Possibly in the 3,444 minefields still suspected to be in Iraq.

I know of a briefing to some US troops where they were told that the landmine situation was a serious threat and that while they suspected he had up to 12million landmines across Iraq, they knew that he had six million state of the art landmines because they still had the receipts for them. (this was pre-GW1)

quote:
I know of a briefing to some US troops where they were told that the landmine situation was a serious threat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landmines a serious threat? Do tell!?


(On a serious note- one of the saddest things I've seen come through was a report of a 19 yr. old USAF supply airman, who a week prior was shivering his n***s off at Minot AFB, North Dakota, stepped off the marked path at a base in Afghanistan and blew his leg off. This happened not too long after OEF launched. I know too many guys have been killed/wounded since, but that one really struck me hard. Poor, young b*****d.)

Not that I support Chavez or anything, but if the US sells his country the planes and has a contract for parts, what do they expect him to do when they break their side of the agreement?
Does the agreement say that we will sell you these planes and will provide parts as long as you are our vassal? Almost a bit like blackmail isn't it?

And do you have a link to documentation that the US provided Saddam with landmines?

I've seen links that said the US spread land mines in GW1:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0218/p11s02-coop.html

But none that said we sold Saddam land mines.

And if the US did sell land mines to Saddam, how does that make us a major supplier of arms to Saddam, when compared against the USSR and France?

Sorry, a bit of an understatement there, I meant the number of them.

And it is exactly that, landmines are one of the horrors of modern warfare, and for the US to supply six million to Iraq is questionable, to say the least.

Ok, maybe this is my fault. My fault for laying the blame initially at the feet of America. As both myself and others have said it is many different nations that are to blame for arms sales, and as Brickhistory said:

"(BTW, I am not slamming BAe or other companies for selling arms, or the UK, for that matter, there's always a demand....)"

It's true that these countries will sale arms to anyone who will buy them, and believe it or not I'm not a 'conshy' or a ‘lefty’ or anything like that. It just saddens and angers me to see US/British/Western Weapons being used against their own men. And I suppose that is just one of those things we have to except in today's globalised world.

However, it has to be said that if the USA does not want it's secrets (and whether the F16 is still secret is another story) to be revealed to it's enemies then it needs to be more careful who it sells them to.

Again, you've provided no documentation that the US provided 6M mines to Saddam.

Where's the proof?

Not all military assistance given to a 'dodgy' country has to be in the form of hardware. Lets not forget that before Gulf War 1 many officers of the Republican Guard and Iraqi Army were trained in such glorious military establishments as West Point, Sandhurst and other fine training bases throughout the US and the UK.

Now days most of these ex-senior officers with outstanding military knowledge are supplementing their lack of military pay (good decision Bremner) with back handers for technical assistance from the very people we are trying to fight at the moment in Iraq.

Then we have our friendly CIA trained chums from Afghanistan and we all know how good they are at what they've been trained to do....

Of course all of this is the result of the Cold War being fought by proxy. Let some poor sap at the other world do the fighting whilst us folk in the west and the red menace in the east throw the occasional tip bit into the mêlée.

One day we may learn that these things always seem to bite us in the arse.

Unfortunately my source was a video. I will try my best to track down written documentation of this.

some good ones here:
 

quotes:

Does the agreement say that we will sell you these planes and will provide parts as long as you are our vassal? Almost a bit like blackmail isn't it?

However, it has to be said that if the USA does not want it's secrets (and whether the F16 is still secret is another story) to be revealed to it's enemies then it needs to be more careful who it sells them to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the former comment:

And that's a bad thing in our national interests because.......?

For the latter:
Right, guess we'll rethink our partners in the JSF..............(and I do not mean this comment seriously. Also, not related to the JSF thread on pprune.)

G

Don't get me wrong, the foreign military sales policies of the US *and* the UK are aspects to both countries that I find reprehensible, particularly America's (seemingly) bottomless pit of money for toys to Israel, and our sales of Hawks to Malaysia. That's my personal view, but it's one also tempered by pragmatism. We need oil and political clout; they need weapons. Period. I'll just have to learn to live with it.

However, my beef with your post is that you singled-out the Spams because they've sold more than we have to a greater number of customers. My whole point is that they have done so principally because their products are, on the whole, more desirable; and if you want to pick your home team, America will probably be the first guy you choose.

I'm not sure that, when one looks at the Iraqi Order of Battle, the land mines you mention are anything more than a minor embarrassment for the Yanks. You can't actually throw a landmine at someone, but you can protect your own territory with one. It's a little different in my view from supplying them with offensive weaponry.

"In the 1980s the United States sold more than $134 billion in weapons and military services to more than 160 nations and political movements. American sales increased further during the 1990s. In 1993, the United States controlled nearly 73% of the weapons trade to the Third World [32]. A large part of American arms exports -- 85% has been estimated -- has gone to non-democratic and often brutal regimes; in Panama, Iraq, and Somalia such arms were turned against American forces. American arms also fuel conflicts and increase regional tensions."

from: http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V3Sidel.html

Still looking for landmine specifics.

Ewan,

I did apologise that my original post was directed solely at the US, that was possibly because it was the US involved in this particular case, I have, a few times now, stated that it is not solely the US who are responsible.

I believe that there were more than landmines provided but I nothing that I can think of in specific terms at this moment.

quote:
"American arms also fuel conflicts and increase regional tensions."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not read the entire article from the medical (medical?! WTFO!?) journal you sited, but putting aside the facts and figures in it, it loses crediblity when editorial comments are inserted.


Your point is made, the US leads the world in arms sales. That point has been addressed numerous times already in this thread. Let the poor deceased nag lie in peace.

Now, what will Chavez do with his old F-16s and do we care? Me thinks not.

No, by the sounds of things on here they are passed their sell-by-date anyway.

Possibly a bluff, maybe the cubans can turn them into novelty cigar lighters.:}


Won't effect immediate world situation.

My apologies, kind of a pointless argument really. Still fun though.

G

I missed you clarification, so my bad for banging on unecessarily.

The the VAF Block 15 Vipers might well make for good scrap, but what would the Cubans do about the hydrazine? Now, there's a topic for friends of the earth to sink their teeth into ;)

Why are F16's known as Vipers these days? I'm sure in the 'Big Noddy Guide To All The Worlds Wooshy Bangy Things' they used to be know as Falcons.

Is Falcon not cool enough or something for the modern battlefield/tin pot country?

What's in a name?
 

"Why are F16's known as Vipers these days?"


The official name is "Fighting Falcon" which is the USAF Academy team name.

When the jet first came out, a sci-fi show called "Battlestar Galactica" had neat looking space fighters called "Vipers."

Since the F-16 was the first US all-up FBW jet, and probably because it sounded 'cool,' Viper name was born.

Fairly sure about this anyway........

Brick

That's also what I understood. I've heard of Eagle drivers who like to call their simulated kills thus: "Kill, Fighting Falcon in the climbing right turn". Gets some peoples' backs-up, apparently :).

Ewan,

Yep. The converse is "Kill, tennis court, popping flares, 20K."
for size of the F-15.

Also for fighter name trivia, when I was at Kadena, the 67FS had the oldest F-15s in the inventory. The "Fighting Cocks" became the "Jurassic" Cocks. Funny patch.........

g126:

First, that quote does not exactly come from an impartial source -- clearly they've got an axe to grind against the US. Second, there is no backup. Third, there is no detail. What did the US sell to Iraq? It doesn't say that we sold them mines. It doesn't say what we sold them. It doesn't say how much we sold them. It doesn't say that the US was a major supplier of arms to Iraq. In fact, it doesn't say much at all.

The fact is the US was not a major supplier of arms to Iraq. The major suppliers of weapons to Iraq were 1) the USSR, and 2) France. So why aren't you criticizing those two countries?

You have failed to name a single major weapons system that the US sold to Iraq. That's because there wasn't any.

So, will you now, finally, agree that the US was not a major supplier of arms to Iraq?

Brick

You familiar with any of the newer derogatory names for the Viper? I particularly liked Flying Dorito, which was 'new' a few years back.