The Glocks were mis-reported. They are being sold to the Iraqi government, not Iran. Please check the updated news release. Some "journalist" got it wrong.
The Shah of Iran was a dying (cancer) old man when the Ayatollah took over. He was nowhere near as lethal to his people as Saddam. He never used poison gas on anyone. Iran never, under the Shah, invaded another country, either. The F14s sold to the Shah were "export" versions, with diminished capabilities. Could someone please provide a source for the US and Iran's collusion to build nuclear weapons that isn't tin-foil certifiable?
Steyr did EXACTLY what the gun lobby did in THIS country: claim that once the firearm was no longer in their control, they were not responsible for its use, legally or illegally. Otherwise, every manufacturer would have been sued out of business, and so no more AMERICAN-MADE firearms. Nice thought, huh?
Really? Steyr admits to the selling of the .50 cal. weapons to the government of Iran. Part of the shipment has already been captured in Iraq. American companies cannot sell weapons to ANY country without the approval of both the State Department, and BATFE. American companies cannot sell to any country under UN sanctions, either. Austria is a UN signatory, and was aware of the sanctions at the time of sale. I will agree that, once a sale has been made and delivered, the onus of wrong-doing falls on the recipient. However, if the sale, in and if itself, were illegal, then the onus remains on the seller.
During the Iran-Iraq war, parts were sold, or allowed to be sold, through various sources. As was brought out, maintaining the balance of power between to totalitarian states, allowing them to bleed each other white, does seem to have some poetic justice. Try to keep the facts in the open, and don't just give those parts that support your opinion.
I would call for a national boycott of any company that dealt directly with a fundamentalist government for the sale of arms to the Middle East. However, that would, again, require the approval of State.
In January 2007, it was announced by the US Department of Defense that sales of parts for F-14s would be suspended due to concerns that they could end up in Iran. It announced that the decision was taken "given the current situation in Iran"
We've sold F14 fighters to a number of countries. What the announcement really says is that even they will be unable to buy spare parts as of that date.
Wow, it took over four years for the US Department of Defense to finally "suspend" sales of F-14 parts to one of the "axis of evil", countries. so i really dont believe they were middle men, making deals in back alleys, to sell spare F-14 parts for cash.
I'm going to suppose that, because you really didn't read the announcement, that your opinion of who was doing the selling is as wrong as your determination that we have been selling directly to Iran? Let's try to interject a little common sense here. There are probably no more than a dozen, or less, operational F14 fighters in Iran. They are currently, by Jane's assessment, able to do little more than fly, and act as a weapons platform for a mish-mash of Chinese, Russian, and French ordnance. None are now, nor have ever been, what the West would have considered first-line fighters. If you have sources to back up what you've decided is correct, please cite them.
When Saddam was OUR bastard we sold him the basis of his bio-warfare program from the ATTC (American Type Culture Collection) among whose major stockholders were Bush and Baker.
Source please. When was this? Who was president? What were the terms of sale?
Eh I don't see any problem even if Iran was involved with the weapon transfer.Afterall, who hired Saddam when he was 23 years old in 1959? The CIA
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/205859.shtml (Other sources suggest as early as when he was 18).
Not only was he an asset, Donald Rumsfeld and others made sure he had plenty of weapons. So if our politicians here in the US Critisized Iran for doing this, they'd be pretty hypocritical, since we've armed, funded, and trained many more dictators and warlords / regimes (Operation Gladio, etc).
Using your logic, then, anything that happens to America, and Americans, is good and right? Are you a speech-writer for Al-Queda? I'll suppose that you are always prescient enough to never give a hand to anyone who later turned out to be less than honest in your personal life? Sure you are. How was anyone, in 1959, going to know that Saddam would become who he did? He was recruited to gather information, not commit genocide against the Kurds. What were we going to do, 20 years later, fire him, then not give him a good recommendation at his next job?
They armed Saddam for the same reason that they armed Iran, to maintain the balance of power in the region. Also, to allow both regimes to bleed each other white, fighting one another. How people can see deep, hidden, twisted agendas, but overlook the stated, and demonstrated, reasons is beyond comprehension.
I don't give a rat's behind for the reasoning explaining the .50 cal. Rifles existence in Iraq. They will/are being used against Americans. None of these men and women had anything to do with a 1959 decision by the CIA, and none of them trained people who you feel were undeserving because you disagree with their policies.
That Americans even feel this way, and are willing to excuse others for killing Americans, is certainly not the results of critical thinking and moral uprightness. Rather, it's proof of the deep-seated rot in the morality of our culture.:barf:
Who were the WH guys at the time?
Triggernigger