United Nations - Out of Control! (Page 2)

Comrade_: Fake statistics mixed with opinions.


Well Fog, you also claimed to be in the army...I doubted that too.
Like I said, save your false speeches, I apologise for saying "fellow American" and putting others in a group with your stupidity.

FogofWar: If the measurement of intelligence is based on you caveman; I will thank you for the compliment.

Comrade_: Whatever suits you mate.

FogofWar: Education sure does. You should try it on for once.

davidk14: .


Now now gents....

I know Fog is living in Canada..

Caveman, what country do you live in? Australia? Pakistan? India?

.

Comrade_: Correction, Fog "says" he's from Canada.

I'm Trinidadian by birth, both parents are foreigners but I claim no other home-grounds than here.

Comrade_: ps...I wonder who sold Hussein those weapons.

FogofWar: considering the weapons were Soviet in manufacture; it seems obvious to anyone with a brain.

I 'say' I am from Canada; just like you 'say' you are from Trinidad...unlike you however; I do not have to hide my profile and prevent others from seeing it...including the several pictures taken in the Canadian Forces.

Comrade_: Several Pictures, everyone seems to have "several pictures"
My profile is private for a reason, would I answer David if I wanted to hide my location? think Fog think.

And not only the Soviets, I'll give you a moment to go search for someone else's view over the internet and put it in your own words..

FogofWar: Yes, someone else's view over the internet is far more reliable hey caveman? Your precious internet does not serve as a substitute for school dipshit. Perhaps you should take a look at the weapons used in Iraq before making such ridiculous statements. The US provided Satellite intel for Hussein in the Iran Iraq War to fight a common enemy; that is hardly 'arming' them.

The USSR was an ally of Iraq; and the USSR armed Iraq; hence the weapons they used were manufactured in the USSR:



Tank: T-72: Soviet Union

Designed by: Kartsev Venedictov
Developed in 1971
Entered service in 1973
The most commonly used tank in the Soviet Red Army.

"On the three occasions when users of T-72s have met Western armies that possessed modern main battle tanks —Lebanon in 1982 (against the Israeli Merkava and the US made M60), Iraq in 1991 (against the U.S. M1 Abrams, M60A1s and the British Challenger 1), and again Iraq in 2003— the T-72 showed little to no success." [1]

taken from your precious University of wikipedia.

"in 1987 Iraq deployed about 4,500 tanks, including advanced versions of the T72. Other army equipment included about 4,000 armored vehicles, more than 3,000 towed and self-propelled artillery pieces, a number of FROG-7 and Scud-B surface-to-surface missiles" [2]

Frog-7:

Origin: Soviet Union
Warhead: Nuclear 3-200 kT, HE, Chemical, submunitions.
Status: Operational
In Service: 1965

The FROG rockets are tactical weapons, typically nuclear. The FROG-7 was extensively deployed throughout the many Soviet satellite states and is believed to have been produced in Russia until 1972. It is known to have been exported to Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Serbia, Syria and Yemen. Egypt exported some to North Korea, which reverse engineered and produced them from 1979 to 1983. [3]

SCUD-B:

Designer: Makeyev OKB
Manufacturer: Soviet Union
Type: Short range, tactical ballistic surface-to-surface guided missile system.
Introduced: 1961
Warhead: nuclear, conventional unitary blast, chemical warhead
Yield: 5-80 kilotons

Iraq originally received 20 to 36 8K14 (SCUD B) launchers and an unknown number of missiles from the Soviet Union in 1974. In total, Iraq imported 819 of the single- stage liquid-engine missiles and 11 mobile launchers for them. [4]



Fighters: MiG 29: Soviet Union

Manufacturer: Mikoyen Gurovich (MiG)
Developed: 1977
Entered service: 1983

MiG-29s saw combat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War with the Iraqi Air Force. Five MiG-29s were shot down by USAF F-15s. [5]



The vast majority of the army's equipment inventory was of Soviet manufacture, although French and Brazilian equipment in particular continued to be acquired in Iraq's ongoing attempt to diversify its sources of armaments.
At the end of the war with Iran, most Republican Guard heavy divisions were equipped with Soviet T-72 main battle tanks, Soviet BMP armored personnel carriers, French GCT self-propelled howitzers and Austrian GHN-45 towed howitzers -- all modern, state-of-the-art equipment. [2]




1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

2. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm

3. http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.40/missile_detail.asp

4. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/scud.htm

5. Steve Davies. F-15C Eagle Units in Combat, p. 88. Osprey Combat Aircraft 53

Comrade_: Fog oh Fog, are you saying that the US provided absolutely NO weapons to Iraq & Saddam? hmm answer carefully. I know my statement is correct ah another BS by Fog, everyone knows the Russians sells weapons but why deny the US contributions?

FogofWar: Private arms companies can sell to whoever the hell they want genius. The little arms sold to Iraq from the US are claims and nothing more. Even if these claims were true; they still would mean the US sold far less arms to Iraq than the majority of the world. Even the United Kingdom gave Iraq more arms than the US. Keep running your mouth about the 'dirty' USA arming Iraq; those who can read can clearly see where their arms came from caveman.

Malobear: As you know brother Fog,you and me have posted many times in this forum and when I first started,I posted links. But no links accept the 3 links allowed by the administrators of this site. ( wikipedia, youtube, or wireclub) I know its tough to get your point across without these links,but this is the wishes of the Rod.

Comrade_: "1982 -Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology"

If you can't even criticise your own government for their actions instead of making excuses then why you criticise the UN? So I'm 'dirty talking the US' for pointing out the truth? You're too sensitive. You'll wake up soon enough. The claims are true so next time you decide to say "The US provided Satellite intel for Hussein in the Iran Iraq War to fight a common enemy; that is hardly 'arming' them." and pulling another bs & dishonesty, do a little more research. It is even in the wikipedia article.
I'm done, if you can't even respond honestly in a healthy debate then ah it's a waste.

FogofWar: A healthy debate would require intelligence on both parties...unfortunately, my opponent came to a battle of wits unarmed.

FogofWar: Satellite intel IS "military technology" genius. The US didn't arm Iraq; as the Soviet Union did a hell of a job of it already.

dave3974: there is a message here , russian armaments do not appear to be up to much , buy american, i think iraq is owed a massive refund

chronology: Refunds tend to be none refundable.

StuckInTheSixties:

Fog, I'll believe you're actually in the Canadian Army when you post a picture of yourself, in uniform, with your weapon, in front of your barracks, holding a sign with the date, the word Wireclub, and the message: "Now STFU doubters."

Do that and I'll start a thread where all of your doubters can check in and apologize.

chronology: It is a possibility I suppose.

silveradoz71: As the title of this post is United Nations - Out of Control ... one of the more disturbing UN initiatives, from my point of view, is UN Agenda 21. While it is undoubtedly paved with good intentions, and the tenets infused with positive sounding language and terms, it seeks to ultimately undo national sovereignty. Agenda 21 is about total control. UN Agenda initiatives were brought into the US Federal government as far back as 1993 and extended downward through federal and state bureaucracies. Anyone who is interested can simply Google UN Agenda 21. There is much information out there on UN websites as well as others, some reliable, some not so much.

StuckInTheSixties:

Explain why you find it disturbing, please ...

davidk14: .

The U.K. Expected to Join Ten Other Countries In Boycotting U.N.'s Anti-Semitic 'Durban III' Event
By Anne Bayefsky

Published September 14, 2011

According to the Jewish Chronicle in Britain, tomorrow the United Kingdom will officially become the 11th country to pull out of the U.N.’s “anti-racism” conference, which is scheduled to take place on September 22, in New York.

Known as “Durban III,” the event is meant to attract world leaders en masse during the opening days of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Chronicle reports that British Prime Minister David Cameron has taken the decision because he does “not want the U.K. to be seen to celebrate the anniversary of an event associated with anti-semitism.” Durban III is supposed to “commemorate” the 10th anniversary of the notorious anti-semitic hate fest that took place in South Africa in 2001.

The first Durban conference ended just three days before 9/11 and extremists from around the world were attracted to the U.N. event like bees to honey. The streets were filled with demonstrators carrying signs like “for the liberation of Quds, machine guns based upon faith and Islam must be used” and “the martyrs blood irrigates the tree of revolution in Palestine.” Inside government part of Durban I, U.N. member states adopted a declaration charging Israel – and Israel alone among 192 nations – with racism and deciding Palestinians were “victims” of Israeli racism.

The U.S., led by Holocaust survivor Congressman Tom Lantos, and Israel walked out of the first Durban conference. Ten countries refused to attend Durban II which was held in Geneva in April 2009. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad opened the Durban II conference, and was the only head of state or government to participate. From the U.N.’s “anti-racism” podium, he disputed the veracity of the Holocaust, said “the word Zionism personifies racism,” and described Zionists as people with “ugly faces.”

This time, Ahmadinejad will be speaking at the U.N. on the same day as Durban III but addressing his remarks to the whole of the U.N. General Assembly. At the General Assembly last year, he claimed that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job “to save the Zionist regime.”

The other ten countries refusing to have anything to do with this dangerous sham are Canada, Israel, United States, Czech Republic, Italy, The Netherlands, Australia, Germany, and Bulgaria.

Fortunes for Durban III champions, like U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, received one more credibility blow today. The UN has just circulated a list of NGOs allowed to participate in Durban III and it has red flags all over it.

Each UN member state was handed a veto over accreditation of any NGO that wished to attend. The U.N. list says four NGOs that applied for a permit, won’t be allowed in: organizations from Denmark and Nepal that represent the Dalits (sometimes referred to as “outcasts” or “untouchables”), a little-known group dealing with human rights in Iraq, and the Swiss-based U.N. Watch, despite its close relations to the Obama administration and its support for U.S. membership on the UN Human Rights Council. The objecting states are not revealed.


But that’s not all. The UN stamp of approval to attend the conference was awarded to an NGO with close ties to the Qaddafi regime – “North South XXI.” According to the website of the “Al-Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights,” the North South XXI organization is its primary associate. North South U.N. representatives use their U.N. speaking slots, for example, to tie Israel to “racism,” “genocide,” and “extermination.”

Another “anti-racism” NGO approved by the U.N. for participation in Durban III is the Mouvement contre le racism et pour l’amitié entre les peuples (MRAP), which has used its UN platform to accuse Israel of “ethnic cleansing and apartheid.”

Britain’s pullout will be a serious blow to the U.N. and Durban III’s standing, and immediately raises the stakes for France in particular. The French can expect a serious hit to their moral stature on the world stage should they decide to stay without Britain or Germany.

Anne Bayefsky is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

.

chronology: Little news about that here David Old Boy, but we are watching the Dust Storms you are having in Arizona.