Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

Yitzhak Rabin

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You're claiming that France (and Denmark going by the figures you posted) supplied more arms to Iraq than the US.

I'm saying I find your claims unbelievable. I'm saying the likelihood is that the US supplied more arms, and I provided you with global arms sales figures to show why I think this to be the case.



(I'm not wasting my time on any more of your 'sweet' analogies, BTW).

There are other countries that bought arms during that period, so it is very possible that the US was the largest arms dealing country in the world without being the biggest supplier of Iraq. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that?

Why don't you trust the figures of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute?

Jeboa Safari

How can you not understand that just because the US is the biggest arms supplier in the world, that DOES NOT mean they are the biggest suppliers in EVERY conflict

If North Korea invaded South Korea tomorrow, it would be stupid to think that they sourced 41% of their weapons from the US just because thats what the global figures say

IrelandSpirit

yekahs wrote: »

There are other countries that bought arms during that period, so it is very possible that the US was the largest arms dealing country in the world without being the biggest supplier of Iraq. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that?

Why don't you trust the figures of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute?

Throw the SIPRI figures around all you like but business is business. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the largest arms-dealing nation in the world, would be upstaged by the likes of France (and Denmark?), in the manner those figures claim. And in the run-up to a full-scale war? And that for eight years they stood back and let others clean up where they had previously led? No fecking way, it is insane: it would be like MacDonalds handing over London to Burger King in the next Olympics - won't happen ...

Look, lets just either agree to disagree or start a thread about it. Apologies to the op, we're going way off topic here.

uprising2

yekahs wrote: »

I'm not sure why it is asking you to download anything. All you have to do is input the data and it generates the results on screen.

Anyway. I did it, and here is what I got



Its in a much nicer format if you just input the data yourself.

I just looked at US arms exports from 1981-1988 and the figures don't seem right to me.


For more information, see http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/output_types_TIV.html


Source: SIPRI Arms Transfers Database

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total
Afghanistan/Mujahideen 1 1 16 40 8 66
Algeria 114 84 200 167 15 580
Angola 5 5
Angola/UNITA 12 13 25
Argentina 36 4 28 25 25 8 3 129
Australia 336 74 518 587 510 676 580 736 4018
Austria 105 6 19 130
Bahamas 1 1
Bahrain 6 10 10 43 43 151 46 307
Bangladesh 18 7 12 38
Barbados 1 1
Belgium 503 419 579 567 277 87 87 403 2922
Bolivia 3 2 7 7 56 74
Botswana 14 15 28
Brazil 5 1 1 1 3 14 100 44 170
Brunei 1 13 29 13 55
Cameroon 29 1 9 39
Canada 396 189 614 615 813 814 769 655 4866
Chad 10 9 8 3 9 40
Chile 2 24 5 12 4 8 9 11 75
China 59 98 10 166
Colombia 21 17 41 101 8 17 3 35 243
Costa Rica 2 1 3
Denmark 453 465 218 129 124 83 88 1560
Dominican Republic 5 29 11 0 2 47
DR Congo (Zaire) 25 25
Ecuador 6 4 14 39 9 18 17 106
Egypt 883 1454 1083 380 434 1008 1170 280 6692
El Salvador 5 27 11 58 41 4 146
Finland 19 1 3 1 24
France 4 84 88 176
Gabon 32 5 37
Germany (FRG) 190 227 219 255 99 289 346 406 2031
Ghana 2 2
Greece 196 36 89 72 46 75 30 111 655
Guatemala 36 12 0 7 0 1 0 0 58
Haiti 1 0 1
Honduras 13 27 8 13 5 54 12 36 167
India 4 1 38 44
Indonesia 85 147 115 25 13 25 0 56 467
Iran 9 97 106
Iraq 27 9 9 30 125 201
Ireland 13 13
Israel 1598 858 492 278 299 1167 1080 582 6354
Italy 112 188 302 202 140 131 109 114 1297
Jamaica 0 2 2
Japan 1293 1370 1580 1887 1792 1669 1781 1777 13148
Jordan 149 238 107 249 174 14 8 939
Kenya 45 23 6 74
Kuwait 139 47 63 42 15 8 314
Lebanon 2 14 57 58 35 165
Liberia 2 2
Luxembourg 1 1
Malaysia 53 20 12 143 101 329
Marshall Islands 1 1
Mauritania 15 15
Mexico 80 237 4 5 115 63 504
Morocco 405 101 109 18 2 41 676
Myanmar 3 3
NATO 1250 1250 1250 750 4500
Netherlands 648 857 930 802 526 358 629 394 5145
New Zealand 35 5 5 7 22 74
Nicaragua/Contras 7 1 5 14 27
Nigeria 5 6 4 5 92 5 116
North Korea 23 23 14 60
Norway 377 387 383 204 38 21 179 126 1716
Oman 39 41 59 10 27 176
Pakistan 33 93 250 480 549 126 90 73 1694
Panama 4 5 0 8 2 19
Paraguay 3 3
Peru 23 67 34 59 12 46 104 345
Philippines 8 2 123 46 28 26 11 244
Portugal 44 135 103 142 3 7 116 550
Saudi Arabia 1346 1854 1539 529 356 1420 985 178 8206
Serbia & Mont. 27 42 69
Singapore 326 187 216 40 60 205 432 1465
Somalia 2 26 8 8 11 56
South Africa 11 2 12
South Korea 930 664 350 444 803 745 690 1091 5718
Spain 223 179 52 30 83 868 1016 1846 4296
Sri Lanka 10 38 22 16 85
St Kitts and Nevis 6 6
St Vincent 5 5
Sudan 31 107 3 29 2 2 173
Sweden 191 44 45 30 40 86 104 50 589
Switzerland 267 121 232 201 141 15 48 1024
Taiwan 654 665 588 280 510 639 121 178 3633
Tanzania 2 2
Thailand 244 33 71 115 115 98 225 365 1265
Togo 1 1
Trinidad & Tobago 6 6
Tunisia 11 20 74 106 80 56 12 359
Turkey 226 176 88 82 250 274 820 524 2439
UAE 102 29 61 5 128 202 30 558
Uganda 15 15
UK 839 810 241 573 253 164 122 145 3147
Uruguay 12 9 11 32
Venezuela 55 62 137 17 396 10 49 726

Total 13775 14096 13547 11450 10591 11487 12276 11696 98918

So according to that site the USA only exported $98918 million worth of arms worldwide...???

Jeboa Safari

Didn't realise we exported arms. There any good sources on the Irish arms industry? Came across an article in the independent, didn't say much though, and most articles are criticizing it...

Brown Bomber

I think people are reading too much into the SIPRI figures without realising the bigger picture. The Shah of Iran, a CIA puppet was overthrown in 1979 by a popular uprising. The US wanted to maintain the status quo in the region so they buddied up with Saddam, who previously had been warmer to the Soviet Union, the US was unable to export any arms legally to Iraq for decades prior to this because Iraq was formally suspected of aiding terrorists by the US since the six day war. George H W Bush seen to it that Iraq was removed from this list in the mid 80's. So this goes some way to explaining the SIPRI numbers.

The US kitted him out with the latest hi-tech, dual-use (meaning civilian and military applications) equipment, 1.5 billions worth, bankrolled him through billions of "agricultural" grants, 5 Billions over 8 years, and gave intelligence support throughout the war. For example its alleged that Iraq's use of nerve gas against Iranian troops was only made possible through CIA intelligence, sattelite images of Iranian troop movements and the like.

Those figures are misleading because the US arranged for arms sales to Iraq through third parties, mainly Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Kuwait.

And then you had the CIA fronts.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.



A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.



Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics

Its not even a conspiracy theory, it is a fact the Saddam was a US willing proxy in the war against Iran.

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Throw the SIPRI figures around all you like but business is business. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the largest arms-dealing nation in the world, would be upstaged by the likes of France (and Denmark?), in the manner those figures claim. And in the run-up to a full-scale war? And that for eight years they stood back and let others clean up where they had previously led? No fecking way, it is insane: it would be like MacDonalds handing over London to Burger King in the next Olympics - won't happen ...

Look, lets just either agree to disagree or start a thread about it. Apologies to the op, we're going way off topic here.

It's a completely one sided argument when one side supports their argument with facts and figures, and the other side appears to be armed with only their own personal incredulity in the face of the facts.

Simply put IS, why would the US arm a regime that they're opposed to?
It'd be like lending a crowbar to a neighbour who is suspected of a couple of local break ins.

alastair

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How can you not understand that just because the US is the biggest arms supplier in the world, that DOES NOT mean they are the biggest suppliers in EVERY conflict

If North Korea invaded South Korea tomorrow, it would be stupid to think that they sourced 41% of their weapons from the US just because thats what the global figures say

The sweetie analogy didn't ring any bells, so I doubt that'll do any better.

Mahatma coat

Someone needs to clarify in a few short sentences what those numbers mean, I'm slightly confused lookin at them.

I was under the impression that Weapons manufacture and sale was forbidden in Ireland, so why is Ireland on the List??

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Someone needs to clarify in a few short sentences what those numbers mean, I'm slightly confused lookin at them.

I was under the impression that Weapons manufacture and sale was forbidden in Ireland, so why is Ireland on the List??

Ireland can still export components of arms systems, though not complete weapons/arms any more - it could during the 80's. Timoney APC's would have been the best known weapon that we exported at the time.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/report-on-83641bn-arms-industry-is-nearly-one-year-late-1983258.html

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Those figures are misleading because the US arranged for arms sales to Iraq through third parties, mainly Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Kuwait.

Even if that's true (which I believe it is), and the claimed offset US figures are correct (which is rather more uncertain), it would still make the US a minor contributor to the entire Iraqi arms import budget - and still leave the USSR, China and France as the major arms suppliers.

uprising2

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Someone needs to clarify in a few short sentences what those numbers mean, I'm slightly confused lookin at them.

I was under the impression that Weapons manufacture and sale was forbidden in Ireland, so why is Ireland on the List??

Mahtma, the list I posted was US arms exports to the world from 1981 to 1988 so Ireland imported $13m in arms from US!!

The other figures are per year then total
Canada for example:
Canada 396 189 614 615 813 814 769 655 4866
Canada (1981)396 (1982)189 (1983)614 (1984)615 (1985)813 (1986)814 (1987)769 (1988)655 (Total from 81-88)4866

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Even if that's true (which I believe it is), and the claimed offset US figures are correct (which is rather more uncertain), it would still make the US a minor contributor to the entire Iraqi arms import budget - and still leave the USSR, China and France as the major arms suppliers.

True. But I don't think that is the full story. Saddam was buying all these weapons with a Bush sponsored blank cheque.

My parents supported me through college. It was through their funds that I was able to go; not because of the bookshop where I purchased my books.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

True. But I don't think that is the full story. Saddam was buying all these weapons with a Bush sponsored blank cheque.

My parents supported me through college. It was through their funds that I was able to go; not because of the bookshop where I purchased my books.

Why would the US give Iraq a blank cheque to buy weapons from their enemies?

Clawdeeus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

True. But I don't think that is the full story. Saddam was buying all these weapons with a Bush sponsored blank cheque.

My parents supported me through college. It was through their funds that I was able to go; not because of the bookshop where I purchased my books.

Actually the war was bank rolled by Arab countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

It was not really a proxy war, Iraq (and more the Bathists) had their own reasons for fearing the Islamic revolution, namely the Shia majority in Iraq.

At the time of the war, Iraq and the US did not even have official relations (I think their was a representative in the Swiss embassy though.)

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

True. But I don't think that is the full story. Saddam was buying all these weapons with a Bush sponsored blank cheque.

My parents supported me through college. It was through their funds that I was able to go; not because of the bookshop where I purchased my books.

There was no blank cheque from Bush. The $5 billion over eight years was credit guarantees to buy US foodstuffs - and it had to be repaid within 3 years. $3 billion was repaid over the war years and up until the first gulf war - when Iraq reneged on the remainder of the loan. To put this in context - Iraq was importing $2.5 billion of foodstuffs annually by the end of the '80's.

acdflc

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139341


According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai, the officer said, "Iran has thousands of surface-to-surface missiles, including improved Zelzal-2 and Al-Fatah 110 missiles, with which it will set alight all of the oil towns, facilities and infrastructures of the neighboring countries, if these serve as platforms for attacking it.”


Any attack upon Iran will lead to a massive missile attack on Israel, he said, including the nuclear power plant at Dimona, no matter where the attack on Iran originated from. This is taken as referring to a possible attack by the United States.


My guess is the attack will be between now and the end of the year per an agreement Netanyahu made with Obama to restrain himself until then.

Jeboa Safari

acdflc wrote: »

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139341


According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai, the officer said, "Iran has thousands of surface-to-surface missiles, including improved Zelzal-2 and Al-Fatah 110 missiles, with which it will set alight all of the oil towns, facilities and infrastructures of the neighboring countries, if these serve as platforms for attacking it.”


Any attack upon Iran will lead to a massive missile attack on Israel, he said, including the nuclear power plant at Dimona, no matter where the attack on Iran originated from. This is taken as referring to a possible attack by the United States.


My guess is the attack will be between now and the end of the year per an agreement Netanyahu made with Obama to restrain himself until then.

How do you come to that conclusion after reading that Iran has the means to retaliate including against a nuclear site?

acdflc

First, i am of the opinion that Iran doesn't stand a chance once it is attacked. The Israeli military can decimate Iran without the help of the US. To do that however will require some very nasty technology which i believe Israel has and is more than willing to use (don't think for a moment that Israel is beyond using EMP's and neutron bombs to ensure their survival).

It would also make sense that if Iran was able to damage oil production in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis are anticipating it and stand ready to rebuild quickly. So the implications of Iran attacking the Saudi oil fields are not as dire as they might sound.

That said, Israel will make a pre-emptive strike on Iran and the U.S. will clean up the Straits of Hormuz in the aftermath.


http://www.middleeastwarpeace.info/2010/07/12/nine-reasons-obama-doesnt-want-to-attack-iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-facilities/

IrelandSpirit

acdflc wrote: »

First, i am of the opinion that Iran doesn't stand a chance once it is attacked. The Israeli military can decimate Iran without the help of the US. To do that however will require some very nasty technology which i believe Israel has and is more than willing to use (don't think for a moment that Israel is beyond using EMP's and neutron bombs to ensure their survival).

It would also make sense that if Iran was able to damage oil production in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis are anticipating it and stand ready to rebuild quickly. So the implications of Iran attacking the Saudi oil fields are not as dire as they might sound.

That said, Israel will make a pre-emptive strike on Iran and the U.S. will clean up the Straits of Hormuz in the aftermath.


http://www.middleeastwarpeace.info/2010/07/12/nine-reasons-obama-doesnt-want-to-attack-iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-facilities/

Yep, sounds plausible - ye old cavalry to the rescue bit.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why would the US give Iraq a blank cheque to buy weapons from their enemies?

Don't take this the wrong way but these are the questions you really need to be asking yourself.

Lets pretend you want pay me to kill your Iranian neighbour because he has struck oil in a field and you want it. The price is right so I agree. The problem is that I don't have a gun.

Do you:

a) Purchase the gun yourself from the local dealer, register it in your name, smile for the CCTV camera and get your fingerprints all over it before you pass it onto me?

or

b) Give me the money to purchase the gun myself and stay as far removed as possible from me?

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but these are the questions you really need to be asking yourself.

Lets pretend you want pay me to kill your Iranian neighbour because he has struck oil in a field and you want it. The price is right so I agree. The problem is that I don't have a gun.

Do you:

a) Purchase the gun yourself from the local dealer, register it in your name, smile for the CCTV camera and get your fingerprints all over it before you pass it onto me?

or

b) Give me the money to purchase the gun myself and stay as far removed as possible from me?

Or to look at it another way, say I have a company, Microsoft, why would I give a middleman a blank cheque to buy computers off my rival company, Apple, and enrich them instead at my expense

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Or to look at it another way, say I have a company, Microsoft, why would I give a middleman a blank cheque to buy computers off my rival company, Apple, and enrich them instead at my expense

Well if your name is V.P. /President George Bush you are thinking about your presidential campaign/ second-term. It's not so cool with the American voters if they are working to pay for a tyrant using chemical weapons against an enemy in war that has sweet **** all to do with them. So it is concealed with CIA fronts, nods and winks and some arm-twisting.

Those arms sales are a pittance compared to the indefinite control of Iran's mineral wealth and economy.

WakeUp

Seem's Tony Poodle has lost none of his craving's for blood and war since he left office-(link)

WakeUp

US Sen. Scott Brown - Iran now a greater threat than al-Qaeda - (link)

Former Mossad head calls for Western airforces to strike Iran now - (link)

Yitzhak Rabin

Yeah Tony Blair was calling for an invasion of Iran on the late late last week.

You can watch it here.

iPlop

It's amazing how Tony is out plugging his book and at the same time getting the public mindset for an Iran invasion! I would say he was encouraged to do this tbh!

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

Yeah Tony Blair was calling for an invasion of Iran on the late late last week.

You can watch it here.

Thanks for that Yekahs just finished watching it there didn't see it last week. They gave him nearly 40 mins camera time, thought Turbudy could have done a bit better with his questions some of them were really silly. He still firmly believe's he was right to do what he did, some things will never change I suppose.

Yitzhak Rabin

WakeUp wrote: »

Thanks for that Yekahs just finished watching it there didn't see it last week. They gave him nearly 40 mins camera time, thought Turbudy could have done a bit better with his questions some of them were really silly. He still firmly believe's he was right to do what he did, some things will never change I suppose.

Yeah it was a pretty appauling interview. Blair ran rings around Tubridy. Tubridy is only good for fluffy celebrity interviews. He hasn't a notion how to ask hard questions.

"Are you a war criminal?" What was he expecting Blair to say? "Yes Ryan, I am"

WakeUp

yekahs wrote: »

Yeah it was a pretty appauling interview. Blair ran rings around Tubridy. Tubridy is only good for fluffy celebrity interviews. He hasn't a notion how to ask hard questions.

"Are you a war criminal?" What was he expecting Blair to say? "Yes Ryan, I am"

I think he was a little to "friendly" towards Tony, obviously I don't expect him to be hostile or anything more impartial though, he had an opportunity to really grill him and he didn't take it. And when he was asking the important questions the serious one's he didn't deliver them properly it was like he was nervous asking them, when Blair was answering them he would throw another comment in and then another & another it just got a bit silly. He needs to brush up on his technique for sure it was a bit of a joke alright.