and 42434 civilian deaths due to the war in Iraq.

Heck... the unknowns tally alone is genuinely unsettling... 4434 civillians... mia from their daily lives...

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 06 - 06:00 PM

"However, since the USA has no right to be in Iraq in the first place--although it probably is anticipating to do business in Iraq in the future--then even one death is wrong. And certainly there have been more than that."

As I said . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 06 - 05:53 PM

If the number is half that, then, is everyone cozy with that? Or does that place it on the other side of the question of legality? Is there a figure of tens of thousands below which it is a wise decision rather than an unforgiveable and insane offense to unilaterally start a hot war which caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths?

A

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 06 - 05:43 PM

Wasn't aware of that, pdq. Thank you for the info.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: pdq
Date: 29 May 06 - 05:41 PM

Not only was the 100,000 casualty figure "extrapolated from 79 violent deaths" but it was not published in the Lancet. It was rushed to the Lancet online wesite (only) just a few days before the 2004 presidential election in an effort to do as much damage to president George W. Bush's re-election chances as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 06 - 05:33 PM

That Lancet article uses the figure "100,000" but that number is extrapolated from 79 violent deaths. Indeed, the magazine is respected, but that particular study is likely flawed. However, since the USA has no right to be in Iraq in the first place--although it probably is anticipating to do business in Iraq in the future--then even one death is wrong. And certainly there have been more than that. BTW, the study is about two years old now.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Mousey McConville
Date: 29 May 06 - 05:23 PM

Thanks for that insight Teribus. Still it's great to see British soldiers running away from the fight which Tony Blair started after being told to do so by Our George W. Read today the French ran to story on the news to great amusement by those interviewed in the streets of Paris. One said, Oh Dunkirk again ! Teribus, it's an illegal war so no charges should be brought to those soldiers who saw sense.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 29 May 06 - 03:41 PM

reply to Little Hawk
The criminal act perpertrated by the US and UK govts   has led to the deaths of over 100 000 Iraqi civilians..men ,women and children
This figure comes from the respected British medical journal THE LANCET published over a year ago with statistics from American and Iraqi researchers.
Those victims
were blown up by bombs and cruise missiles,blown to bits by shells,shot by machine guns and sniper fire or burnt by napalm type firebombs.
According to a US marine newspaper illegal phospherous weapons were used on the people of Fallujah.
There are numerous other war crimes almost too numerous to mention but they include prisoner torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the mass punishment of civilians , the destruction of world heritage historical sites and the use of private mercenary units who have been allowed to shoot up civilians with impunity.
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 06 - 03:22 PM

Most invasions are a criminal act.

Of course, it all depends in whose opinion, doesn't it, but an invasion is armed assault on someone else's property and lives. That's normally considered a criminal act in most societies...unless you are the one doing it, of course!

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,freddie
Date: 29 May 06 - 03:12 PM

The annual conference of the STOP THE WAR COALITION will be taking place at the Friends House in Central London on saturday the 10th June.
Rose Gentle of Military Families Against The War will be among the speakers...her son Gordon was one of the early casualties in the war.
The Stop The War Coalition supports those soldiers who are refusing to serve in what Kofi Annan calle an illegal war and is trying to raise funds to cover the legal fees of one RAF officer who refused to serve in a third tour of duty because he believes the invasion was a criminal act.
for details of the STOP THE WAR CONFERENCE go to
www.stopwar.org.uk
freddie

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: CarolC
Date: 29 May 06 - 03:09 PM

My only point, Wolfgang, in using that statement, is that if the soldiers who are being required to do what they know is wrong refuse to do it (regardless of the consequences), wars like WWII, as well as the US led war and occupation of Iraq would not happen. If a soldier is brave enough to go into combat and risk death, he or she ought to be brave enough to stand up to his or her government and say "no".

If they choose to do so by leaving the country, I cannot fault them for that.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,FREDDIE
Date: 29 May 06 - 03:00 PM

Vietnam has been mentioned in the above threadsand I would like to make a contribution to add to the anti war statements made by others.
During the Vietnam war ,around about 1970 Vietnam veterans opposed to the war came together to testify about the war crimes they had seen or been involved with.This was extremely embarrassing to the Nixon administration which was still pursuing its war aims in Vietnam.....a million civilians were to die or be injured...before the war ended.
The anti war vets testified at a tribunal which was called THE WINTER SOLDIERS......and a documentary was made at the time .I understand that the film has now been re released and its stark message to the youth of America is that the crimes of the US military in Vietnam are being repeated today in Iraq....this week the news has finally reached the wider public about the shooting of 24 old people,women and children by US marines in an obscure Iraqi village.
Is it any wonder that young soldiers are refusing to go to war?
freddie

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:59 PM

Excellent. I am glad to hear that, Teribus.

I was speaking about modern armies in a general sense in my post, but it sounds like the British Armed Forces have liberalized their rules quite a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Teribus
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:49 PM

Little Hawk - 29 May 06 - 01:23 PM


"Other jobs, you can quit. You can walk away. But when you're in the armed forces, you can't just quit. They won't LET you. Accordingly, people desert."

Incorrect, any member of the British Armed Forces can apply for early discharge when ever they wish. It is a process, it does take time. There are a number of novel ways of getting out of the British Armed Forces, standing for election to Parliament is one of them, getting selected for Officer training then deliberately flunking the course is another. In 1973 when the Arabs used the Oil weapon and the 'west' decided that it shouldn't be so dependent upon oil from the Middle East, a directive was sent by Tony Benn, then Minister for Energy to the Ministry of Defence stating clearly that if any qualified diver in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines or Army wished to leave to take up jobs in the North Sea Oil Industry, their applications were to be rushed through and no obstacle was to be put in the way of the applicants.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:39 PM

There has been some questioning about the veracity of the 1000 deserters from the British military.The information came from the govt itself in response to a parliamentary question.The figure of 1000 dates from the time of the invasion of Iraq 3 years ago. The army is having big problems with recruitment as more and more youngsters and their parents are becoming aware of the horror that awaits them in Iraq.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Teribus
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:34 PM

The numbers deserting over a three year period seem to be about par for the course, Iraq War or no Iraq War. The RN used to hate sending Aircraft Carriers down to Australia, Jack used to jump ship by the mess load.

GUEST,Mousey McConville - 28 May 06 - 08:11 AM

"Lawyers who represent members of the military at courts martial say that they are increasingly being contacted by people who want advice about getting out of having to serve in Iraq, even if they do not want to go to the extreme of deserting, a BBC correspondent has found."

"Lawyers who represent members of the military at courts martial say" This BBC correspondent can't know much about the British Military Justice System, he's obviously been watching too many US imports and must think it's like JAG. Desertion, Mousey, you don't get a Lawyer as an enlisted man you get "Accused's Friend", normally your Divisional Officer in the Royal Navy or, Platoon/Company commander in the Army. You see, Mousey, for Desertion, there is no case to try, it is a foregone conclusion, open and shut, it is as plain as a pike-staff, you as the desertee were there one minute and gone for a continuous period of more than 'x' number of hours (Must be more than 24hrs). If you are standing in front of your Commanding Officer because you deserted and were caught, you are Guilty, the whole proceeding is to determine how guilty you are, this is where mitigating circumstances are taken into account. No Lawyer, no fancy military legal proceeding, and in most cases you have to have gained the rank of Senior Rate or N.C.O. to have the option to be tried by Court Martial for certain offences. Very few do because if it goes against you at a Court Martial the Scale of Punishment that a Court Martial can impose is much greater than a Commanding Officer can impose.

akenaton - 28 May 06 - 11:40 AM
"...we are in Iraq to try to show what a good example we are for the rest of the world to follow."

Now where on earth did you get that rather fanciful and foolish notion from? Saddam was overthrown so that the people of Iraq would get the opportunity to elect a government comprised of candidates of their own chosing, who would for the first time ever in Iraq govern under a democratically agreed constitution for the long term benefit of all sections of the Iraqi people. Nothing whatsoever to do with having to follow any example set by anybody.

freda underhill - 28 May 06 - 05:30 PM
Have you ever heard the term dual-use? Do you know what it means?

Ifor - AKA - GUEST,Heddwyn - 28 May 06 - 04:17 PM

"Its true that the USSR was an important supplier of weapons and military equipment to Saddam's Iraq during the first Gulf War in which a million Iraqis and Iranians were killed or wounded.
It is equally true that the USA and the UK were important funders,supporters and suppliers of military hardware to Saddam."

Really Ifor? So what military hardware did the US deliver to Saddam? The Iraqi Army were equipped almost entirely with Soviet/Russian, Warsaw Pact or Chinese supplied arms. In the very few instances where 'western' arms were supplied, they invariably came from France. Now who was it, on the UN Security Council, that was so keen on keeping Saddam in the driving seat, let's recall - France, Yes - Russia, Yes - China, Yes. Could that possibly be because Iraq (Saddam) paid for those arms with very attractive rights and options with regard to Iraq's Oil Fields?

"Thatcher's govt gave him a billion pounds [yes one billion pounds ] of war credits so that he could buy British arms,weapons and military equipment.He got the weapons but defaulted on the bill which meant that the UK taxpayer funded those weapons directly as the bills were guranteed by the govt."

Really Ifor? "He got the weapons" did he? Perhaps you can tell us what weapons he got from Britain, but somehow I don't think you will.

"The USA protected Iraqi shipping during the tanker war in 1889 and generally tilted its political and military might in favour of Saddam."

Really Ifor? I was under the distinct impression that the shipping of all countries trading with the states bordering the shores of the Persian Gulf were protected by the vessels of the Amarillo Patrol - Never realised that the Americans were only protecting the Iraqi Merchant Fleet (all four vessels).

"THE usa should stop its slaughtering of innocents in the Middle East ...but it wont because of the oil at stake."

Really Ifor? you mean that all this is about 450,000 barrels of oil a day. Do you know how much oil the US does import each day Ifor? I believe that it is somewhere in the order of 9.5 million barrels per day. Iraq produces 2.25 million barrels per day, so why are the Americans only buying about 20% of that? All about oil you keep telling us, pity the facts don't match up to that theory. In truth if you went into the detail of it Ifor, you would find that very few of the cold hard facts of the matter fit any of the assertions made in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 06 - 01:23 PM

Thanks for that info, Wolfgang! God knows, German soldiers certainly might have found good reason to desert during various stages of WWII...

And so might other soldiers.

Soldiers know when they join up that it may involve killing, and dying...BUT no one wants to kill and die for no good reason.

When soldiers lose confidence in their high command and in the purposes of the orders they are following...then they are likely to desert in large numbers.

There are many, many reasons why people make the decision to join an army. They may do it to learn a trade, to toughen themselves up, because their father did it, for patriotic reasons, for security and 3 meals a day, to "save the world" (ha!), to fight a perceived enemy, to earn a daily wage, to escape a ghetto or a bad family situation, because they're at loose ends, unemployed, don't know what else to do at the time....there must be a thousand reasons why people would join the armed forces.

But...when they lose confidence in the whole situation then they may decide it wasn't such a good idea after all! Other jobs, you can quite. You can walk away. But when you're in the armed forces, you can't just quit. They won't LET you. Accordingly, people desert.

And I don't blame them one bit. Who the hell would want a job that he can't voluntarily LEAVE if he finds out that he hates the job?????????????????????? Sounds like slavery to me, not like a real job at all.

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: GUEST,Mousey McConville
Date: 29 May 06 - 12:59 PM

pdq, I started this thread not ifor. I brought the news story to the forum. The posts ifor has contributed are without doubt the best so far.
You could learn from him !

Subject: RE: BS: 1,000 British Soldiers desert
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 May 06 - 11:09 AM

....you feel like but take your comparison from somewhere else.

W.