US Candidates Neck and Neck on Election Day
53 minutes ago
Saturday 28 July 2007
The US armed Sadam
One of the "truths" spouted by George Galloway and fellow travellers is/was that the US had no moral right to invade Iraq beacuse they were the country that had armed Iraq in the first place. This was rubbish but noone ever questioned George Galloway or any of the other proponents of this view. There a few things that pointed to the lie, first that Saddam Hussein's army was comprised almost entirely of various USSR T series tanks and the air force of various MIGs - that's Soviet built equipment. The second fact can be seen in the following graph that I finally tracked down at The dissident frogman, it shows who the main armourers of Iraq were between 1973 and 2002, the data comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) who are not exactly your average Bush/Cheney right-wing warmongers. Saddam's Iraq was armed mainly by the USSR (57%) with some help mainly from France (13%), China (12%), Czechoslovakia (7%)and Poland (4%). Where are the appaling USA and UK? USA supplied 1% of Iraq's arms and the UK less than 1%. Any comments George now you have some time on your hands whilst suspended from the House of Commons?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But Galloway has never used that reason in the sense you're spouting. Galloway was against Hussein's government back in the 80s - while the West supplied him with weapons. Weapons which when used by him were used as examples of his brutality by the very people who sold him them in the first place.
Don't be a sheep all your life.
faceless, you accept that Saddam was brutal and state that George Galloway was against Saddam Hussein's government in the 1980s. How do you square Saddam Hussein's brutality with George Galloways support for Saddam Hussein in the 1990s and 2000s? Had Saddam ceased his brutality by then?
Post a Comment