Outrage as Iraq views UK arms

Peace campaigners angered as Saddam's top brass
'rub shoulders' with British firms at weapons bazaar

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.

so you admit you have no factual rebuttal.

No, again you are too closed minded. Back up and consider what I've been saying.

You are too close to Paul's opinions, considering them as factual without benefit of discussion. Your underlying assumption (that Ron Paul's speech is gospel) is certainly not proven. Hell, you didn't even try. If you ever do want to discuss merits of his speech, great. But as long as you continue to insist that his opinion is fact and all others are wrong you'll find yourself like a religious zealot trying to debate his faith. Your faith (in Paul) interferes with your logic.

There is just no use in even conversing with such an individual...

I have a solution
When the Iraqis show up, take them into custody and ship them off to the POW camp for the duration.

Certainly not. If we're using such opportunities- or our allies are- to remain in discrete contact with those Iraqi officers who may be in a position to eliminate Saddam and his most loyal henchmen, I'm in particular favour of it- and I certainly hope they have effective tools for getting the job done when their time comes to do so.

And besides, it's an equally swell opportunity to spot those other officers we might face in a near-future conflict and reason with them, arranging safe passage for them and their units via a quick surrender in the field. And should they not be so inclined, some little crumbs can be left for Saddam's counterintelligence Gestapo to find- artfull telephone intercepts or videotapes, perhaps- that indicate the officers who are remaining loyal for whatever reasons have been turned against Saddam, our dirty work can be done for us...and their replacements may be more cooperative.

but the opportunity to lay such traps needs to not be disturbed. Kindly do not crap in the nest where the pros at this sort of mischief play.

-archy-/-

If you ever do want to discuss merits of his speech, great.

Well, you've had 3 chances so far and every time you have avoided talking about any facts. I assume that Paul's facts are correct because he not only sources them, but you and others haven't offered even one factual rebuttal to his statements. Nor has the administration.

Demi, if you truly wanted a discussion, you wouldn't slam a huge document on us then require us to digest in entirely and argue it. That's a ploy tried by those who do not desire a discussion.

If you DID want a discussion, you would identify any number of key assertions and then place them in the forum for debate. That's not what you've done.

You've slammed us with a big document and claimed it as 100% factual b/c you don't see us all jumping at your link to disect it. Well, self-centered one, get a clue. If you want to discuss a topic, put one out there, don't put out a huge document full of myriad topics and assertions and expect us all to jump.

I'm fairly certain you'll continue to insist that it must be all 100% fact, regardless of the lack of discussion. So, go ahead. Enjoy your omniscience... by yourself. That's all you've got.

Demi, if you truly wanted a discussion, you wouldn't slam a huge document on us then require us to digest in entirely and argue it.

If you wanted to discuss facts, you would discuss them. You don't and now this is 4 posts that you have made full of excuses about why you won't look at the facts.

The document isn't that big. I managed to read it in about 8 minutes. You aren't interested in the truth. In fact you've done just about everything you can to avoid it. You accuse me of accepting Paul's statements as truth without any consideration and yet you haven't even read the information. That should embarrass you but somehow I think you'll simply continue with your stall and evade tactics.

If you DID want a discussion, you would identify any number of key assertions and then place them in the forum for debate. That's not what you've done.

LOL....they were placed on the forum for debate. There have been less than 30 comments in that thread last I checked. That's how interested in the facts all you "bomb Iraq" folks are....

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.