Originally Posted by Cruimh

Twaddle. You chaps have been the biggest disaster for the world since the end of WWII.

As is your modus operandi, when confronted with the facts, you wholly skirt the matter and so do not even pretend to answer the question. Here:

SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, Iraq 1973

From that piece, the long and short of the matter:

The table shows the majority of conventional arms imported by Iraq during the 1970s, when the regime was building up the armies which were to attack Iran in 1980, were supplied by the Soviet Union and its satellites, principally Czechoslovakia. The only substantial Western arms supplier to Iraq was France, which continued to be a major supplier until 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and all legal arms transfers to Iraq ended.

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the U.S., equally keen to protect its interests in the region, opted for and developed an indirect approach. The CIA began covertly directing non-U.S. origin hardware to Hussein's armed forces, "to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war."[2] The full extent of these transfers is not yet known, and details do not appear in the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, which relies entirely on open sources.[1]

In 1996, the Scott Report in the United Kingdom investigated arms sales to Iraq in the 1980s by Matrix Churchill in what became known as the Arms-to-Iraq scandal.
***
The Soviet Union and her satellites were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq following the 1972 signing of the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. France was another important supplier of weapons to Iraq during the 1970s. The United States, the world's leading arms exporter, did not have normal relations with Iraq from 1967 (due to the Six-Day War) until 1984.

Soviet-Iraqi relations suffered strains in the late 1970s. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Soviet Union cut off weapons sales to Iraq and did not resume them until 1982. During the war, the People's Republic of China became a major new source of weapons for Iraq, with increasing sales from France, the U.K. and Egypt.

Re the biggest disaster, that's rather rich coming from an Orangie whose people and govt's pattern and practice of discrimination gave rise to 30 years of armed conflict.

Oh, and in case you cannot grasp the truth in words, a picture:



Yes, we are responsible for a whopping total of 1% of arms sales/transfers to Saddam's Iraq during the period when we supplied anything at all.

As for who benefited from Saddam in power, try you Euro masters, Germany and France:

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

So no surprise why those two didn't want regime change. These are the key items, by the way:

Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and '80s.

Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980's.

And, here, after we read them the riot act:

BBC NEWS | Business | US gets Iraq debt relief support

So you get the point:

His comments were seen as significant because France chairs the Paris Club group - to which Iraq owes $40bn of its $120bn total debt.

Only misinformed, bigoted souls like you thought for a moment that French opposition to the regime change had something to do with morals. Had everything to do with francs. For more:

France, Germany tepidly agree to help reduce Iraq's foreign debt - Baltimore Sun

And for how lame are your Euro masters, since as I said, Baker had to read them the riot act:

Most debts created by Saddam Hussein in the name of the Iraqi people would qualify as “odious” according to the international Doctrine of Odious Debts. This legal doctrine holds that debts not used in the public interest are not legally enforceable.

We understand well the notion of "odius debt":

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That's part of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution and so if you Euros gave any aid by way of credit extension to the Confederacy, well, you're feces out of luck.

Lastly, to show you up for the bigot that you are, GDP by country, 2010, and note numbers 3, 4 and 15:

1 United States 15,094,025
2 China 7,298,147n2
3 Japan 5,869,471
4 Germany 3,577,031
5 France 2,776,324
6 Brazil 2,492,908
7 United Kingdom 2,417,570
8 Italy 2,198,730
9 Russia 1,850,401
10 Canada 1,736,869
11 India 1,676,143
12 Spain 1,493,513
13 Australia 1,488,221
14 Mexico 1,154,784
15 South Korea 1,116,247

Originally Posted by james5001

Zimbabwe is in no way socialist. I don't think you understand basic political terms. So you think a person should be locked up because he/she's a socialist?!

Yes it is Socialist.

Originally Posted by james5001

Even if they have a mandate?
And S Africa wouldn't be far worse off. Zimbabwe is a dictatorship. If they were socialist policies a dictatorship wouldn't occur, at the very least.

LOL! If they were Socialist they'd be more likely to be a dictatorship. All Socialist nations end up as dictatorships.

Originally Posted by rash mulligan

Ah indeed I remember back in the day 1980's when the international left made sense.

They over tuned aparthied in South Africa.

Then they harboured Salmon Rushdie for offending the mullaghs.

Then the Berlin Wall fell.

The marxists and muslims took over the left and they have been wrong ever since.

Ah well .

Good point. There was a time when the left stood for fair play and civil rights. Now it is the preserve of right on types with agendas.

Originally Posted by Hitch 22

Why don't you buy a wreath for Saddam and visit his grave? Boo hoo

*shrugs shoulders*

Based on the information that was available to me, I supported the war to get rid of Saddam, so I don't have bull's notion as to what you're on about.

Now how about answering my simple question: Do you believe the end justifies the means in all circumstances?

Originally Posted by Hitch 22

So they upshot of what you are saying is you would prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

I think those who removed him were his long-time sponsors, so if its right for him to be removed, it is even more right for those who armed, financed and covered up for him to face justice too. I also think that it is incoherent to talk about right and wrongs in one case while the very basis of US foreign policy has been to routinely support evil regimes who murder, oppress and steal from their own people. If he did have to go, the time to do it was when he was weakened after Iran or Kuwait. After Kuwait, he had lost control of the North and the South, and getting rid of him would have been a much less complicated matter. It certainly would have been preferable to leaving him there for over a decade while his innocent population was further brutalized, both by him directly and by the impact of very misguided sanctions. Back then, there would have been broad support, both within Iraq and internationally, for getting rid of him.

As it happened, the actual war had almost nothing to do with him- he was a bit player in the larger game for the control of a region and its oil. On top of that, the war itself was based on a total lie, and led to carnage and chaos much in excess of what was warranted or what would have been the case if the planners had given a moments thought to post-war planning. That lack of concern for the population, over and above the bombing, was a crime in itself.

As for him still being in power, those who kept him in power should swing. If they wanted to remove him, there were better ways, such as cutting a deal with the army or arming the rebels and letting them fix it. Even having a limited invasion with local and/or regional support for the specific purpose of toppling his regime and followed by a swift exit would have been preferable to what went down.

Originally Posted by Clanrickard

Yes it is Socialist.



LOL! If they were Socialist they'd be more likely to be a dictatorship. All Socialist nations end up as dictatorships.



Good point. There was a time when the left stood for fair play and civil rights. Now it is the preserve of right on types with agendas.

Communist countries have ended up as dictatorships, I agree.

None of the socialist Scandinavian countries were dictatorships and socialist Libya was not a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Clanrickard

Yes it is Socialist.
LOL! If they were Socialist they'd be more likely to be a dictatorship. All Socialist nations end up as dictatorships.



Good point. There was a time when the left stood for fair play and civil rights. Now it is the preserve of right on types with agendas.

We've already been through this clanny. I've already explained to you why it isn't.
2nd bold point- Then theyre not socialist.

Originally Posted by stopdoingstuff

I think those who removed him were his long-time sponsors, so if its right for him to be removed, it is even more right for those who armed, financed and covered up for him to face justice too.

(1) please see post 121 above. So that would be Russia, France, China, Czechoslovakia and Poland as the Big or Evil 5 who armed Saddam.

(2) please see post 121. Would be the Big or Evil 5 above plus Germany as financiers.

(3) please note who did not join in the war for regime change, so would be Russia, China, France, Germany, etc., who covered up for Saddam.

(4) on this topic, you sound as deluded as these folks: Manson's Deluded Skanks - YouTube

(5) I did not quote some of the rest of your post above, but you also wrote:

As for him still being in power, those who kept him in power should swing. If they wanted to remove him, there were better ways, such as cutting a deal with the army or arming the rebels and letting them fix it.

Funny that, since Bush said in 2003:

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

(6) You also wrote:

As it happened, the actual war had almost nothing to do with him- he was a bit player in the larger game for the control of a region and its oil.

Bush also said:

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
***
Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

And then a few days later:

To all the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
***
We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

(7) You also wrote something about oil. In contrast, from the New York Times:

MOSCOW — When Iraq auctioned rights to rebuild and expand its oil industry two years ago, the Russian company Lukoil won a hefty portion — a field holding about 10 percent of Iraq’s known oil reserves. It seemed a geopolitical victory for Lukoil. And because only one of the 11 fields that the Iraqis auctioned off went to an American oil company — Exxon Mobil — it also seemed as if few petroleum benefits would flow to the country that took the lead role in the war, the United States.

The auction’s outcome helped defuse criticism in the Arab world that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil."

So not about the oil. We are, however, making money subcontracting, the drilling and repair, since we have the superior knowledge and equipment for that, and so the Russian firm, Lukoil, subcontracted out the drilling, etc. Here:

Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and an authority on oil and conflict, said that American oil services companies were generally dominant both in the Middle East and globally because of their advanced drilling technology. So it is no surprise, he said, they came out on top in Iraq, too — whatever the initial diplomatic appearances.
***
[O]ne of Lukoil’s first steps after securing the West Qurna 2 deal was to subcontract the oil well refurbishment work to Baker Hughes.
***
Andrei Kuzyaev, the president of Lukoil Overseas, the company’s subsidiary for foreign operations, said in an interview that he was choosing oil services contractors in Iraq through open tenders, as required by the contract. But in fact, Lukoil officials say privately, only American companies have bid.

And here, for you sadly and tragically misinformed souls, and I'm going to put this in bold, so you can't miss it. We don't care about the ownership of the oil all that much. We just want the oil on the world market, and enough to keep prices relatively low:

“The strategic interest of the United States is in new oil supplies arriving on the world market, to lower prices,” Mr. Kuzyaev said.

That's our interest. And that should be your interest as well. Since if you all will notice, we didn't reach the tipping point re the whole property boom until the price of oil shot up like a rocket, and that's when the gears began to grind down and we hear some awful noises coming from the engine space.