« Talking Heads | Main | Murry on "the days of their lives." »

30 October 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"The army was also not to be allowed to be big enough or strong enough to have the capability to attack its neighbors. Following this line of reasoning, the army was not to be allowed to have armored vehicles or artillery."

I donĀ“t think that the possibly attacking the neighbors is the reason not to let the Iraqi army have heavy weapons.

1. It is the fear that these weapons would likely be used against the US forces in Iraq.
2. It creates the rational to keep US forces in Iraq "See they can not defend themselfs. We need to stay to help those poor people."

To be able to protect against a Turkish invasion into Kurdistan or an Iranian march on Baghdad the Iraqi army would need multiple heavy divisions plus a reasonable air force. To build that will take 15 years and lots of money (to pay for second grade refurbished US equipment).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

January 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad