digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Bush Irony: $500,000,000 Ammunition Sale to Sustain Peace in Iraq!

reuters.com — Bush administration told Congress on Friday of plans to sell Iraq about 400 million rounds of small arms ammunition, 170,000 grenades, demolition explosives and other military gear and services valued at up to $508 million. "This proposed sale directly supports the Iraqi government and serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the U.S."

Who dugg this? Made popular May 5, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

147 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -14/+44Are we ever going to do anything that's NOT going to just ***** ***** up worse than it already is
  • TheCash, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42Wait, so you people are actually complaining about the government supplying weapons to the Iraqi troops at a profit? What, are we supposed to just GIVE them to them? Man... it's just lose/lose with you people no matter what anyone does/says.

    If the Iraqi's are going to be able to police/protect themselves, they are going to need weapons to do that with. What do you suggest we do, let them purchase said weapons from other middle eastern countries, and hope the deal isn't shady in any way shape or form? Or better still, should we not supply them at all, and let them just make start using rocks and sticks instead? Yeah, I'm sure that will work AWESOME against all the murderers flooding in from the Serbian border.

    This is good because A: it helps the Iraqi forces come closer to being able to handle their own bs for a change, and B: doesn't come at a cost to the US taxpayer, like everything else in this war. Now where is the bad in either of these? The sooner they can control their own fires, the sooner we can pull out of their and our troops can come home. If any of you doing the bad mouthing actually supported the troops more then you support your own politics, you'd be all about this deal.
  • HoosbinPharteen, on 10/12/2007, -16/+33@readthis

    Has there been any use of logic up to this point? no.
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Would you rather the Iraqi army NOT have weapons/ammo?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27How exactly is this ironic?

    Supplying the Iraq gov't to help defend itself and sustain violence. Yea, what a horrible, stupid move.

    Can Bush do no good with you peace-mongers? Damn.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19"The deal would also involve up to 75 million gallons (341 million liters) of diesel, 2.9 million gallons (13 million liters) of JP-8 jet fuel and 56.4 million gallons (256 million liters) of motor gasoline, the statement said."

    You know the Bush mission is truly accomplished then they're SELLING OIL PRODUCTS TO THE MIDDLE EAST.
  • bullish1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Delivery Instructions:

    Please leave in an empty field just outside of Baghdad.

    Insurgents will pick up at their convenience.
  • Flipsen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ thecash, serbian border?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17They can't find their billions of US dollars so why would the Bush administration want to sell them ammunition before the troops pull out unless they wish to destabilize the area and keep us there indefinitely? I do not see the logic in this.
  • legatus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You scored how much higher in college than him?
  • BOFH2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Where should they buy ammunition from?
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@smackhero

    Oh look, it's you again. The other side already IS stock piling weapons.

    Welcome to the real world, where you lose when you bring a knife to a gun fight.
  • Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Selling stuff and making a proffit is what it's all about...now more American arms manufacturers can make a proffit and clear there wharehouses..
  • shadowhander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So you would have them try and defend a fledgling democracy against excessive and continuous violence with stones and sand then? I don't like Bush or his administration any more than the next rational person, but we may have to be somewhat realistic occasionally and let one of the many, many opportunities to criticize them slip by every now and again. We went in there, stirred up a bunch of superfluous *****, imposed a fragile democracy (one that surely has plenty of enemies as well as potential), and now we should bail out immediately and not supply them with equipment? I know, we had no real reason to invade, but damn if we didn't just go and do it anyway. Was this a poor decision? That should be a no-brainer to even the most staunch Bushies out there by now, at least somewhere deep inside. All the same, bailing out isn't going to make this huge mistake go away, especially if it's immediate. Americans are resented the world 'round, and letting this castle of cards collapse now will only exacerbate that opinion. We have to own up to our mistakes, no matter how tempting it is to take our ball and go home.
  • ITinNYC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You are one sad individual.
  • psychohistorian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
    Perfect money making scheme!

    1. Turn a country into a war zone with fictional WMD
    2. destroy their lifestyles in the name of freedom propaganda
    3. sell them arms so they will continue their civil war
    4. profit!!!

    Moral? Ethics? We just have to keep our voters imagining there are probably threat to our country and we should be able to get away with anything.
  • enamresu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Can we get the congress to stop this?
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why doesn't Bush just come out and say he wants every US soldier dead by the end of his term?
  • torched, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Well you can't properly celebrate a victory without shooting randomly into the air.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Bill Hicks: 'You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know. During the Persian Gulf war, those intelligence reports would come out: "Iraq: incredible weapons – incredible weapons." "How do you know that?" "Uh, well … we looked at the receipts."'
  • lorem101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think many of you understand the situation in the region. They have a LOT of oil but very LITTLE refined oil.

    Even in Iran the same thing applies:
    "Perhaps the most immediate Iranian vulnerability regarding oil is its dependence on imported gasoline"
    http://iranianjournalist.blogfa.com/post-11.aspx
  • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I wonder which friend of Bush will be getting the $500mil order?
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Solenoid

    I can see your logic here. Very convincing. Instead, we should allow other countries to develop more sophisticated technology than us, because after all, it will be obsolete eventually so why bother, even if it does completely counter ours, or do more with less than currently feasible.

    Yes, they do have to be put into practice and it's best that when they are WE have the best we can have. I am not certain you are included in that "WE" and that may be the reason for your concern.

    They attack Iraq, and they sell weapons to arm the military of Iraq so that we can eventually LEAVE Iraq when it can hopefully defend itself. Horrible injustice, I know. Not to mention we are not selling them our latest and greatest. We do not equip militaries anywhere to be capable enough to take us on later, rather we equip them so they can take on anyone else.
  • fight4yourright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But don't you people understand.....The insurgen....I mean..."Freedom Fighters"...just want peace and love and and the ability to enforce 13th century Sharia law on everyone! That's all. To be against such a noble cause is "knuckle dragger" thinking.
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm sorry, I didn't realize you must be some kind of an expert.

    On the other hand, my brother is a Marine Combat Engineer that blows up explosives in Iraq. I guess you know more about this though.

    We trust our own stuff a lot more than we just anyone elses stuff. I have never heard of people setting off explosives with a bullet in anything other than a movie (certainly, it should go without saying now that our Marines and EOD personnel do not use bullets to blow up explosives).

    So, once again, I'm sorry that you feel like making it up as you go, but I have facts on my side. So sad :( .
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When did we take the oil? I am so confused about this liberal talking point. Why am I paying $3 at the pump if we're stealing all of Iraq's oil?

    I WISH we were because I don't like paying $3 a gallon (at least) to fill up my car, but I have the feeling you either don't have a car or don't pay to fill it up (or you're just flat out stupid, but I think that goes without saying). Yes that's selfish, but if it were true then at least I wouldn't be so annoyed by the stupidity every time one of you idiots brings this up.
  • kenvsryu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10The Iraq Army as any regular army requires ammunition. It gets tiring throwing stones all day, especially if you're getting pelted with bullets in the neck face region.
  • natbumpo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I guess I miss the irony here.

    Is the adage, "to ensure peace, prepare for war" new?
  • dbradley96, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13FTA--

    "This proposed sale directly supports the Iraqi government and serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the U.S., as well as offering hope for a more stable and peaceful Middle East," said the agency that handles government-to-government arms sales.


    You have got to be ***** kidding me right? Are these people on the same planet?
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@psychohistorian

    You mean like those oil contracts that went to countries all across Asia, and not to the US?

    I forgot how the U.S. is the Great Satan there for a second and how really, we are the root of all the problems in the world. It's our fault the terrorists are there, and it's our fault the terrorists are killing the innocent people all the time--because we're there; it has nothing to do with the terrorists... nothing at all.

    Thanks for setting me straight with that oh-so-historic look at how we reconstruct areas such as Europe and Japan. It was enlightening.

    Yours truly,
    Picky
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@noupsell

    How is that a conflict of interest? I could see this being a conflict of interest if we actually did what every liberal said we were doing and stole their oil, but instead we left it to them and it is about time they start footing some of the bills instead of us.

    It will be their ammo. It should be their money paying for it.

    The fact that it comes from us is in no way a conflict of interest.
  • gypsi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Where do you think Iraq got its weapons during the 80's, Einstein?
  • eecue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wait why do they need: "80,000 C-4 1-1/4 pound plastic explosive packets and 4.2 million feet of detonating cord" that's a crapload of detcord and c4!!!
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Is it really that hard to imagine that a conventional army uses explosives? If so, then please do not vote next cycle.

    Also, they use explosives to blow up explosives. This also can require very long detonation cords because (this is where it gets really crazy) people do not want to be close to the resulting large explosions.

    I know, what will they come up with next, right? Bullets? Crazy talk. According to everyone here, the Iraqi's can just chit chat with the terrorists.
  • legatus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Israel has had us as a partner for years. In case you have not noticed they are the only true democracy in the region.
  • overtoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Evil.
  • overtoke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4note: iraq has no money

    this is our money being stolen by the bush administration to give to a company that makes weapons

  • jakeadams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jcgerstine1

    Is it just me or is your statement more ironic than the post?
    a Jew wishing on the extermination of a race?
  • tpaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@smackhero
    I believe he was being sarcastic when he talked about sustaining violence and "peace mongers".

    @pickypg
    Our presence in the middle east, seen by many as neo-colonialism, is fueling the very fire you talk about. I will not try to defend this view point but it is a common view point none the less is probably the best recruiting tool we have ever given Al-Queda. We have brought far more violence to Iraq than Saddam ever did leaving many people with the false assumption that the only way to solve the current problems is to use more violence. This arch-typical cycle of violence is being escalated on both sides and someone needs to be brave enough stand up to it. Yes people will get killed but that is nothing new. Once you stop paying violence with violence you begin to break the will of those who think violence will solve all their problems. It's a slow and painful process, but one that has a far high moral authority and in the end the only way to achieve peace is with peace.
  • Wetzilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't understand how this is ironic. Selling a country the means to defend it's self? Yes, lets withdraw all of our troops from Iraq, without supplying the Iraqi forces with the materials they need to stabilize the country. Brilliant!

    @smackhero - Maybe you should learn to use proper grammar and punctuation before you start calling people "***** idiots" and "dumb *****".
  • spotbanana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5All you ***** deadheads who lamely and uncritically accept the status quo - "we need weapond coz the others have them and there are these crackpot terrorists looming in everywhere" have fallen right into the lap of those who hold power. Get off your arses, go read some of the real, critical debate going on, and come back here and say something useful. I guess the majority of the contributors here are from the US - the land of guns and roses. Open your ***** eyes beyond your own borders and see what's happening in countries that have different philosophical positions on weapons. Otherwise, ride 'em cowboys.

  • cis4smack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Isn't that what happens, we sell them equipment and then its used against us?
  • legatus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Shows how much you know about clearing rooms, it is done with grenades. For those who think diplomacy is the answer, diplomacy with whom?
  • overtoke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3he was a traitor long before he was president
  • wpi97, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@smackhero
    So are you saying that the Iraqi army should have no weapons? Or are you saying that the Iraqi government should have no army or police? They should just hold talks, and ask the Sunni and the Shiite militants to please not kill each other, and to please not blow random people up in market places, right? The Iraqi government not having weapons to arm its forces will result in its fall, which will further destabilize the region. It needs to be armed, unless you know of a way to magically disarm every group in Iraq. And even if you could disarm them, they would start fighting with sticks and stones.

    You are either 15 years old, or you have been living under a rock. You seem to think that diplomacy means nice reasonable people getting together to find the best solutions for their common problems. I have news for you. Diplomacy is about getting people or governments to do what you want, which works either through bribes, or through threats. Ideally you need both.
  • riah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One potential problem is fragmentation of the Iraqi forces. I believe it was from a PBS report were I saw mention of some troops going off on classified "assignments". So we could be potentially supplying more secular militias.
  • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12When they say "the US will sell," what they're saying is that the Military Industrial Complex will be allowed to sell... The US has to buy and resell those weapons or otherwise broker a direct sale as a de-facto arms dealer. And who benefits? The manufacturers, and the more powerful Iraqi government.

    Well, at least we cut out the international arms brokers as middle-men. There's evil, and there's truly evil. Those guys scare the ***** out of me.

    I don't know how big this sale is compared to the size of the army, but it makes me wonder if we're planning on setting up another dictatorship in Iraq as our "exit strategy."

    Like Bush 1 and 2 at a GOP debate, we'll pretend these last few years just didn't exist. Man, wasn't Reagan great?

  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I don't agree with your views, so you need to go read up on mine and screw you if you then don't agree with me!"

    That's what I just read; am I missing anything? Sorry, I don't agree with being a pansy like in whatever la-la-land you live in. Go read up more on the US and you'll find out that it's only the talking-head liberals with no balls.
  • mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I can see the need to supply them guns, but grenades and demolition explosives? Especially with stories already out there about insurgents infiltrating the police. Im sure our soldiers over there are really happy about this.
  • pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The fact that we know about it means it is not. Looks like time tells at 6:25 PM EST.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.