Funny, to hear the PepeChomskers Saddam was our Biatch. If so, the Eurowhoremongers sure weren't getting their money's worth.
"As for America supplying Saddam with weapons, the International Peace Research Institute of Stockholm analysed arms sales to Iraq from 1973 to 2002, and the results are very illuminating. Here’s who Saddam got his weapons from:
57% from the Soviet Union
13% from France
12% from China
7% from Czechoslovakia
4% from Poland
2% from Brazil
The United States and the United Kingdom each supplied less than one per cent. If you combine British and American arm sales to Iraq in the 30 years before the fall of Saddam, they add up to less than Brazil. Eighty-two per cent of Iraqi weaponry came from the Russo-Franco-Chinese peaceniks."
Posts
13 comments:
This is as of when? The US supplied saddam with much of his weaponry in the 80s: I remember finding it ironic that the gringos were being shot at in 91 with US-made weapons.
PepeLand is number 2, but america was number one !
In other words, the contribution of the US is averaged out over the longer (15 years post-90s) period. Fucking statisticians are worse than mathematicians.
damned swedes. spoil everyone's party with their pissy honesty and poor cooking.
yeh - next thing you know they'll be giving dubbyah the nobel peace prize...
Pepe, just because reading is an onerous peasant task doesn't mean you can't take a stab at the first couple of lines of the article. Look at what it says; from 1973-2002. Now, ask yourself, do the '80s fall in there or not? The US did NOT supply saddam with much of his weaponry, most of his weaponry was russian, which is why he had so many russian advisors running his technogigs in the first gulf war, and why his tanks and artillery and almost all aircraft were Russian and French [Mirages fell from the sky like disdain from Paree]. That's what you get for taking left wing hokum seriously. Ain't it ironic.
"Pepeland is number 2, but america is number one".
Again, but look, Russia was clear number 1.
You're like the old guy stuck on the side of Mount St. Helens, years ago, being interviewed CBS, telling the world he didn't give a rat's ass about those fancy shmancy geoleogists with their data and statistics. He knew his girl [the mountain] and she weren't gonna blow. Whooee, she blowed him a good one.
Now go back to the mirror and ask your one true friend that old question: "Am I not the most Ironic one?"
You sure, JJ, the photo isn't a doctored still from a Bond Movie?
how did you know I was the one that inserted the evidence of pepelandian interventions?
Look at what it says; from 1973-2002.
exactly - so what are the figures from 1973 to 1991 ? The data from 1991 to 2002 brings the 1973-2002 figure down. Surely you understand that.
Pepe, stop diggin, you have no leg to stand on. Saddam's main arms suppliers were all along the Soviets (you know, the buddies of any and all pinkos), and the French (you know, always out to make a buck, while being prissy about it). Way behind was Uncle Sam, for a limited period, we played footsie with the Devil (almost never a good idea, if you ask me).
But, if AA says, you want to keep smoking the same old tired pinko-lefty hash, and believe in the same old tired urban legends peddled by the Commie Agitprop, be my guest, mon cher. While at it, maybe you wanna buy a bridge connecting NY City to one of its outer boroughs? I'll give you a good price.
The Swedes don't bother with pissy honesty when it comes to the Peace Prize. They hand it to the most whacked out killer they can find as often as not. Lucky Saddam got his neck stretched before this year's award; he and Arafat could compare their medals in hell.
Pepe, stop diggin, you have no leg to stand on
maybe so, but there is nothing like using the wrong data to make one suspicious of the accuracy of a statement.
the data are correct. they are only "wrong" in that you loathe the way they undermine "facts" you took for granted but never actually bothered to check out. After all, your "data" fit your what you wanted to be, and so it is "right". excellent science.
Post a Comment