Posted on 10/13/2002 8:12:17 AM PDT by icantbleaveit
Outrage as Iraq views UK arms
Peace campaigners angered as Saddam's top brass
'rub shoulders' with British firms at weapons bazaar
Jason Burke, chief reporter
Sunday October 13, 2002
The Observer
A British Minister will lead a major sales drive by UK weapons
and military technology firms at an exhibition attended by
high-ranking Iraqi military officials this week.
The news has sparked outrage among arms control
campaigners and groups opposed to military action against Iraq.
'It is absurd that we are gearing up to fight a war against these
people and simultaneously rubbing shoulders with them at an
arms bazaar,' said Martin Hogbin of the Campaign Against Arms
Trade.
Around a dozen British firms will be displaying equipment such
as tanks, thermal imaging night sights and state-of-the-art air
defence missiles at the exhibition in Amman, Jordan. Machine
tools that could be used to produce weapons will also be on
show. The government-run Defence Export Services
Organisation will also have a stall.
Promotional material for the Sofex military fair boasts that
Saddam Hussein is sending an official delegation. Sultan
Hashim Ahmad, the Iraqi Defence Minister, attended the last
Sofex. Sudan, Syria, Libya and Iran - all listed as sponsors of
terrorism by the US State Department - are also expected to
attend.
'It's an appalling example of double standards. Where there is a
buck to be made, we're there,' said Andrew Bergen, spokesman
for the Stop the War Coalition, which campaigns against military
action against Iraq.
In the Eighties the UK and US supplied Iraq with millions of
pounds' worth of military equipment. Baghdad used British
companies to procure 'dual-use' machine tools to make
ammunition. Even though the UK had imposed an embargo on
'lethal equipment', the Conservative Government let the sales
proceed.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed last week that Lord Bach, the
Defence Procurement Minister, would be attending the fair.
'Sofex allows the UK defence industry to demonstrate its
product range to a number of potential overseas customers very
effectively,' said an MoD spokesman.
There is no suggestion that the British firms are doing anything
wrong. 'We exhibit there. The Government decides what we can
sell to whom,' said a spokesman for the American military
aviation giant Lockheed Martin, whose British arm is attending
the fair. Lockheed Martin makes the Longbow 'fire-and-forget'
and the Hellfire 2 anti-tank missiles. Both would be expected to
play a key role in any attack on Iraq.
Some senior industry figures, however, have expressed surprise
at the British presence. 'Are we there to show the Iraqis what we
are about to drop on them?' one asked. Exhibition organisers list
Raytheon, the American company which makes the long-range
Cruise missiles that experts predict would spearhead any US
bombardment of Iraq, among companies at the fair. Vickers, the
UK arms company which makes the Challenger, the Army's
main battle tank, will also be exhibiting.
Sales by British firms are carefully vetted, but other nations are
less rigorous. The Russian state arms export corporation,
Rosoboronexport, which will be at Sofex, provided Robert
Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe with 21,000 AK-47s and eight
attack helicopters.
A Romanian firm which offered banned anti-personnel mines for
sale at an arms fair in the UK three years ago, will exhibit, as
well as Vazovski, a Bulgarian company, which makes grenade
launchers, missile and anti-aircraft systems. Vazovski small
arms were shipped to Unita rebels with false 'end-user'
certificates in the late Nineties.
Britain has always had a tradition of military co-operation with
Jordan and the strong representation of UK companies at the fair
is being seen as an expression of support for the government of
King Abdullah. The Jordanian economy benefits hugely from
trade with Iraq. Any military operations will have a massive
impact in the kingdom.
The Middle East has long been a good market for British
weapons firms. According to recent Foreign Office figures, the
UK licensed arms exports worth £1.4 billion to the Middle East
and North Africa between January 1999 and December 2001.
The cancer, in my humble opinion sir, is that we are aggressively pursuing a policy that is not in the best interests of the American people, the Constitution, or our way of life.
Sorry that we disagree.
I appreciate the clarification and I appreciate the want for small government, but as I said before -- It is up to the people to decide what official canidates best protect unalienable rights.
The R politicans were ahead of the electorate when they gave us the Contract with America in 1994. Clinton and the media then proceeded to smack down the Contract over the next year and you know what? A year later, the majority of the electorate didn't give a crap about the contract -- so why should the R politicians GIVE A FREEP!
The founders were rightfully concerned that there would be an emergence of political parties. Smart fellows!
It is up to the people to decide what official canidates best protect unalienable rights.
And the people do a very bad job of it. They just line up at the trough.
Maybe that's why the founders structured a Representative Republic, rather than a democracy. I don't hear that phrase used much anymore...
Everyone now thinks we're a democaracy.
The founders were rightfully concearned about the emergence of political parties? First, you will need to document the founders concearn about political parties and second, using logic, you will need to show the dangers of political parties.
Political parties consist of people -- the electorate.
And the people do a very bad job of it. They just line up at the trough. Maybe that's why the founders structured a Representative Republic, rather than a democracy. I don't hear that phrase used much anymore... Everyone now thinks we're a democaracy.
You will have to bring that up with somebody who thinks this is just a democracy. BTW, even a Republic -- not just a Democracy -- needs to be kept by the people and not the politicians. Check the Ben Franklin quote.
We might think back to Washington's admonition about foreign entanglements. We might listen to what the middle east is telling us: that we have troops on sacred soil, that the Palistinians should be recognized as a separate state, that we should be less blatant in our support of Isreal.
We might trade with everyone on an equal basis, and make trade the sole criteria for our foreign relationships.
We just might think about not being the "cops of the world."
The caricature of the "Ugly American" is a very real one in most parts of the world.
I would in no way suggest that we pull back within our borders. I would only suggest that we stop meddling in the affairs of others. Why do we have troops stationed all over the world, if not to enforce our national will on others? Is that the proper thing to do? Is that part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
Do we run the risk of exacerbating the situation by launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq? There are those with more knowledge than I who suggest that we run the risk of creating a cauldron in the middle east. Do we have any understanding of the "unintended consequences?" History suggests not.
And yes, I do agree that the coming war is about oil and money. It's just impossible to sell the American public on spilling blood for that reason.
By the way, you're not talking to a wall, just to someone with a different world view. By the Grace of God, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
No crystal ball. There's no evidence that Iraq was in any way involved with the attacks of 9/11. In spite of all the blustering, the administration cannot come up with even the most tenuous of evidence.
I absolutely agree!
Our President supports a seperate Pali state. I believe we give a similar amount of aid to Israel, the PLO and other Arab countries.
BTW, the M.E. doesn't speak with one voice with respect to U.S. troops at some S.A. air force base -- I know that Ron Paul, The NY Times, The Washington Post, Sadaam and the once living OBL would tell me so.
Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that they are actually the same resevoir on both sides of the border. When it's the same resevoir, what does it matter where you drill the hole?
Kuwait was never stealing oil from Iraq. Even if they were, by your own arguments, the Iraquis were the aggresers, and did horrible things in Kuwait.
Platitudes. The fact that you continue to argue from extreme ignorance should be embarrassing to you.
Well, some folks seem to think that they were. But what difference? The understanding I have is that the US was very non-specific about what would happed if SH invaded Kuwait....
Which leads me to restate my earlier copntention that he was set up.
That's the real point here. Was our "Golden Boy" (which he was at the time, to the extent that we permitted American companies to sell him biological agents) set up?
Boy, your arguments are all over the map, irrelevant and they can't stick anywhere.
Without help, the Soviet Union would have been crushed in the second summer, if not during the first winter. Stalin's lead general - was it Yurishenko? I don't recall - said that without Spam, the Russian army would have starved that first winter.
American and British aircraft, trucks, tanks, food, oil, etc., etc., allowed the Russians to keep fighting until they could rebuild their industry. Weather and Hitler defeated the Germans in Russia, not the Russians.
1) Without Hitler's interference, the German army would have taken Moscow that first early winter. Hitler did not allow them to prepare for a winter campaign.
2) If Hitler had not insisted that Stalingrad be taken, the German High Command would have bypassed the city and taken Moscow and the new industrial centers being built. At the time the Germans entered Stalingrad, there were no Russian armies that could have stopped them from moving east and north.
Old story, eh?
Anyone who remembers what he said during the campaign knows he's lying.
Yeah. Lying. Big time.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building," - GW Bush - 2000 Campaign
"We’re not into nation-building," - GW Bush Sept 2001
"The United States, along with the European Union and Arab states, will work with Palestinian leaders to create a new constitutional framework, and a working democracy for the Palestinian people. And the United States, along with others in the international community will help the Palestinians organize and monitor fair, multi-party local elections by the end of the year, with national elections to follow." - GW Bush 2002
That's called lying. "We're not into nation-building" was a bald-faced lie. That's exactly what they're into. They also think people are pretty stupid not to recognize a lie when they hear it. Apparently they're right given your faith in their credulity.
Chip off the old block!!
"Read My Lips... No New Taxes."
Okay, second glass of wine, last post (for today).
What amazes me is that people think the leadership is principled. You cannot gain high political office in this (or probably any other) nation by being principled.
You can only achieve power at that level by lying, cheating, being devious, telling people what they want to hear, etc.
It is difficult to comprehend why folks just can't grasp this reality.
Your cynicism has overcome your judgement--and you have the left's talking points down to a tee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.