What we all knew anyway....

[Scumbag]

he so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking army officer has declared in a speech that challenges the conventional political wisdom.

In a frank speech, Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several of the central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part is all about politics and terrorism is merely a tactic.

Although such wars were fuelled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level. This would result in Australian soldiers fighting in increasingly urban environments.

Speaking at a conference on future warfighting, Brigadier Kelly, the director-general of future land warfare, also suggested that the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

His speech appears to fly in the face of a comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, last year that the "contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror ..."

The brigadier said populations were being cut off from their traditional roots, giving them "aspirations that cannot be immediately met", and fuelling a search for identity.

Terrorists were exploiting local issues - such as ethnic wars - to pursue global ends. From a military point of view, the job was now one of counter-insurgency, he said.

As a result, Australia's future soldiers would fight increasingly close to populations, with the enemy "continuing to retreat into complex terrain".

While success in battle was critical, it would not of itself deliver victory - that would come by winning over the hearts and minds of the local people.

The war of the future would be "out of human control". There was "no alternative" but to engage the population and "convince them of your rightness".

"Our proximity to populations enables us to influence and control the populations, [it] enables us to dominate the environment, generate intelligence and eventually bring the conflict to a resolution," the brigadier told the conference last week.

To fight such a war, a new kind of soldier was needed - one not only proficient in the latest technologies, but who had been educated in "cultural understanding" and sensitivity.

Brigadier Kelly said modern war could be defined as "conflict, using violent and non-violent means, between multiple actors and influences, competing for control over the perceptions, behaviour and allegiances of human population groups".

He said he found it interesting that "if you take out violence out of the first line, it's a description of politics".

smh (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Brigadier-shocks-and-awes-there-is-no-war-on-terrorism/2005/04/26/1114462041971.html)


This all comes in light of a US Government insider who Says "Bush Authorized the 911 Attacks" for his own geopolitical agenda..

Sauce (http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm)


while the above link looks like a tinfoil conspiracy theory, they certainly have a lot more going for it than the official US propoganda line...

[Nodbugger]

What the fuck is a Brigadier? If they mean a Brigadier General, than that is what he may be.


O, wait...he is an Australian General.

Besides, did you even read what he said? He isn't saying it is wrong. He says we need to fight these people, but he is saying that we are not fighting terrorism, but we are fighting terrorists.

[Scythe]

but he is saying that we are not fighting terrorism, but we are fighting terrorists.

And that is why the War on Terrorism will never succeed in its current form. Targeting the people and not the reasons and the ideology that creates them is ultimately a futile tactic, because while the ideology continues to exist and exert influence, it will always produce people willing to die for it.

It is much like fighting the War on Drugs by punishing drug users instead of finding ways to cure them. It's a futile tactic that often reinforces the very thing that was being fought against.

[Nodbugger]

And that is why the War on Terrorism will never succeed in its current form. Targeting the people and not the reasons and the ideology that creates them is ultimately a futile tactic, because while the ideology continues to exist and exert influence, it will always produce people willing to die for it.

It is much like fighting the War on Drugs by punishing drug users instead of finding ways to cure them. It's a futile tactic that often reinforces the very thing that was being fought against.


Not cure, prevent. And killing every terrorists sure does prevent it.

[DOGG]

The brigadier is brave to say such things. As for this:

This all comes in light of a US Government insider who Says "Bush Authorized the 911 Attacks" for his own geopolitical agenda..

Sauce (http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm)


while the above link looks like a tinfoil conspiracy theory, they certainly have a lot more going for it than the official US propoganda line...

150% credibility is lost as soon as i see the name "Alex Jones". If the guy is telling the truth (i didn't read it) then he chose the wrong person to interview him.

A more credible whistleblower is this one have a read

Campaign coffers profit from 911, coke and courts (http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109)

Washington -- April 25, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com -- Former FBI contract translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her attorneys were ordered removed from the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse so that a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel could discuss her case in private with Bush administration lawyers.

[Merudo]

Not cure, prevent. And killing every terrorists sure does prevent it.
Could you be more of a blockhead?

[dwarfthrower]

What the fuck is a Brigadier? If they mean a Brigadier General, than that is what he may be.


O, wait...he is an Australian General.


Yes... Brigadier is the appropriate term in the Australian army for an officer holding rank above a Colonel and below a Major General. Equivalent to a Brigadier General in the US army.

[Nodbugger]

Yes... Brigadier is the appropriate term in the Australian army for an officer holding rank above a Colonel and below a Major General. Equivalent to a Brigadier General in the US army.

We just call them BG, not Just brigadier.

[Nodbugger]

Could you be more of a blockhead?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[beowulf437]

A Brigadier formerly refered to a Brigade Commander as a General was a regimental commander and a Marshall was a Corps commander. Now that's done. In the post 9/11 world there has been a bunch of scapegoating and CYAing. If you had listen to the commission hearing at times it seemed they were trying to blame the whole thing on the New York City emergency services. Could you say that there was one person in the US goverment that knew that al Qaida operatives were going to highjack four airliners and crash them into buildings on september 11, no I don't think so. Ten years before I came up with an imaginative little what if exercise of terrorist leasing executive jets and crashing them into goverment buildings. Yes there was a mess of evidence out there pointing to the Semptember 11 attacks but it was piled in with a mess of information about other attacks and plans made by a multitude of terrorist organizations. When dealing with that amount of information sometimes it is diffficult to tell the good from the bad. There is also the problem in secret organization to have individuals and groups working without the knowledge that other in this same organization may posses. So what yo end up with is several groups each missing key pieces of information the could render the whole puzzle. This is were point fingers and cover your ass comes in. Hell it's human nature. If something fucks up, deny it. If something fucks up in a big way, blame someone else. I believe this is the source of most conspiracy theories in the modern world. The conspiracy is not the actual event, the conspiracy is trying not to be blamed for it.

[DOGG]

What about the fact that on the day of 9/11 there were numerous simultaneous hijack simulations happening? Sounds to me like they were WELL aware.

[kré]

Not cure, prevent. And killing every terrorists sure does prevent it.

killing the 'terrorists' won't stop more terrorists from taking up the same cause. remove the cause, remove the reason for the terrorism, remove terrorism.

ever heard the saying "hate the game, not the player"? that applies here. and if you can't see why, you're even stupider than i thought.

[SOC]

The 'war on terror' is over. The terrorists have won. Their aim is to induce 'terror' - ie, make people scared. Look around you at the state of the world today. Eveyone is scared, and that fear has been amplified by governments who, without thinking, have simply aided the terrorists by exaggeating the threat - which, in reality, is minimal.

[Nodbugger]

killing the 'terrorists' won't stop more terrorists from taking up the same cause. remove the cause, remove the reason for the terrorism, remove terrorism.

ever heard the saying "hate the game, not the player"? that applies here. and if you can't see why, you're even stupider than i thought.


So what do you want to do? Give them candy or something? they won't like us and they probably never will. We have to attack them like we would a conventional enemy. Until that region basically grows up there is nothing we can do except kill them, because that is what they want to do to us.

[Nodbugger]

The 'war on terror' is over. The terrorists have won. Their aim is to induce 'terror' - ie, make people scared. Look around you at the state of the world today. Eveyone is scared, and that fear has been amplified by governments who, without thinking, have simply aided the terrorists by exaggeating the threat - which, in reality, is minimal.


You may be scared, but I am not. And no one else I know is.

[Kez]

You may be scared, but I am not. And no one else I know is.
I'm not scared, I have protein powder.

[beowulf437]

What about the fact that on the day of 9/11 there were numerous simultaneous hijack simulations happening? Sounds to me like they were WELL aware.

I don't think they knew before hand. Yes there had been speculation about crashing a hijacked airliner into a building, and perhaps better sharing of information may have prevented it. Another thing about US laws pre septenber 11 is that a person could not be arrested until after a crime was commited.

Getting rid of terrorist is a lot harder than it sounds, either by hunting them down or by removing the causes. So exactly how long has the British goverment battled terrorism in Ireland? From 1916 to the present. They still haven't removed the cause because the majority of people (over 70%) living in Northern Ireland want to stay part of the United Kingdom.

So what does al Qaida want? They want a theocratic Islamic empire stretching from Morroco to Malaysia. They want all infidels out of the region. They want to establish the harshest religious law in the region.

[Scumbag]

So exactly how long has the British goverment battled terrorism in Ireland? From 1916 to the present. They still haven't removed the cause because the majority of people (over 70%) living in Northern Ireland want to stay part of the United Kingdom.

At least the british have taken a diplomatic approach to their terrorism and have for the most part succeeded. The bombings have stopped and people are no longer attacked based on their religions, ethnicity etc.. There is still a political arm representing the IRA, and local gangs who adopt the IRA namesake but the threat is hard to compare with what it used to be.

So what does al Qaida want? They want a theocratic Islamic empire stretching from Morroco to Malaysia. They want all infidels out of the region. They want to establish the harshest religious law in the region.


Where did you get this info from ?

According to Osama's transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/) , he doesnt mention anything of the sort...


"You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.

And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.

Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.

The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before [President George W.] Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked"

[kré]

So what do you want to do? Give them candy or something? they won't like us and they probably never will. We have to attack them like we would a conventional enemy. Until that region basically grows up there is nothing we can do except kill them, because that is what they want to do to us.

the reason that they don't like us. we need to address that. then maybe they won't want to kill us anymore. got it?

[anothe]

*token post*

yeah i contributed something

shaddap

[Nodbugger]

the reason that they don't like us. we need to address that. then maybe they won't want to kill us anymore. got it?

They don't like us because we are alive, you can please them.....I'm not.

[beowulf437]

Well here is a bit of how Bin Laden thinks, his 1996 Fatwa declaring war on the US.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

In August 1996, Bin Ladin issued a statement outlining his organization's goals: drive US forces from the Arabian Peninsula, overthrow the Government of Saudi Arabia, "liberate" Muslim holy sites in "Palestine," and support Islamic revolutionary groups around the world. To these ends, his organization has sent trainers throughout Afghanistan as well as to Tajikistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen and has trained fighters from numerous other countries including the Philippines, Egypt, Libya, and Eritrea. Bin Ladin also has close associations with the leaders of several Islamic terrorist groups and probably has aided in creating new groups since the mid-1980s. He has trained their troops, provided safehaven and financial support, and probably helps them with other organizational matters.

[DOGG]

I don't think they knew before hand. Yes there had been speculation about crashing a hijacked airliner into a building, and perhaps better sharing of information may have prevented it. Another thing about US laws pre septenber 11 is that a person could not be arrested until after a crime was commited.

You said earlier that you watched the 9/11 commission right? Were those multiple hijack wargames on the day of 9/11 mentioned there?

[DOGG]

You said earlier that you watched the 9/11 commission right? Were those multiple hijack wargames on the day of 9/11 mentioned there?

???

[Sagacious]

The mistrust and antipathy between Islam and Chritianity generally can be traced back to the First Crusade and the slaughter of the population of (Acre/Jaffa/Jerusalem - I can never remember the right one) by the crusaders. The streets were red with blood and the bodies piled high and that was after the city surrendered!

Islam (to my understanding of reading the Koran) is a very tolerant religion in principle it just falls down (like anything else) when practiced by human beings with vested interests and other agendas.

Just like Soviet Russia had one of the most liberal and humaniatrian constitutions of all nations it just fell down when it came to the practice.

Unfortunately that is the same the world over regardless of the circumstance the theory is great until it comes up against the human element.

Basically it is in our nature to antagonise and attempt to destroy ourselves and eachother 'the cause' is merely the convenient excuse for mobilising us to do it in an organised way whether it be religion or politics or whatever.

Here endeth the rant

[Thyrd]

They don't like us because we are alive, you can please them.....I'm not.

You know noddy. I have chosen to ignore your thread and not get dragged into your constant shitstorms. But THAT is possibly the Stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!

You naive little fuck! You think that muslims hate you because you are there? Because they can? They hate you because of your amazingly large ego and arrogance if anything, Just like 90% of the world does! Words cannot express the sheer and utter rage if feel for you right now.

People like you, my little shit eating fucktard, are the reason muslims (if not the rest of the world) hate you. You are possibly the stupidest, thing to have ever lived, the slime from the primal ooze of old had a higher IQ than you.

I have actually noticed that your posts are actually getting stupider. And here we have the result of years of domestic abuse, sub par education and blind patriotism, Summed up and quoted for all of history to see.

Congratulations. You are THE IDIOT KING!

[JediKnight]

You may be scared, but I am not. And no one else I know is.
Ignorance truly is bliss. Until, of course,when the shit hits the fan and you have to start facing reality.

[Up_All_Night]

to effectively fight the problem, the solution should have been, let sadam, iran and so forth develope nukes, let them fire them at each other and blow up the whole middle east. It will

a) kill alot of terrorists
b) remove a some causes of terrorism, ie. hatred for israel
c) unite people for peace and see violence isnt the way

[Nodbugger]

You know noddy. I have chosen to ignore your thread and not get dragged into your constant shitstorms. But THAT is possibly the Stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!

You naive little fuck! You think that muslims hate you because you are there? Because they can? They hate you because of your amazingly large ego and arrogance if anything, Just like 90% of the world does! Words cannot express the sheer and utter rage if feel for you right now.

People like you, my little shit eating fucktard, are the reason muslims (if not the rest of the world) hate you. You are possibly the stupidest, thing to have ever lived, the slime from the primal ooze of old had a higher IQ than you.

I have actually noticed that your posts are actually getting stupider. And here we have the result of years of domestic abuse, sub par education and blind patriotism, Summed up and quoted for all of history to see.

Congratulations. You are THE IDIOT KING!


Can you in some way prove I am wrong?

What did we ever do to Muslims? What did the US do to them? We never did anything, we would have been happy doing exactly what we had be doing if people hadn't attacked us.

We have been attacked several times by Muslims Terrorists. Where do they come from? Well 99% of the time they come from the middle east. So if the middle east won't fix the problem we will.

[Juice Biscuit]

Well that whole giving arms to Iraq, and then giving them to the country they were fighting against didn't do you too many favours.



Oh and there is that whole blind support for Isreal thing.

[Nodbugger]

Well that whole giving arms to Iraq, and then giving them to the country they were fighting against didn't do you too many favours.



Oh and there is that whole blind support for Isreal thing.

We never supplied any military equipment or weapons to Iraq.

And we do not blindly support Israel, and our support of Israel is not a bad thing.

[Sagacious]

We never supplied any military equipment or weapons to Iraq.

And we do not blindly support Israel, and our support of Israel is not a bad thing.
what about the arms and funding spplied during the Iran/Iraq war after the whole Iran Hostage situation thing?

You mean that never happened in the same way that the contras weren't supplied by Ollie North?

[Blink]

We have to attack them like we would a conventional enemy.

You can't fight an unconventional enemy with conventional strategy. Vietnam should have taught you that. What the US army is doing in Iraq is creating more enemies, not eliminating them.

[Juice Biscuit]

We never supplied any military equipment or weapons to Iraq.

And we do not blindly support Israel, and our support of Israel is not a bad thing.



Wikipedia says you did.

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988 (briefly also supporting Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair and occasionally condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons).




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

[Nodbugger]

Wikipedia says you did.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

Well wikipedia is wrong.

Beowulf will give you a run down, he does every single fucking time this comes up.

[Nodbugger]

You can't fight an unconventional enemy with conventional strategy. Vietnam should have taught you that. What the US army is doing in Iraq is creating more enemies, not eliminating them.


We also tried to "win their hearts and minds" in Vietnam, you can see how well that worked out too.

[Juice Biscuit]

We also tried to "win their hearts and minds" in Vietnam, you can see how well that worked out too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_lai


Wiki says you're wrong again Noddy

[Nodbugger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_lai


Wiki says you're wrong again Noddy

Um mm...no, I was right.

Our plan in Vietnam was to win their hearts and minds. That is where that idea came from. Vietnam. Before that it was kill them all. And we are back to that because it worked.

[Scythe]

Um mm...no, I was right.

Our plan in Vietnam was to win their hearts and minds. That is where that idea came from. Vietnam. Before that it was kill them all. And we are back to that because it worked.

Which part worked? The killing them all part or the winning hearts and minds part?

According to the history books, neither worked very well in Vietnam, and it doesn't look like they're having much of an impact in Iraq either.

[Aardvark]

I reckon if we held a world peace summit in Nimbin, for a brief period, the guns and bombs would be silenced.

Until the simultaneous rush on the only kebab shop in town

[Sagacious]

Um mm...no, I was right.

Our plan in Vietnam was to win their hearts and minds. That is where that idea came from. Vietnam. Before that it was kill them all. And we are back to that because it worked.
the best laid plans of mice and men (and military superpowers) are apt to go astray

[druckfugged]

Um mm...no, I was right.

Our plan in Vietnam was to win their hearts and minds. That is where that idea came from. Vietnam. Before that it was kill them all. And we are back to that because it worked.

...words fail me...

[beowulf437]

Well the wikipedia is wrong. The chart on arms sales by the US to Iraq the submitter added some numbers from the actual sipri chart.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf

The only correct number is the 125 million in 1988.

So what did Iraq get for a 125 million? They got 10 radar systems and 31 helicopters.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/REG_IMP_IRQ_70-04.pdf

Here is a list of the Dual use items transfer to Iraq in the 1980's

The following are 11 of the 19 approved licenses that we obtained.

Commodity Value Date End user End use
------------------ ---------- -------- ------------------ ------------------
Data privacy $1,105,159 7/27/90 Ministry of Securing embassy
device \a\ Foreign Affairs, communications
Iraq

Data privacy 25,291,119 7/27/90 Presidential Securing
device \a Office, Iraq presidential
communications

Data privacy 1,378,930 10/25/ Presidential Securing
device 89 Security Command, presidential
Iraq communications

Data privacy 29,577 8/15/89 Administrative Securing
device Officer, communications
U.N. Forces, Iraq

Speech and voice 198,400 8/02/89 Presidential Prevent
scrambler Security Command, eavesdropping
Iraqi Palace

Speech and voice 489,604 5/19/88 Presidential Prevent
scrambler Security Command, eavesdropping
Iraqi Palace

Communications and 165,860 7/07/86 President of Iraq To be installed on
navigations President's
equipment helicopter

Electronic 3,185 4/22/86 Iraqi Air Force Spare part for air
component traffic control
system

Communications 1,255,000 5/21/85 Iraqi Air Force To boost voice
amplifiers signals of air
traffic control

Revolvers and 914 9/28/84 Presidential For use by Iraqi
pistol Palace officials

Image intensifier 8,800 11/21/ Space and Research For astronomical
83 Center, Iraq spectrographs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These are two of the four licenses that were revoked immediately
after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 8/2/90. No items were shipped
under the four licenses.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9498.htm

Who armed Iraq? The Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, France and China.

[s3raph]

Well I think the point is that the US used to be chummy with them, and suddenly look who's on the axis of evil. I'm sure this whole thing is gonna be an absolute bitch for history students to untangle in a hundred years.

[Nodbugger]

Well I think the point is that the US used to be chummy with them, and suddenly look who's on the axis of evil. I'm sure this whole thing is gonna be an absolute bitch for history students to untangle in a hundred years.


I think the whole point is that I was right, again.

[Merudo]

We also tried to "win their hearts and minds" in Vietnam, you can see how well that worked out too.
I guess my definition of trying to win hearts and minds differs to your definition.... heh

[Juice Biscuit]

Well the wikipedia is wrong. The chart on arms sales by the US to Iraq the submitter added some numbers from the actual sipri chart.




Bwhahhahahah, and have a guess what they did/tried to do with the Helicopters. (the other link on wiki)


Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]



Document 44: Department of State Memorandum. "Notifying Congress of [Excised] Truck Sale," March 5, 1984.

The State Department informs a House Committee on Foreign Affairs staff member that the department has not objected to the sale of 2,000 heavy trucks to Iraq, noting that they were built in part in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan. The official policy of the U.S. is that it does not export military related items to Iraq or Iran. When asked if the trucks were intended for military purposes, the official responds, "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked."

Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[beowulf437]

In 1985, a European company sold weapon conversion kits to Iraq for
helicopters that Iraq had purchased from the United States with
assurance of nonmilitary use. While it is not clear whether the kits
contained U.S.-origin equipment, based on Iraq's earlier assurance,
the United States would not have approved the sale. However, it is
not clear whether or not the helicopters were actually militarized.

<edit>

The bulk of the items licensed were computers and other electronics,
and other items such as civilian helicopters and machine tools were
also licensed. Dollar wise, the largest amounts involved three
licenses, totaling more than $1 billion for heavy duty trucks.
Commerce subsequently informed us that these trucks were never
actually shipped to Iraq. A Commerce official told us that Commerce
was informed by the exporters that the purchasers for these trucks
withdrew from the sales agreements at the last minute.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9498.htm

It helps to read the whole article.

[moldy bread]

Um mm...no, I was right.
of course you were right. you were there. you fought and died for my country. and for that you think you deserve respect. and NEXT time you want to talk to me about it make sure you don't have food in your mouth.