Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:Why else do you think we gave Iran the F-14s and gave Iraq various weapons. We knew they hated each other. I am saying that a tempting deal is still a tempting deal no matter who offers it.

Pre Islamic state Iran and Saddam were not enemies. Both Saddam and the Shar were 'our man'. Coming off the back of this however...

halonachos wrote:MDG don't talk about that, the UK supported the american slave states for cheap cotton.

...seems a little off. Britain (as the major arms supplier in the world at the time) supplied arms to both sides. I'd also add that the north also had slaving states.

Most of the cannon used during the ACW were built within a mile or two of my house. /war claim to fame.

You don't know 100% that he didn't get any WMDs as I am not sure 100% that he did get some WMDs.

Chances are good that he was developing some WMDs using nuclear POWA!

He knew that America would invade if he used them, but he could've also believed that America wouldn't be able to handle the invasion and that we would let him be dictator again. After all, after the 1st gulf war we let him stay as dictator.

Also, weapons of WMD is redundant. You are saying "weapons of weapons of mass destruction".

Spiggot,

Why else do you think the union had to blockade the south?

halonachos wrote:Spiggot,

Why else do you think the union had to blockade the south?

I'll repost:

halonachos wrote:Britain (as the major arms supplier in the world at the time) supplied arms to both sides. I'd also add that the north also had slaving states.

I'm not questioning that Britain suplied arms to the south, I'm questioning the moral high ground the north now passes of as fact.

If arms were supplied to any conflict at the time they were in all likelyhood made in Britain.

Actually, the north was the industrious part of the U.S. of A. The north had enough factories to pump out guns and warships without the aid of any foreign nation. The south didn't have many factories as they were the agricultural part of the U.S. of A.

halonachos wrote:Actually, the north was the industrious part of the U.S. of A. The north had enough factories to pump out guns and warships without the aid of any foreign nation. The south didn't have many factories as they were the agricultural part of the U.S. of A.

Neither side had any arms industry of note at the start of the war or a standing army to use them, both imported weapons heavily.

I have no idea about what kind of U.S history you guys learned over there. We had rifles being produced by a little thing called the Springfield Armory as early as 1855, 6 years before the civil war began. They were based in Springfield, Massachusetts. There was also Colt, they're known for their revolvers and pistols.

Civil war also developed the gatling gun, repeating revolvers/rifles, and the concept of the carbine. I think that the north was fairly independent when it came to weapons manufacturing.

As to the army thing, we had just come from the Mexican-American war. Its safe to say that the U.S. had an army.

Both you turkeys are correct

Foreign nations supplied arms to both sides. The union received some armaments early in the war, particularly rifled and unrifled cannon. As the war progressed the Union made its own armaments almost exclusively and became quite innovative in some aspects, a slow in others (not using Henry repeaters for example in number). Indeed, the Civil War is credited by many as the great initial driver of the industrial revolution in the US. Pre Civil War the US was entering the IR, but post war it was an industrial power second only to UK/France in production capacity. It far outpaced the South, and is especially important not in arms, but in logistics. It has kept that logistical advantage vs. the world ever since.

However, it was the South that procured the most armaments from foreign powers-particularly Britain, and to a lesser extent France. As noted, the South had little in the way if industrialization. It procured cannon and rifles in quantity (or at least attempted to). It had little in the way of rail/rail transport productive capacity, and ship building was minimal once the Union seized key shipyards.

Since Frazzled seems to have covered the main points, let's drift OT for a moment to these Youtube videos of the ACW reenactors who display behind my house every summer...



..and the WWII reenactors with their Marder III

halonachos wrote:You don't know 100% that he didn't get any WMDs as I am not sure 100% that he did get some WMDs.

Well, its actually impossible to be 100% certain that any given thing does not exist because that would require perfect knowledge. However, we can possess standards of reasonable certainty.

Given the lack of evidence uncovered during the war, the dubious case provided for Saddam's possession of WMDs, and the reports issued by various weapons inspectors (including some from the US) stating that all the WMDs which Saddam had possessed were destroyed prior to invasion it seems reasonable to state that we can be certain the Saddam did not possess WMD at the time of invasion.

halonachos wrote:
Chances are good that he was developing some WMDs using nuclear POWA!

No, they're actually quite bad. The evidence simple doesn't allow for such a statement.

Halonachos, you used the words "Pre emptive". This is a term used to justify anything. It goes well with "could have" and "Might do"

Yes pre emptive does cover a lot of things. So seeing as though it is a term to justify anything I can say that kicking a random person in the shins is a pre emptive strike because they could try to hurt me first. That doesn'y fly and I would get charged with assault and battery.

As the article I posted said before, there is a strong possibility that the weapons inspectors missed some of the chemicals that saddam had. According to history, Iraq had a policy of buying chemical components including cyanide and pesticides in 1988. These were used against the Iranians and then later against the kurds. So, chances are that Saddam saved some WMD material for the future in a safe location that we have yet to find or have overlooked.

halonachos wrote:. So, chances are that Saddam saved some WMD material for the future in a safe location that we have yet to find or have overlooked.

That's a huge assumption that isn't supported by the evidence we have though.

halonachos wrote:
As the article I posted said before, there is a strong possibility that the weapons inspectors missed some of the chemicals that saddam had.

No there isn't. If you'd like I can cite any number of academic, journalistic, and official sources which directly contradict such a point.

halonachos wrote:
According to history, Iraq had a policy of buying chemical components including cyanide and pesticides in 1988.

According to history all of these components were accounted for, and destroyed, shortly after the final expansion of the no-fly zones which effectively denied Iraq any form of freedom with respect to available routes of ingress/egress.

halonachos wrote:
These were used against the Iranians and then later against the kurds. So, chances are that Saddam saved some WMD material for the future in a safe location that we have yet to find or have overlooked.

No, chances are that is not the case. Iraq is not a particularly large nation. It was cut down to roughly 1/3 its actual size after the creation of the two no-fly zones in the wake of Desert Storm. Then consider the level of international scrutiny applied to the matter and your point is not even a point, but statement of ridiculous faith.

A statement of ridiculous faith you say? Firstly, who was watching the borders and who was watching the no fly zone? How is it possible to monitor every piece of border and every piece of land under the no fly zone? We are not god here, we can't see everything. History can be false as can science.

Also, the no-fly-zone only applies to aircraft. It is possible for trucks and other modes of transport to be used to bring components in and out of Iraq. Low flying aircraft could also dip below the radar. Trucks were most likely used. As history also shows, Saddam had ways to tick our weapons inspectors and our troops have been known to overlook weapon producing facilities.