I cannot link directly so I will provide this link first:
Under the pictures for April 5th, please examine the 5th photo.
This photo is of anti-tank weapons that are clearly marked as belonging to the Jordanian military.
Crack-pot theories that this is just planted by the U.S. military aside:
1.) Does this prove that Jordan has been supplying weapons (in violation of the U.N.) to Iraq as the U.S. has alleged?
2.) In my searches so far, I’ve not seen an article pointing to clear physical proof of the U.S. allegations that Jordan and Syria are assisting Iraq - yet this photo seems to provide just that. Why no coverage?
3.) What, if anything, do you believe the fall-out of this will (or should) be?
Maybe because they can’t tie the pictured weapon to date of sale. Iraq’s been at war, or preparing for war, for decades. So they could have picked up this stuff long ago, before there were sanctions in place.
And if it IS recent, then the administration has some political reason why NOT to make a big deal about it. What that reason is, I wouldn’t venture to guess.
When has the U.S. charged that Jordan was illegally supplying Iraq with weapons?
(For this war, Jordan has aligned with the U.S., even sending reconnaisance patrols across the border to watch for covert shipments and troop movements.)
During the first Gulf War, Jordan was an open supporter of Iraq and the weapons could date from that period.
Looks English to me, too. Isn’t the crate labelled with “DIR OF PLG & ORG”? Directorate of Planning and Organization? I think the word “of” does not occur in French.
Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. As an attempt at “disinformation”, it is way too clumsy (I’m assuming that both Jordan and Iraq write in the same Arabic script?)
Unless: the box was shipped from an English speaking country to the Jordan Dir of PLG & ORG, but was later re-used for tank ammo. When the crate was initialy dispatched, it may have contained a copier. Or something.
I watched that discovery on TV, and they said that the weapons they discovered were Jordanian and French.
No one should be surprised by this. The French have been supplying weapons in violation of the sanctions for years. The U.S. reported a shipment of Mirage and helicopter parts from France in January.
Syria has been importing oil illegally for years. If Jordan was supplying weapons, they can join a lengthy list.
BTW, given the English writing, I’d suspect that the weapons were trans-shipped to Iraq through Jordan, rather than originating in Jordan in the first place, in order to give the real country of origin some plausible deniability.
In another part of the country, a bunch of Russian gas masks were discovered that had fresh filter cartridges manufactured in 2002.
I also heard on TV (sorry no cite) that some anti-tank rockets are of Russian manufacture. Not only that, but these particular anti-tank rockets weren’t developed by the Russians until after sanctions went into effect. It’s going to be interesting to see how much illegal activity from other countries will be found after the war.
Actually, the White House just leaked details showing that the Russians have been in full knowledge of those rocket sales for a long time, and that the U.S. had been hammering the Russians diplomatically for the last year to get those sales stopped.
I’ve said many times that the main reasons for France and Russia to oppose this war are that, A) they were making a ton of money breaking sanctions and dealing with Iraq, and B) they were going to be embarassed when the Coalition forces start combing through documents and talking to Iraqi bureaucrats, scientists, and soldiers about where their weapons came from, who built their bunkers, etc.
Oooooo, the bloody White House leaked the detials.
Give me a break Sam, why should I give the Bush Admin, pimpers of false data on nuclear sales and the like, any credit for “leaks” in which they have such transparent interest in.
Your credulity sometimes defies belief.
Well, Sam, your analysis on this matter is of your usual quality. French opposition was hardly motivated by some penny ante profits by a few French firms, thsi is the same sort of rhetorical bullshit idiocy that the anti-War crowd engages in when crying they have “proof” of Blood for Oil and that kind of nonsense.
Argument from tenous 2nd rate logical ties cuts both ways.
In any case, given the close relationship of certain past American officials with old Iraqi policy and the attendant connexions, I should hardly be holding me breath Sam.
As to the weapons, Tom had correctly noted Jordan has long enjoyed a close relationship with Iraq, quite naturally. A number of explanations, knowing the Jordanian elite, present themselves few as lurid as Sam’s panting conservo porn scenarios.
“The French have been supplying weapons in violation of the sanctions for years.”
And do you have a source, more credible than the Washington Times, for this allegation which you keep repeating again and again?
The previous king of Jordan bent a lot of rules when it came to dealing with Iraq. Reason being that Jordan was fairly dependant upon Iraq for a lot of things, and the population of Jordan was pretty pro-Iraqi, even though the king of Jordan was rumored to believe that Saddam should be removed from power. The US didn’t make a big fuss over it then, his son, who is seen by many Jordanians as an outsider, has quietly allowed US forces to operate within its borders. I don’t know about the current king of Jordan, but his father was seen as a very progressive individual in that region of the world, and if his son is continuing in his father’s footsteps, I can imagine that the US doesn’t want to make a big fuss over what appears to be a minor matter.
Ah, Abdullah’s his name. I haven’t paid much attention to Jordan since the last war. I do know that his wife is an American, and she’s pretty big on the humanitarian front. Frankly, if they are as pro-Western as they seem to be, the US should leave well enough alone when it comes to Jordan. Better that Jordan makes slow progress towards democracy (which they were inching towards, IIRC), than to suffer a complete reversal because the US goes mucking about there.
And of course, you could watch the news. French weapons are being found all through Iraq. Of course, France was one of the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq before the sanctions, so maybe they all pre-date them. We’ll have to wait and see.
Collounsbury: Man, even when you’re trying really hard you can’t keep from being snotty, can you? Why don’t you leave out the editorial comments like, ‘This analysis is of your usual quality’, and ‘your credulity sometimes defies belief’, and “Sam’s panting conservo porn scenarios”? You can make your point without personal cheap shots. I think.
As for my credulity with regards to Russian arms sales to Iraq:
His wife is of Palestinian origin and they both indeed are deeply pro American.
I am not sure about the progress towards democracy, it is highly situational in reality. Elections postponed 3 years in a row as I recall now.
Certainly if we are smart, we shall leave well enough alone and let Abdullah backtrack to save face.
Now as to Sam, you’re trying to sell quite a strong scenario on the flimsiest of evidence – and indeed quite spun evidence. Apply the same bloody standards to the evidence Sam - stop trying to have it both ways. Halliburton clean, but ooooo if there is a French company involved it’s collusion. Pitiful.
Your argument has been for official collusion on arms sales by France and Russia. Russia one can give some credit to, although I would put my money on simple corruption. France, well pimp away, I certainly don’t see the moonie rag as a credible source.
In the end, French and Russian motives are very adequately explained by their view of their national interests, not some minor contracts and corruption involving a few private firms. I would make the same argument in re US policy, that all the idiotic claims about US policy being driven by commercial interests are utterly wrong and based on equally ideological misunderstandings of national interest. Bush et al are pursing what they believe is a correct policy on national interest. They’re wrong, but wrong in a largely honest way. Your continual one sided promotion of this kind of bankrupt analysis does no small discredit to yourself and the ideological rags (** LEFT AND RIGHT** that continue to pimp these bankrupt analyses.
My harsh criticism is aimed at the whole kit and kaboodle of simple minded arguments that see this particular conflcit’s universe of policies being driven by a narrow commercial interest. ANyone in the midst of this can see how simple minded and wrong that is. Surely there is influence on the margins, but this conflict has gone to the heart of state interests and long term positions on sovereignty and the like. Serious issues that focus the mind.
“Since when is the Washinton Times not credible?”
When has it ever been credible? How many people outside right-wing circles take it seriously? How many Pulitzer prizes has it won?
Isn’t it funny that you never see these stories in the Washington Post or the NY Times?
In any case considering how unreliable even the public “evidence” submitted by this administration has been, annonymous quotes by administration officials in the Washington Times are all but useless. Until someone produces evidence verified by third parties, all you are doing is repeating unsubstanitiated allegations which happen to fit your ideological prejudices.