Ah, it must be Gremlins. They’re the ones logging onto your account to type in stupid shit in your name, racist terms and all, and earn Mod warnings. Makes sense.
I’m being quite serious. If you think the US directly armed Iraq, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you think you provided proof that you did you need to look up the definitions of proof and of directly. I’ll state it for you again: the US did not sell or provide any arms to Iraq under Saddam. As I said from the beginning, even before your first post, the US provided loans which were of course used to buy arms, but those loans amounted to 1/16th of the foreign debt Iraq accrued paying for the war. The remaining 15/16th came from the Gulf States and Europe, and France directly sold large amounts of arms to Iraq during the war.
And again, if you think the US was the major driving force behind Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs you are quite simply wrong. I am not and have not denied US corporations sold dual-use equipment to Iraq. I am saying that the US was a very minor source of this equipment; the vast, vast majority of it came from elsewhere, most of it from various European corporations, over half of it from German corporations. If your looking for who to be pissed off at, Karl Kolb should be at the top of your list, not the US government or US corporations.
Why yes, it would be if that were the sole definition I considered to be applicable for it. However, the context in which you used this phrase, stating that “much of Saddam’s military support” was in response to adaher’s idiotic statement that:
My apologies if you did not intend to include arms in your meaning of military support, but frankly when you include the qualifier “much” in that statement when adaher was blathering about the size of Saddam’s army it is only logical to assume that you believe it to include arms.
You should warn the genteel reader that the web site offered often contains material salacious to the point of pornography and…wait! What was that sound? Sounded like a website crashing under a sudden load of access…
The cover story is genocide. It’s really about oil.
Fair enough, I absolutely get that. I was unclear and overstated things in reaction to adaher’s imbecility.
And I’m glad we’re on the same page about the latter.
What I wrote: "It’s one of those things that works great until it doesn’t "
Dumbass.
Name one thing that doesn’t fit that terribly useless commentary.
That’s the point. It’s obvious. But not apparently, to Presidents who use airpower as the default and expect it to work every time, and are so sure it will work that they say they won’t commit ground troops. that’s a promise that’s impossible to keep unless defeat is an option.
It’s probably going to work this time, at least for the Kurds. The Yazidis, the jury is still out. The Iraqis rescued some of them yesterday. If they can do it, we can too. And we should.
We don’t want to use ground troops so we’ll do what we can. So what if that is bombing obvious heavy equipment and dropping humanitarian supplies.
You sound like you won’t be appeased until we throw in ground troops and gets tons of people killed.
I don’t like your plan.
Using air power is fine, but if it doesn’t achieve our objectives then we have to use groundtroops. The President has defined the mission, now he has to see that the mission is carried out. It’s an eminently achievable mission. He deserves credit for doing so too, because a lot of Presidents have committed US force without defining the mission.
Also, remember this is President Obama we’re talking about here, so when he says we’re not committing ground troops you can take that about as seriously as “you can keep your health plan if you like it.” He’ll just keep on redefining what “ground troops” means. He’s already committed small numbers to protect US lives and property, he’ll commit more for limited missions as necessary. I do believe him when he says we aren’t going to send major forces there. The Kurds and the Iraqi army can probably do the job with air support, and even if they can’t, the President has defined that part of the mission as “containing ISIS”, which means he just has to keep ISIS within the Sunni triangle and out of Baghdad and the Kurdish areas. Again, an eminently achievable mission. It might take more than mere airpower, but it won’t require large numbers of troops. But it could require some special forces.
If it were Kissinger, he would drag his feet for a while, let IS commit a few more atrocities, build up opposition…
I hope we’re not having a retarded conversation about Special Ops folks and whether they should be used. Because they most assuredly are already active in the area and have been for a while. They are not generally referred to as ground troops though.
In terms of the significance, I’m not sure what the difference is. I am assuming that political opposition to ground troops has to do with putting our soldiers at risk.
…and find a way to get arms to Iran through a third party. 
That’s the real problem in the Middle east; not enough parties.
What ‘Iraqi army’ might that be? Have they replaced the one that the first time it was asked to actually fight just abandoned all its arms to ISIS, removed its uniforms and ran away when faced with just 1400 attackers with a proper one already?
One’s a regional militia interested only in defending whatever borders it can get away with claiming in all the chaos and the other makes the ARVN look like the hordes of Genghis Khan. Neither can do the job.
I’ll bet that what brings ISIS down is massive bribery of the Sunni tribes allied with it. It worked before.
That’s what happens when you prohibit alcohol.