• @F_alk:

    @ncscswitch:

    In addition to the nuclear material,…

    In addition to zero ….

    @ncscswitch:

    The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.  To put that in perspective, 20 years after US and UK went at it hot and heavy, they became allies, and have been ever since.  Same language, similar culture, similar religion, etc.  All those same factors tie Iraq and Iran together far more closely than either nation has ever been tied to any outside power.

    Farsi NOT Arabic
    Persian NOT Arabian
    Sunni (SH) NOT Shiite

    Add in that there is a large area of Shite control in Iraq, a nation run by Shite (I keep wanting to leave the e off that…) and you have all the reason you need for any materials in the southern part of Iraq to have made their way to Iran.

    That would be after the fall of SH… then it would be the US and UKs fault.

    F_alk,

    You do indeed seem to be very irritable of late.  And it is effecting your facts.

    Yes, while Saddam was in power, the Sunni controled Iraq (at least until 1991).  But after that time, there were 2 semi-autonomous areas, one under the Northern no-fly-zone that was Kurdish, the other under the Southern no-fly-zone that was Shite.  What happened in southern Iraq between 1991 and 2003 is prety much anyone’s guess.  Regardless we know that Iran was providing aid in those areas during that time.  Whether the Iraqi shites returned the favor and gave stuff to the Iranian Shites… well we’ll have to wait and see about that.  Also, we KNOW that materials went from Iraq to Iran both before the 91 war and the resumption of hostilities in '03. So get over yourself by trying to argue that Iran and Iraq are not linguistically/culturally/religiously similar; at least in terms of the dominant populations in both of those nations.

    Also, you seem to forget that while Iraq USED to be lead by Sunni’s, they are a minority, the smallest of 3 major groups.  They are outnumbered by the Shites who have a near majority, and the Kurds who have the second largest plurality.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Yes, while Saddam was in power, the Sunni controled Iraq (at least until 1991).  But after that time, there were 2 semi-autonomous areas, one under the Northern no-fly-zone that was Kurdish, the other under the Southern no-fly-zone that was Shite.  What happened in southern Iraq between 1991 and 2003 is prety much anyone’s guess.

    The argument was that Saddam brought WMDs to Iran, before they could be “found” by US troops. 
    I will requote you:

    The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.

    Means you were not speaking of the time 1991-2003.

    Add in that there is a large area of Shite control in Iraq, a nation run by Shite (I keep wanting to leave the e off that…) and you have all the reason you need for any materials in the southern part of Iraq to have made their way to Iran.

    And then claim Saddam ordered/send anything to Iran?

    Saddam knew it was a one-way ride, just like it was with the aircraft that went to Iran in 1991.  But he sent MORE anyway, knowing they would never be reuturned.

    How can he possibly send anything that he has no control over (as it is controlled by the Shites in the south)?

    The IAEA is the body that has detailed the materials Saddam had, and has also detailed the “missing” materials since the war resumed.

    So, noone knows what was in southern Iraq between 1991-2003. The IAEA on the other hand does. It also knows what is missing. This, if this was sent between 1991 and 2003 by Shiites -a thing noone knows-, was sent by Saddam Hussein - who in 1992 let the southern Shiites pay deraly for supporting the US in 1991?

    Also, we KNOW that materials went from Iraq to Iran both before the 91 war and the resumption of hostilities in '03.

    I thought we don’t know what happend in southern Iraq … and all i KNOW is that your secret services do not KNOW much.

    So get over yourself by trying to argue that Iran and Iraq are not linguistically/culturally/religiously similar;

    You stareted the argument, i argued against it. Why do i “have to get over” it somehow?

    Also, you seem to forget that while Iraq USED to be lead by Sunni’s, they are a minority, the smallest of 3 major groups.  They are outnumbered by the Shites who have a near majority, and the Kurds who have the second largest plurality.

    And suddenly SH’s Iraq was democratic and not ruled by a minority???


  • Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

    Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.  You see, during the war, Iraq probably would NOT have sent materials to Iran.  But they HAVE sent materials to Iran SINCE then.  Why was that so hard for you to grasp?  If you don;t believe me, go look at the pictures of the Iraqi Mirage jets sitting on Iranian runways.

    Also, just because the Shites MAY have sent material out of southern Iraq in the interim period (91-03) does NOT preclude Saddam himself sending materials from the area he DID control during the same time period.

    And what is that crap about me calling Iraq a democracy???  I said that AFTER Saddam was deposed, Iraq became a majority (or at least largest plurality) Shite nation… the same religious/ethnic group as is the majority/ruling group in Iran.  I never made ANY claim that the Shites held power in Iraq prior to '91.

    You are using logical falacies by trying to equate 2 different POTENTIAL sources for material to be transfered to Iran and trying to claim that they are part and parcel of the same argument.  One has to do with Saddam himself, and his government, and the areas he controlled.  THAT is the source for the jets flown to Iran, and MAY be the source for OTHER materials that the IAEA had tagged but are now missing.  The OTHER source has to do with the Shites in southern Iraq and the aid they were receiving from Iran and the aid they MAY have given to Iran in exchange.

    Gods!  You have that difficult a time evaluating 2 different simultaneous actions occuring?  Are you so much of a conspiracy theorist that the two MUST have been related?  Must have been causitive of each other?  Must have been coordinated and planned?

    I am simply far more likely to believe the least-common denominator here:
    #1  Saddam knew he was going down and sent materials in areas under his control to other nations (most likely Iran) in order to keep the materials from being destroyed or confiscated.  We KNOW he did this with jets in '91 and in '03, so why not with OTHER materials?
    #2  We know the Shites were getting aid from Iran after '91.  People tend to do things for their own self-interest, so why not think that Iran got something in exchange for their aid?

    So Iran played both sides in Iraq.  Surprise, surprise.  Like THAT has never happened anywhere else in the world.


  • either way when the Shites take power they will be like brothers with Iran so any remaining skeletons that havent allready been transfered to Iran will easily head on over there.Iran allready has plans to reallign with Iraq after we leave in a coalition against Isreal. Gentleman the storm is brewing and a war is looming.


  • @Imperious:

    either way when the Shites take power they will be like brothers with Iran so any remaining skeletons that havent allready been transfered to Iran will easily head on over there.Iran allready has plans to reallign with Iraq after we leave in a coalition against Isreal. Gentleman the storm is brewing and a war is looming.

    if i were to just read this without any context (i.e without the foreknowledge that SH was a bit of a jerk) i would say that the US has served to destabilize the middle east by invading.


  • @cystic:

    if i were to just read this without any context (i.e without the foreknowledge that SH was a bit of a jerk) i would say that the US has served to destabilize the middle east by invading.

    In the short term, you are probably right.  Long term… I see the middle east calming down quite a bit.

    Iraq is not going to survive as a single nation.  The divisions between Kurd, Sunni and Shite are too great. Oh they’ll play nice for the cameras for a few years, then they’ll just split up and go their separate ways.  The Kurds and the Shites are the ones calling the shots:  both due to numbers and due to control of the oil regions.  What are the Sunni going to do?  Attack?

    The Shites will ally with Iran, and will have lots of support form them as they form their new nation.  The Kurds will draw other Kurds out of places like Georgia (the old Soviet Republic, not the former UK penal colony in the southern US) which will reinforce their numbers, bring in new blood, and stabilize their new state.  Turkey won;t be thrilled about this, but an un-easy truce will exist there for decades.

    So the Sunni end up being having a nation, but no resources.  Probably will come under the influence of Syria.

    Three new nations; two of them with resources; two of them with strong allies adjacent to them.

    That is about as stable as the Middle East is likely to get… until such time as the whole area glows in the dark.


  • I really dont see Iraq staying united forever either. Its not a real country to begin with. All the different religious sects will probably break up and go their seperate ways, but I doubt other middle eastern countries will have a hand in their affairs, we will make sure of that.


  • @marine36:

    I really dont see Iraq staying united forever either. Its not a real country to begin with. All the different religious sects will probably break up and go their seperate ways, but I doubt other middle eastern countries will have a hand in their affairs, we will make sure of that.

    You mean like we kept Syria from meddling in Lebanon’s affairs for the past 20 years?


  • @ncscswitch:

    Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

    You are deliberatetly vague. You even redefine time scales:

    Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.

    So when you say “20 years ago”, it is actually: “3-15 years ago” ?

    Also, just because the Shites MAY have sent material out of southern Iraq in the interim period (91-03) does NOT preclude Saddam himself sending materials from the area he DID control during the same time period.

    So, may might could …
    oh, somewhere you said SH did send more materials (than his Mirages) to Iran. Is that guessing or will we see some backing up of it?

    And what is that crap about me calling Iraq a democracy???  I said that AFTER Saddam was deposed, Iraq became a majority (or at least largest plurality) Shite nation… the same religious/ethnic group as is the majority/ruling group in Iran.  I never made ANY claim that the Shites held power in Iraq prior to '91.

    We are talking about “What was moved to Iran from IRaq during SH reign”. Ii doesn’t matter who rules it now. And it was you who brought this argument “they are similar thus they will send stuff”. The rulers were not similar at all … UP TO 20 years after the First Gulf War (that is Iran-Iraq in international understanding).

    So, you talk about “1991-2003” (or 20 years after the armistice of 1988), and say “it matters that they are similar”. And you say “those in power were not similar until 2005”.

    You are using logical falacies

    This makes your post quite funny actually.
    You use “20 years after” for … “3 to 15 years after” … and while i try to nail that pudding to the wall, you say i was fallacious?

    by trying to equate 2 different POTENTIAL sources for material to be transfered to Iran and trying to claim that they are part and parcel of the same argument.  One has to do with Saddam himself, and his government, and the areas he controlled.  THAT is the source for the jets flown to Iran, and MAY be the source for OTHER materials that the IAEA had tagged but are now missing.  The OTHER source has to do with the Shites in southern Iraq and the aid they were receiving from Iran and the aid they MAY have given to Iran in exchange.

    I will requote you:

    The Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago. …  Same language, similar culture, similar religion, etc.  All those same factors tie Iraq and Iran together far more closely than either nation has ever been tied to any outside power.

    (new paragraph: Shites in souther Iraq, in that same paragraph:) Saddam knew it was a one-way ride, just like it was with the aircraft that went to Iran in 1991.  But he sent MORE anyway, knowing they would never be reuturned.
    (new paragraph)… the materials Saddam had …we know for CERTAIN that military (and other?) equipment went to Iran.

    If you don’t want to be misunderstood, why not use paragraphs to mark things that belong together and that done’t belong together? You never differed between the Shiites and SH, you never said that 20 means 3-15. If you are vague and not precise, then don’t blame me or call me fallacious.
    Your paragraphs implicate things you didn’t want to say.

    I am simply far more likely to believe the least-common denominator here:
    #1  Saddam knew he was going down and sent materials in areas under his control to other nations (most likely Iran) in order to keep the materials from being destroyed or confiscated.  We KNOW he did this with jets in '91 and in '03, so why not with OTHER materials?
    #2  We know the Shites were getting aid from Iran after '91.  People tend to do things for their own self-interest, so why not think that Iran got something in exchange for their aid?

    So Iran played both sides in Iraq.  Surprise, surprise.  Like THAT has never happened anywhere else in the world.

    And you call me a conspiracy theorist? That is quite funny.
    Saddam did not send material to Iran for two reasons:

    1. He hated them (they have nothing in common: not language, not culture, not religion. They fought a war for nearly a decade.)
    2. He had nothing to send. No “nucular” weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons.

  • F_alk,

    I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you, sorry.

    However, since you keep hammering on certain things, let me correct you…
    The current year is 2005.  The Iran/Iraq war started in the early 1980’s and ended after 8 years.  That places the Iran/Iraq war in a time range of from 25 to 17 years ago.  Hence, “20 years ago” is a fitting description.  Actually, it is now damn near 2006, which makes it 26 to 18 years ago.  Want to keep arguing the point?

    Now, you say that Saddam did NOT send material to Iran.  Then what in the world ARE those Mirage jets?  Are they illusions?  An Al Jezira propaganda piece?  Disinformation put out by Iran?  And when did those jets go to Iran?  Some in 91, some in 03.  Are you saying that Saddam ONLY sent jets?  Are you infering that Saddam hated Iran so much that he sent them free jets not once but twice?

    Iraq had no WMD’s huh?  Ummm… what was all that sh*t that the IAEA had tagged then that they are complaining that is now missing?  No chemical weapon artillery shells?  No gas that they used on the Kurds or on Iranian troops?  No SCUD missiles?  Or how about the stuff that we KNOW for certain Saddam had because NATO sold it to him???  All of the chemical agents sent by the US and France and Germany… were are THOSE materials?  Did he use ALL of it already?  Did he sell some of it other nations?  You tell me and we’ll both know.  What we DO know is that those materials are unaccounted for, and they did not just vanish.

    And you still seem to have trouble keeping certain things seperate… that there WAS a transfer of materials from Saddam and his government (a KNOWN AND CONFIRMED transfer) to Iran, and that these transfers occured in '91 and '03 at a MINIMUM, and that the transfer included AT LEAST jets.  And the second that there MAY have been further transfers in '03 through '05 from Shites in southern Iraq that are sympathetic to/supporters of the government of Iran.

    Now, you go ahead and keep ranting.  I am finished with this thread.


  • @ncscswitch:

    However, since you keep hammering on certain things, let me correct you…
    The current year is 2005.  The Iran/Iraq war started in the early 1980’s and ended after 8 years.  That places the Iran/Iraq war in a time range of from 25 to 17 years ago.  Hence, “20 years ago” is a fitting description.  Actually, it is now damn near 2006, which makes it 26 to 18 years ago.  Want to keep arguing the point?

    @ncscswitch:

    Gd Dmn F_alk, you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

    Of COURSE I was talking about the 91-03 time frame when I said the Iran/Iraq war was 20 years ago.

    1.)Make up your mind once please.
    Why would anyone argue with you when you redefine what you said every minute. OYu are worse than a pudding, you are like soup to be nailed against a wall.

    2.) STOP LYING ABOUT ME !
    @ncscswitch:

    Now, you say that Saddam did NOT send material to Iran.

    I never said that. I said:
    @F_alk:

    oh, somewhere you said SH did send more materials (than his Mirages) to Iran. Is that guessing or will we see some backing up of it?

    I included the Mirages.

    I demand that you do not requote me wrong a second time.

    you also wrote

    What we DO know is that those materials are unaccounted for, and they did not just vanish.

    The UN demanded a report about that. It was produced by Iraq short before the invasion, and like 10 minutes before the ultimatum ran out. The USA seized it and had total control over that report for more than 24 hours. The UN then received a censored version of that report.
    If you can’t remember that, it is not my fault.

    Now, as you misquoted me, i retaliate eye-for-an-eye and misquote you:
    @ncscswitch:

    I … say … those Mirage jets Are …  An Al Jezira propaganda piece… .

    Iraq had … WMD … that we KNOW for certain

    … You tell me … What we DO … to have  … a  government … KNOWN … to … keep ranting.


  • I am going to put this “20 year” thing to bed NOW:

    When I first posted that the Iran/Iraq ware was 20 years ago, it was in response to Chengora saying “It is doubtful that Saddam would have sent any materials to the Iranians.  He did fight a war with them after all.”  and to CC’s statement “Why then, would he send nuclear material to Iran if he felt they were a constant threat?”  I even excerpt quoted CC when I posted the “20 year” comment.

    You, F_alk, are the one who misinterpreted that “20 year” comment when you posted your reply to me after I posted the second means of POTENTIAL transfer of materials to Iran:  the lack of central control of Iraq by Saddam during the interim period.

    My “Of course…” response was frustration directed toward you for not putting 2 and 2 together…  the Iran/Iraq war WAS 20 years ago, thus there was NOT a state of war between Iran and Iraq in the 1991-2003 time frame that would have allowed for the transfer of materials.

    Sorry if I did not spell that out clearly enough for you after you misinterpreted the initial post and what I responding to (despite having included a quote reeference).  Not my fault that you started the argument from a false position.


  • the Iran-Iraq war may have been 20-ish years pre-invasion, but as i said - your own intelligence showed that Iran was the biggest threat in SH’s mind. 
    Or are we ignoring this as it is not a pretext for war as the other intelligence was . . . ?


  • If i was SH and i knew i was gonna get my arse kicked… id send as much contraband stuff to any enemy who would take it as along as they also hated and wanted war with my enemies. After WW2 germany sent a bunch of “heavy water” to Japan with current plans for other experiments. Yes they were allied. In the Iraq/ Iran case they had a war many decades ago, but after all they both view the Americans with far more greater threat to their own power structures than the possibility of another Iraq/ Iran war. Sending the “goodies” to Syria is not safe enough because after all they are puny and weak compared to Iran. We allready established that he sent his air force to Iran in 1991 even though its also true that they  kept it. But for Saddam to even trust this “enemy” shows some protocol or at the very least the possibility of additional items were also sent. It is not an implausible idea.Again History is replete with major changes of who is on who’s side.


  • @Imperious:

    It is not an implausible idea.

    TY, that is all I was trying to get across.


  • @Imperious:

    … After WW2 germany sent a bunch of “heavy water” to Japan with current plans for other experiments. Yes they were allied.

    After WW2 ?
    Do i have to go through all of this again?

    So, “after WW2” or “late in WW2”?
    I can not imagine that any occupying ally would have allowed the export of heavy water and plans. Heavy water was damn expensive, they would have conficated that right away (like they confiscated all rocket technology).


  • i ACTUALLY DIDNT MEAN AFTER WW2 . What i meant was after it was clear that Germany lost the war (spring 1945) they sent the following to Japan:

    A newly-designed breathing and exhaust mast, the Schnorchel,
    permitted the U-234 to travel submerged for extraordinary distances.
    U-234 departed Kiel on its maiden voyage on 25 March 1945, bound for
    Kristiansand, Norway.  There it loaded important cargo and personnel
    and departed on 15 April for a submerged voyage which was to take
    them around the Cape of Good Hope, eventually concluding in Japan.
    That transit was never completed.

    Among the three hundred ton cargo was three complete Messerschmitt
    aircraft, a Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines,
    and ten canisters containing 560 kg (1,235 lbs.) of uranium oxide
    (U235).  The uranium oxide was to be used by the Japanese as a
    catalyst for the production of synthetic methanol used for aviation
    fuel.  Other cargo consisted of one ton of diplomatic mail and 6,615
    pounds of technical material including drawings of ME 163 and ME 262
    aircraft, plans for the building of aircraft factories, V-1 and V-2
    weapons, naval ships (destroyers of classes 36C and Z51, and M and S
    boats), and submarines (Types II, VII, IX, X, XI, XXI, and XXIII).
    German fire-control computers, Lorenz 7H2 bombsights, Lufte 7D
    bombsight computers, FUG 200 Hohehtweil airborne radars and bomb
    fuses were also included in the manifest along with other military
    equipment and personal luggage.

    So it looks like they tried to send some high end plans to their allies to carry the torch.
    They didnt send “heavy water” sorry my mind needed a refresh on what i read a long time ago. But the point being that when nations feel the end is near its quite plasible like in germanys case that Iraq too sent some goodies to Iran. At least its not without some merits. You have to grant me that. Well then you probably wont, but maybe this will help you anyway.


  • Well, the thread has moved on, but I couldn’t help responding to this (from IL from Friday):

    This is the first time i disagreed with this point FYI.

    I wrote on Dec. 5:

    For any Bush supporters writing on this:  you do realize that if such a policy were implemented, most of the red states would be disenfranchised

    You wrote:  "I dont agree…"  There’s another post as well, but I am too lazy to make a more concerted search (and I should get back to work!)  :-)  Sorry, couldn’t help it.

    In any event, the more substantive point is that Iran and Iraq have never been on good terms following the desposition of the Shah and the rise of the Baath party in Iraq.  Both sides tried to destabilize the other, because each embodied the “devil” for the other.  Saddam, recall, was a secular nationalist with some limited pan-Arab aspirations (but only on the leadership score, not a UAF appeal).  Khomeini was an Islamist who pretty clearly wanted a return to the caliphate, and who didn’t have a problem destablizing regimes through encouraging internal elements.  Moreover, don’t forget that their ethnic bases of power were entirely different and at times antagonistic.

    In addition, it’s more useful to look at what happened after the 1980-88 war.  Yes, it’s been many years since then, but prior to 2003, Iran and Iraq never made the rapprochement that the US and UK did following the 1812 war.  Someone had mentioned that Iraq and Iran had similar non-political ties.  This is patently absurd, and displays a marked lack of understanding of the region’s politics and the facts on the ground.  The Persian-Arab tension has always remained, as had the Shiite-Sunni divide and the secular-nationalist v. radical-Islamist point I mentioned earlier.  The intervening years have not been marked by cooperation in oil transport, for example, or burgeoning cultural exchange.  Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).

    Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice.  It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that.  In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.  Also, don’t forget that Bush had lumped Iran into the Axis of Evil.  Why, then, does anyone think that Syria was less safe than Iran?  Finally, suggestions that Shiites in the south transfered weapons to Iran are not entirely plausible.  Saddam’s military structure kep power and critical material tightly controlled by the Republican guard, who mostly hailed from Sunni tribes loyal to him.  It is unlikely that the Shiites, who Saddam was suppressing, would have access to any significant materials, including jets.  It is even more unlikely that they would be able to effect a transfer of large-scale weapons given the no-fly zone and US surveillance during the 91-03 period, and because there would be a strong incentive to hold onto to any weapons for themselves.  Given all this, and the fact that even the Israeli general was pointing to Syria and not Iran, you need something stronger to make a plausible case for the Persians.


  • does anyone think that Syria was less safe than Iran?

    Sryia is not a good place to stash WMD because it can easily be overrun and because Syria is nothing compared to the strength of Iran. Its like the difference of Israel going into Lebanon vs going into Egypt. WE (the willing) could probably go into jordan or Sryia without too much pretext because they would fall under our might in hours rather than days, while Iran is a substantial proposition and the american public wont support any action unless they themselves engaged in combat actions into iraq. Also its not really clear that SH sent those planes to iran " because he had nothing more to lose" or rather he may have some ties to his neighbor that we may not be aware of. I presented this idea as a plausible explanation it is not the facts by any stretch, but speculation. Your ideas are just as plausible in any case.

    On the other points well have to agree to disagree. The sunnis will have to let the Shite majority control Iraq and that alone will speak volumes of Iraq/Iran reeapproachment. It if wasnt true before it will soon.


  • @Chengora:

    Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).

    Thank you Chengora.  You just validated one of MY two points:  that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.

    @Chengora:

    Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice.  It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that.  In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.

    Question:  How DID those additional fighters get to Iran in 2003 then?  Did David Copperfield do it?

    @Chengora:

    It is unlikely that the Shiites, who Saddam was suppressing, would have access to any significant materials, including jets.  It is even more unlikely that they would be able to effect a transfer of large-scale weapons given the no-fly zone and US surveillance during the 91-03 period, and because there would be a strong incentive to hold onto to any weapons for themselves.

    Another question:
    The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  When we went in, we went in from the South primarilly, with the 3rd Division (or was it the 4th?) racing up the western border of Iraq after a rapid re-deploy from their aborted Turkish landing.  Forces from 82nd and 101st were air-dropped into northern and western areas (those two zones out near the Syrian border that held the SCUDS that needed to be secured at zero hour).  So we had forces south, west, and north.  That means that to go to Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Saudi, they would have had to go THROUGH US forces.

    But west… west we did not have forces coming in, since Iran didn;t sign off on the war plan.  We had to work our way across the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to get over that way, several days into the fight as I recall.

    So um, WHICH direction was open and available for the transfer of material?  Was it through the 3rd INF?  Maybe the 4th INF let them through?  I know, the 82nd let them slip by!

    Because we all know that all of those materials tagged by the IAEA certainly did NOT go to Iran.  Saddam hated Iran, he would never send Iran things like chemical weapons or fighter jets…

Suggested Topics

  • 44
  • 5
  • 8
  • 4
  • 23
  • 13
  • 12
  • 17
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts