>No, the essential phrase in what I said was _billions of dollars_. >Let me walk through various levels of supply and discuss how >easy I think it is to hide shipment.
thank you for that dissertation, dan, but i wasn't suggesting that it was. >But, I don't think that's what you are talking about >when you said that companies being unable to ship >weapons without the government knowing strains >credibility. you're right, dan, the government may not know everything that goes on, and much of what it tries to cover up will be exposed by relentless journalists, film producers and bloggers, but carry on, anyway... personally, i believe that it is becoming increasingly harder for small groups (within the executive branch or operating through proxies) could arrange for the sale of massive amounts of military equipment with no one noticing, but who am i to know? exporting intel for building wmd, is another matter and something that many industrial nations (and even some third world countries) do, both covertly and overtly. if, as you say, there are thousands of people involved who know something is going on, and are legally required to keep quiet about the details, i expect they are being well paid. >Well, you know I like dense instead of sparse information. >Documentaries are fine for getting the feeling of an era. >(Ken Burns comes to mind) but I don't see them as a >primary source. >So, let me ask you, what information is in that documentary >that wasn't available to Walsh and published by Walsh? can't really answer that, but thanks for asking. i will say that ken burns has had much more success than barbara for getting his films shown on pbs. evidently, he is not as offensive to the corporate sponsors of pbs. burns has come under criticism because his latest project, "the war" made no mention of the contributions of hispanics in world war two. actually, "coverup, behind the iran/contra affair", and "the panama deception", (for which barbara did receive the oscar and was booed) are outdated now. she was very scrupulous in her fact checking and left out some information that has since been confirmed. (in panama she was escorted away from massive burial sites of civilians, at gunpoint, by u.s. soldiers. now, dan, you say i have offered no evidence for "billions" of dollars of weapons sales from the US, and no evidence that the US competed with the USSR in supplying the USSR's client state, are you seriously suggesting i am making it up, and that the cold war never happened? arms sales are a multi-billion dollar industry... are you suggesting that it is entirely above board and visible? i can't give you an exact number, or set an upper limit on covert sales, but neither can you, but i doubt it is as small as you insinuate. israel has survived this long, for a lot of reason, help from the u.s. is not the least, plus they were fighting for their survival with a great deal of bravery and competence. the arab populations would be a lot better off being ruled by israel than by their own leaders. 'what do you think north korea is up to in syria?' >Generating hard cash by selling what they can. >Weapons we give to allies can go to the black market. my point is that weapons sales are carried on by many countries and money is just one motive. 'saddam was preparing to convert to euros instead of dollars.' >Huh? The cash Hussein had on hand was pocket change compared to the >trillions of dollars and Euros in existence. I'd like to see hard evidence >that this was a factor in the war. 'http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html' 'there are so many reasons why nations (and corporations) interfere in other nations' internal affairs. one of the reasons ghwb started the gulf war was because of the s&l scandal. http://www.users.qwest.net/~mbenjamin4/mypages/thoughts/gulfwar2.html' >I read that website and saw one glaring point: no data >to back up claims. It appears to me that you are ready >to accept conspiracy theories, and malignant causes for >things without requiring hard data. so YOU say... what conspiracy theory? one man's data is another man's fabrication. you have your political bias and look for "facts" to support your empirical claims and i have mine, as a neo-marxist revisionist. i believe that facts are manipulated by both sides. do you actually believe the cherry picked data bush provides to support his policies? really, dan, the man is a perfect example of using falsified data to support arguments (far more than even nixon). what do you have to say about that? are you saying that if someone claims that the claims by themselves are not evidence, that proves that bush's policies are justified?. are you saying that that nixon wanted to end the vietnam war in a way that would allow him to split china and russia as allies, and that is why he dragged it on through both his terms?. he inheritated that war and lied about ending it to get re-elected. the peace he "achieved" was really a loss, and he could have done better, earlier. 'kuwait was giving saddam assistance and then wanted him to pay for it, so they slant drilled into iraq.' >I'd like to see the well logs that showed this. i don't need no stinking well log!~) seriously dan. are you denying that kuwait slant driilled across their common border? neither iraq or kuwait existed during and after the ottoman empire, when borders were set by the colonial powers for their machiavellian purposes. if saddam had any sense, he would have invaded saudi arabia as well, set up elections and then withdraw. that is what the good old u.s.a. does in the mideast (and elsewhere) set up puppet governments... we have our monroe doctrine and hussein, nasser, qaddafi, et al envisioned a pan-arab super power. it was their part of the world, after all. ' american ambassador april glaspie gave saddam a green light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war' <Did you read the quote there? How can you claim it's a green light? It is: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods "We want you to resolve this peacefully. Normally, we don't get involved in border disputes. However, seeing your statements about war like actions by the UAE and Kuwait, and the massing of your troops, we are concerned.> (sic) >Now, it might be that Hussein took this as a green light... >misinterpreting diplomatic speak. Heck, it might have >been translated for him in a way that would change the meaning. >But, this is clearly not a green light. It is a yellow light, that's >about to change to red. if that as the case they would have said so. as it was, i believe saddam was set up and the idiot took the bait. and i leave you the last word... jon m. 'these are not super secret reasons and i do not rule out the obvious ones.' >But, the ones I objected to have virtually no data to support them. My >understanding, talking to people, is that "it sounds about right for > this lousy government" is the reason for believing these claims without >supporting data. Dan M. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
