Article

2005-06-13 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-06-13 00:08|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hell, in Europe Di Stefano could turn this into a let's-blame-Bushitler showcase trial. I still claim there's a chance that Sammy will walk.

Posted by Rafael 2005-06-13 00:43|| 2005-06-13 00:43|| Front Page Top

#2 He also suggested the defence team had received guarantees Saddam would not face the death penalty. "The Americans, the British, the Italians will not allow that, they will not allow the death penalty to be imposed, and the president of Iraq has confirmed to us he will be signing no warrant of execution as would be required under Iraqi law."
This is bad, if true. Why shouldn't Saddam face the death penalty per Iraqi law? What right does America, the UK, or Italy have to give "guarantees" that Saddam will not pay with his life for his crimes against his own and other peoples? Are any Americans, Italians, or Brits in the mass graves in Iraq?

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-13 02:43|| 2005-06-13 02:43|| Front Page Top

#3 My Thotch....how ummmm, blood thirsty. I like it. I like it a lot. Not to worry, Sammy's gonna fry. I've got a magnum of J reserved for the occasion. Cheers!

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-06-13 03:39|| 2005-06-13 03:39|| Front Page Top

#4 I belive it is Amnesty International that's against the death penalty.

This is Europe attempting to feel important.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-06-13 05:20|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-06-13 05:20|| Front Page Top

#5 What this guy is claiming is that Saddam has so many witnesses against him, they can't find a jury which would give him more than a 50-50 chance of walking free (i.e. let him, the lawyer, win).

A trial is not an lottery granting a chance to a criminal to go scot free, but a means to determine the truth and apply the law in the light of that truth. This kind of legal maneuvering is a testimony of there being so much evidence against Saddam, that 80% of the country are credible witnesses against him.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-06-13 05:30|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-06-13 05:30|| Front Page Top

#6 What Sammy needs is justice, which is getting what you deserve and he deserves the death penalty for his crimes. In a fair trial in Iraq he can get justice. A trial in front of EUro lefties would not be justice, since he wouldn't be getting what he deserves.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2005-06-13 08:32|| 2005-06-13 08:32|| Front Page Top

#7 There's nothing Saddam is guilty of which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are not also guily of. Who supplied the mustard gas in the first place? Did they think it was going to used as dressing on burgers?

Posted by Grearong Elmurong9235 2005-06-13 08:55|| 2005-06-13 08:55|| Front Page Top

#8 Oooh! Oooh! Lemme guess! The Soviet Union? La Belle France? Samoa?

A reasonably bright but sufficiently dull high school student can brew up mustard gas in his basement, dumbass.

Posted by Fred 2005-06-13 09:01|| 2005-06-13 09:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Grearong: well, logically, look at the countries that worked the hardest to save Saddam (France and Russia), and that they were also his major conventional-weapons suppliers, and the ones who gave him nuclear plants, and one might conclude that those are the ones who have the most to hide in other areas.

(Plus, the Dutch are trying someone there for supplying a lot of chemical precursors for nerve agents...)

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-13 09:07|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-13 09:07|| Front Page Top

#10 Grearong: "There's nothing Saddam is guilty of which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are not also guily of."
Aaaaooogaha! Aaaaooogaha! FOOL ALERT!

Posted by Tom 2005-06-13 09:25|| 2005-06-13 09:25|| Front Page Top

#11 He also suggested the defence team had received guarantees Saddam would not face the death penalty.

Hah! As if...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-06-13 10:24|| 2005-06-13 10:24|| Front Page Top

#12 Grearong Elmurong9235: Are you saying that Bush, Cheny, and Rumsfeld gave Saddam mustard gas back in the 80's and 90"s? Wow! Bush, Cheny, and Rumsfeld have orderd the exection of 300,000 (approx) Iraqis and burried them in mass graves? Your logic escapes me.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2005-06-13 10:39|| 2005-06-13 10:39|| Front Page Top

#13 Aaaaooogaha! Aaaaooogaha! FOOL ALERT!

Keyboard and monitor alert, Tom! LOL!

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-06-13 10:49|| 2005-06-13 10:49|| Front Page Top

#14 As for the gassing of the Kurds, I'd let the Kurds themselves state who THEY think is really guilty.

The worst the US did was sell dual use helicopters that Saddam's army diverted from their stated use as sprayers of insecticide to their use as sprayers of humanicide. After that, the United States ceased to deal with Saddam, while the French and Soviets plunged right in to supply him with his arms, KNOWING WHO THEY WERE DEALING WITH.

GE, you'd would be more credible if you added the French and Soviets to the list you cited. I'll pay you NO attention until you explain why you are not morally incompetent by turning a blind eye to the French and the Soviets. Ditto to Thotch.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-06-13 10:59|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-06-13 10:59|| Front Page Top

#15 One of those trolls who grow on trees told:

There's nothing Saddam is guilty of which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are not also guily of. Who supplied the mustard gas in the first place?

Well the Israelis were pretty bitter during GWI when Scuds rained over Tel-Aviv about German grand-fathers who manufactured gasses for Auschwitz, German youngs supporting the PLO and German middle aged people providing gasses and other WMDs to Saddam. Remember about the discoveries of German firms who had been traficking in WMD material for Saddam?

BTW: Don't you think that if the USA had helped Saddam it would have insisted in him buying American instead of filling Russian, Chinese and French pockets? Can you show me a single photo of an Iraki soldier carrying an M16? A single photo of an Iraki M1 or M60 tank? A single photo of an Iraki F16 or of an Iraki F/A 18 fighter planes? What was America providing to Saddam? Donuts?

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-06-13 10:59|| 2005-06-13 10:59|| Front Page Top

#16 Ptah and others: You forget Germany as a provider of WMDs to Saddam.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-06-13 11:01|| 2005-06-13 11:01|| Front Page Top

#17 and the president of Iraq has confirmed to us he will be signing no warrant of execution as would be required under Iraqi law

Ah, but there are two other officials than can.

Posted by Pappy 2005-06-13 11:57|| 2005-06-13 11:57|| Front Page Top

#18 February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

Posted by Grearong Elmurong9235 2005-06-13 12:35|| 2005-06-13 12:35|| Front Page Top

#19 Grearong: Let's accept, just for purposes of argument, your premise that the U.S. was one of Saddam's major supporters.

Therefore, we inflicted him on Iraq and Iran.

Therefore, we are morally responsible for mitigating the harm inflicted.

The logic is therefore unassailable--we had a duty to take Saddam out and to see that he is properly punished* for his offenses. Therefore, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a completely just war and you should be praising Bush and Rummy to the rafters.

*"Short drop and a sudden stop."

Posted by Mike 2005-06-13 12:54|| 2005-06-13 12:54|| Front Page Top

#20 That's right, Mike, just trying to clean up our mess.

Posted by Bobby 2005-06-13 13:02|| 2005-06-13 13:02|| Front Page Top

#21 Sure, try him in Europe. No skin off the Iraqis' noses. But they'll have to wait their turn.

Just as soon as Iraq has tried, convicted, and executed Soddom Insane, Europe can have him for their own trial. No problem.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-13 14:25|| 2005-06-13 14:25|| Front Page Top

#22 Europe?

Sure, how about Belgrade, I'm sure they'd love to try a Muslim war criminal.

Posted by Shavilet Hupains9455 2005-06-13 14:30|| 2005-06-13 14:30|| Front Page Top

#23 That chronology is very good GE.

After careful analysis, the only question that leaps to mind is - So what?, the world is not a static place, things change.
In the 80's containing Iran with a strong Iraq seemed to be a reasonable policy.
Who knew?

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-06-13 15:32|| 2005-06-13 15:32|| Front Page Top

#24 No JerseyMike, the world never changed, it will always be 1968.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-13 16:00|| 2005-06-13 16:00|| Front Page Top

#25 Playing Iraq against Iran was a stellar example of realpolitic, it kept two bloodthirsty fascistic expansionist regimes occupied exhausting each other instead of decimating the rest of the ME.

NO, do not let the Hague get hold of this trial! Isn't the Slobo trial entering it's 5th year?

Posted by Craig 2005-06-13 16:36|| 2005-06-13 16:36|| Front Page Top

#26 Designate this contact has possible Troll, designate GE1.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-13 17:53|| 2005-06-13 17:53|| Front Page Top

#27 Why isn't the the USS Stark on your list?

The USS Stark Incident

At 8:00 PM on 17 March 1987, a Mirage F-1 fighter jet took off from Iraq's Shaibah military airport and headed south into the Persian Gulf, flying along the Saudi Arabian coast. An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane, in the air over Saudi Arabia and manned by a joint American-Saudi crew, detected the aircraft. Aboard the USS Stark, a Perry-class frigate on duty in the gulf, radar operators picked up the Mirage when it was some 200 miles away; it was flying at 5,000 feet and traveling at 550 mph. Captain Glenn Brindel, 43, commander of the Stark, was not particularly alarmed. He knew it was fairly common for Iraqi and Iranian warplanes to fly over the gulf. Earlier in the day, Iraqi jets had fired missiles into a Cypriot tanker, disabling the vessel. But no American vessel had been attacked.
In keeping with standard procedure, Captain Brindel ordered a radio message flashed at 10:09 PM: "Unknown aircraft, this is U.S. Navy warship on your 078 for twelve miles. Request you identify yourself." There was no reply. A second request was sent. Still no answer. Brindel noted that the aircraft's pilot had not locked his targeting radar on the Stark, so he expected it to veer away.
At 10:10 PM, the AWACS crew noticed that the Mirage had banked suddenly and then turned northward, as though heading for home. What they failed to detect was the launching by the Iraqi pilot of two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles. The Exocets had a range of 40 miles and each carried a 352 lb. warhead. For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment. A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship's steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew's quarters. The resulting fire rushed upward into the vessel's combat information center, disabling the electrical systems. The second missile plowed into the frigate's superstructure.
A crewman sent a distress signal with a handheld radio that was picked up by the USS Waddell, a destroyer on patrol nearby. Meanwhile, the AWACS crew requested that two airborne Saudi F-15s pursue the Iraqi Mirage. But ground controllers at Dhahran airbase said they lacked the authority to embark on such a mission, and the Mirage was safely back in Iraqi airspace before approval could be obtained.
As fires raged aboard the Stark, Brindel ordered the starboard side blooded to keep the gaping hole on the port side above the waterline. All through the night the fate of the stricken frigate was in doubt. Once the inferno was finally under control, the Stark limped back to port. The Navy immediately launched an investigation into an incident that had cost 37 American seamen their lives. The Stark was endowed with an impressive array of defenses -- an MK92 fire control system that could intercept incoming aircraft at a range of 90 miles; an OTO gun that could fire three-inch anti-aircraft shells at a rate of 90 per minute; electronic defenses that could produce bogus radar images to deceive attackers; and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles. Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea. (Brindel was relieved of duty and later forced to retire.)
A C141B Starlifter carried 35 flag-draped caskets to the Stark's home base at Mayport, Florida. (Two of the crewmen were lost at sea during the attack.) President Reagan and the First Lady were on hand to extend condolences to grieving families. Reagan was under fire from Congress and the press for putting American servicemen in harm's way on a vaguely defined mission. "We need to rethink exactly what we are doing in the Persian Gulf," said Republican Senator Robert Dole. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution, sponsored by Dole and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, that demanded the president explain to Congress the strategy and goals of the Persian Gulf mission -- and the risks involved. Congress was also unhappy with Saudi Arabia for what it viewed as a lackadaisical response to the request to pursue the Iraqi Mirage -- so unhappy, in fact, that the administration thought it wise to delay submission of a proposal to sell new F-15 fighter jets to the Saudis.
The strife in the gulf had started in 1984 when Iran and Iraq, at war since 1980, began attacking each other's ships. Inevitably, the vessels of third countries became targets. Over 200 ships had been attacked in the past three years. The Iranians were particularly keen to target the ships of Iraq's ally, Kuwait. Even though only 7% of American oil supplies came from the region, the Reagan administration insisted that U.S. strategic interests required a naval presence in the gulf. Critics complained that Western Europe and Japan, which acquired 25% and 60% of their respective oil needs from the gulf, weren't doing their part in keeping the sea lanes open. In fact, certain Western European nations had become major suppliers of military hardware to both Iran and Iraq. Damage done to the Stark had been caused by French-built missiles fired from a French-built aircraft.
The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America's role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. As one Western diplomat put it, if the U.S. backed out, it wouldn't "have enough credibility to float a teacup." Furthermore, the Soviet Union had increased its naval presence in the gulf, and the fear was that if the U.S. faltered, the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the region -- and growing Soviet influence in the region would pose a long-term threat to the West's oil supplies. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran.
The White House was resolute. "The use of the vital sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians," said President Reagan during a press conference. "Those lanes will not be allowed to come under the control of the Soviet Union. The Persian Gulf will remain open to navigation by the nations of the world." The U.S. naval presence was increased from six to nine ships. Air cover would be provided by a carrier stationed outside the gulf. The American warships would escort convoys of Kuwaiti tankers every ten days or so. Iran vowed to continue attacking Kuwaiti tankers regardless of whether they flew the Stars and Stripes.
Congress objected to the open-ended nature of this commitment. Memories of Vietnam -- and of the Lebanon peacekeeping debacle in the early 1980s, during which 241 Marines were killed in their barracks by a suicide bomber -- prompted many solons to insist on knowing what rules of engagement the U.S. Navy would be operating under while escorting oil tankers in the gulf. The answer: A U.S. warship could fire on any aircraft that came within 20 miles of it, on the authority of the captain.
Unfortunately, the U.S. was so concerned about Iranian Sidewinder missiles being placed so as to control the Strait of Hormuz that it neglected to sweep the approaches for mines, one of which damaged an escorted tanker in July. The incident was egg on the face of the Navy, accused of sloppy mission preparation, and embarrassed the administration, which, while presiding over an unprecedented peacetime military buildup, had only three operational ocean-going minesweepers in service. But on 21 September 1987, the military redeemed itself by conducting a successful raid involving U.S. Navy SEALS on an Iranian vessel caught laying mines. Five Iranian seamen were killed. That same week, Iran attacked a British-flagged tanker; Britain responded by shutting down Iran's London-based arms procurement office. (By this time, British, French, Belgian, Dutch and Italian warships had joined the Americans and Soviets in patrolling the gulf.) The American raid gave some senators an excuse to push for invocation of the War Powers Act; they claimed the U.S. was clearly engaged in hostilities. The law required that the president obtain congressional approval of military action extending beyond a period of 60 days. But the Senate voted 51-40 not to invoke the law.
Following the September 21 raid, Iran amassed 60 gunboats and directed the flotilla toward Khafji, a Saudi-Kuwaiti oil facility. The USS La Salle, flagship of Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen, commander of the U.S. Navy Middle East Force, moved to intercept the gunboats, which turned back after being buzzed by Saudi warplanes. Another encounter involved an Iranian warship that locked fire control radar on a USN destroyer, the Kidd; warned off by the Kidd's skipper, the Iranian ship sailed away. Then, on October 8, Iranian gunboats fired at a U.S. Army helicopter, missing the target but attracting the attention of two U.S. AH-6 gunship choppers, which sank one of the gunboats and damaged two others. Iran responded by firing Silkworm missiles at the U.S.-owned Liberian supertanker Sungari and the reflagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City, damaging both vessels. There were no fatalities, though the American skipper of the Sea Isle City, Captain John Hunt, was blinded.
Few doubted the U.S. would retaliate. Two weeks later, four U.S. destroyers fired over one thousand rounds of 5-in. shells into Iran's Rashadat oil-loading platforms in the Persian Gulf -- after giving the platform crews twenty minutes to evacuate. Ninety minutes of continuous shelling left the platforms smoldering ruins; SEAL commando teams exploded the pilings and sent the rubble plunging into the sea. The Iranians answered by firing another Silkworm at Sea Island, Kuwait's deep-water oil-loading facility, destroying the loading dock. "We're not going to have a war with Iran," said President Reagan. "They're not that stupid." But it certainly seemed as though an undeclared war was already underway. A public opinion poll revealed that while 68% of Americans expected a "military exchange" between the U.S. and Iran, 60% were in favor of stronger retaliatory action against the Iranians.
The situation remained tense throughout the winter, but not until April 1988 did violence erupt once again in the Persian Gulf. Ten seamen were injured when the USN frigate Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine on April 14. Being careful to consult with Congress this time, President Reagan ordered a retaliatory strike against two Iranian oil platforms in the southern gulf -- platforms that served as bases for Iran's intelligence service. While one platform was shelled by the frigates Simpson and Bagley, Marines helicoptered to the second, seized it, planted explosive charges, and destroyed it. A few minutes later, the Simpson sank an Iranian patrol boat that had fired a missile at the USN guided-missile cruiser Wainwright. (The Wainwright defended itself by dispensing aluminum chaff in the air, which deflected the missile.) Meanwhile, near the Strait of Hormuz, two Iranian frigates and several gunboats were sunk by American warships and an F-14 Tomcat from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. During the day-long battle, a Cobra helicopter carrying two American crewmen was shot down by the Iranians.
This defeat at sea, coupled with grave setbacks in the land war with Iraq, persuaded Iranian leaders to seek improved relations with the West. The Ayatollah Khomeini agreed with Hashemi Rafsanjani, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, on the need to pursue a new foreign policy that would defuse tensions in the Persian Gulf. As for the United States, its resolve in the gulf in 1987-88 improved its standing with allies, not only in the Middle East but also around the world.

Gee... Exocet sound like its french...

Posted by 3dc 2005-06-13 23:11|| 2005-06-13 23:11|| Front Page Top

00:01 someone
00:00 CrazyFool
23:59 Fred
23:56 .com
23:51 .com
23:46 Pappy
23:40 SC88
23:39 Dave D.
23:35 2b
23:32 .com
23:25 Frank G
23:13 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:11 3dc
22:30 Jackal
22:26 War on Islam
22:26 trailing wife
22:22 muck4doo
22:21 plainslow
22:20 plainslow
22:17 trailing wife
22:06 phil_b
22:01 Alaska Paul
21:43 muck4doo
21:39 muck4doo