Woman Wakes After 20 Years in Coma

[underpants]

Asks if freedom fighters we supported drove Russians out of Afghanistan and if Saddam got all the weapons he needed from us.

http://www.ironictimes.com/

[Hav]

1. lol nice site

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts Says He'll Respect Legal Precedent
Won't overturn Dred Scott.

Bush: Leaving Iraq Would Be
Bad Signal
For Iran.

Gallup Poll: 51% Say Bush
“Deliberately Misled” Public
About WMD, 54% Find Him
“Honest and Trustworthy”
44% say they deliberately misled pollsters.

[Silverhair]

2. Saddam's weapons were mostly Soviet supplied.

T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, MiGs, AKs, etc. He also bought some French Mirage fighters. And he purchased South African artillery. (Their 155mm howitzer has a longer range than ours.) America didn't supply him with arms. During the Iraq-Iran war we did give him satellite photos of Iranian movements.

[Hugin]

3. Oh, no Anthrax then?

That'd be news to D. Rumsfeld.

[Silverhair]

4. Proof please? NT

[havocmom]

5. Good point,

Some proof that most of Saddam's arsenal came from the USSR would be appreciated.

[Silverhair]

11. See my first post in this thread.

That proof is extremely easy. Look at what he was equipped with.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the weapons systems I mentioned. None of them are made in America. ALL of his armor and most of his airpower was Soviet. Or do you think that somewhere there are secret factories in America that are churning our MiGs and Russian tanks?

[underpants]

6. Say thank you

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

[Hugin]

8. Thank you.

Your link is better than mine.

I do agree that most of the conventional hardware was
supplied by the Soviets.

That ultimately worked to our advantage due to the fact
Saddam is a cheapskate. But, this is a topic for another
thread in a different forum.

AND DON'T SAY AT FREEPERVILLE! ;)

[underpants]

9. US Mil contractors didn't have to sell to anyone else

they got paid 3X what they would on an "open market" aside from that apparently the entire Soviet GDP was from arms sales. You have probably watched the BBC World News-name one file photo of ANY country (other than Western Europe and Israel) that doesn't feature Soviet T-___ tanks. One.


Soviet armor and Toyota trucks-file footage staples.

[Hugin]

10. What you say is also related to...

the fact the Soviet's battle strategy focused around armor (Tanks in particular) and air defense. The U.S. strategy focused more on Big-Bangs-for-The-Buck... WMDs... and Air Power.

Just a few of the reasons we're in such a mess with close urban
combat right now.

Just my opinion... I have nothing to back it up.

[Silverhair]

14. Until 1989, US strategy focused on the cold war.

The fear was that the Soviets would make a lunge for Western Europe. The Soviets had overwhelming advantage in raw numbers. The US, from the late 40's until the mid late 70's had used the possibility of going nuclear as the major deterrent to the Soviets. In the 80's (Despite the deployment of theater missiles in Germany)the focus shifted to defeating the Soviets with conventional strength alone.

In my opinion, that was was fought and won in the 1982 Syria-Israel air battles. To win a modern conventional war, your army CAN NOT win if the other guy has total air supremacy. (Unconventional war can be a different story.)The Soviets greatly outnumber us in the air, but we had technological superiority, and our pilots were far better trained. The Soviets hoped accepted that they would lose more planes than we would but hoped that the numbers would be enough. But in 1982, the Syrian, Soviet equipped and trained, and using Soviet battle doctrine, went up against the Israelis, equipped largely by the US and US training methods. After a few days the Syrians had lost 87 planes in air-to-air combat, while scoring ZERO air-to-air victories against the Israelis. Israel also destroyed all 19 SAM sites. Israel did lose some helicopters and two aircraft to SAMs.

All the world's major militaries began to study that battle for lessons to be learned. For the Soviets one lesson had to leap out at them. They could NOT depend on numbers alone to overwhelm NATO, and that NATO might be able to brush the Soviet air aside and have total air domination. Under such conditions an invading Soviet Army would be crushed.

Following that the US began to look at the possibility of using deep battle strategy (Which depends on air supremacy)for NATO defense, and began to move away from the nuclear strategy.

In the late 80's the US Army concluded that the danger of a Soviet thrust into NATO was remote and began to focus on the likely next hot zone. They began to practice for the middle east.

[Hugin]

7. My proof.

"Another mitigating factor is purely scientific: Iraq procured the Vollum strain of anthrax from American Type Culture Collection, a company based in Rockville, Maryland, which provides commercially available viruses - such as anthrax - to consumers worldwide. While Iraq had investigated other strains, including those indigenous to the country, it was the Vollum strain that Iraq mass-produced for weapon use. It is a unique, highly virulent form of anthrax, and its use would represent the kind of link needed to suggest Iraq as a likely source. That is not to say that the presence of a Vollum strain would automatically indict Iraq, or that a non- Vollum strain clears Iraq. However, federal investigators currently think that the anthrax used in New York and Florida is the same strain, most probably the Ames strain, a variety native to the US. The strain used in Washington is as yet unidentified, but it has been assessed as non-weapons grade and responsive to antibiotics. Based upon this information, it would be irresponsible to speculate about a Baghdad involvement."

Isn't Rockville, Maryland in the U.S.?


http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1019-03.htm

[Silverhair]

12. Very Good. Thank You. NT

[underpants]

13. a...HEM!!!!

:eyes: