Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« How Canada’s Liberals Have Run Out of Ideas | Main | Are they serious? »

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

What were they thinking?

There are times when I really wonder about the Pentagon: "The U.S. military has sold forbidden equipment at least a half-dozen times to middlemen for countries — including Iran and China — who exploited security flaws in the Defense Department's surplus auctions. The sales include fighter jet parts and missile components."

Maddening; absolutely maddening.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on January 16, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What were they thinking?:


D.J. - there is a lot of information about this
in todays issue of Military.Com, plus speculation from Israel who are concerned about sale of F-14 Parts (the F-14 was recently retired by USAF) to
Iran. Only country in the world which has F-14's
other than the U.S. is Iran which bought them in 1971-1972. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-16 9:27:18 AM

Well done DJ.

Now Remi is going to show up demanding we invade the Pentagon.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-16 2:37:36 PM

What were they thinking?

They weren't thinking at all.


LMAO @ Jack McLeod

F-14 was operated by US Navy not USAF. Iran purchased them during the late Shah (1975-1978) and 78 of them were delivered to Imperial Iranian Air Force. 44 of them are still in service with the country's air force.

Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-16 4:01:14 PM

I was referring to the US Armed Forces and I am aware that the Grumman F-14 Is a United States Navy Fighter, or at least was until it was retired.They were purchased by Iran prior to 1975, the Shah was deposed in 1979. Of the 44 you think are in service
in Iran only about a dozen are airworthy, and the Mullahs executed most of the IAF. The people from Northrop we worked with on the NFAP (F18L Cobra, and F-18A Hornet) came directly from Iran via Hawthorne CA to Canada. The point by DJ is important to consider because the export controls on United States Armed Forces surplus equipment have it apppears vanished, in fact several Canadian Citizens have been cited as part of a pipeline to Iran and other restricted Countries. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-16 4:14:26 PM

"several Canadian citizens have been cited as part of a pipeline to Iran and other restricted Countries", what a surprise, not!!!!
It's a testament to what passes for Canadians in this present Canada. Canadians of convenience to aid and abet prospective and current enemies of Western Democracies.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-16 4:43:54 PM

Jack, dude, I served in the Iranian Air Force. I come from a F-14 related family. Don't lecture me on that please. Btw, I understand you are trying to cover your mistake of saying USAF (US air force) by US Armed Forces. LoL... it is fine with me. I know some may not know every thing. I think USN is shorter, in writing, than USAF.

Posted by: Winston | 2007-01-16 5:01:57 PM

In the years after the Korean war, there was a very large fear that communism was going to take over the world. In a way WWII was not really over. So many people got involved in fighting communism with efficient means.

USSR should have been held accountable for signing up an agreement with Adolf Hitler, invading Poland and Finland. As far as I am concerned, I think MacArthur was right. UK, France and USA should have tried to remove the red butchers from Russia who were not any better than Hitler.

If the Islamist threat would not exist, maybe we could live with China and NK that are enemies of freedom and who inflict upon their own people many hardships.

I suggest DJ is a very much needed person watching the behaviour of those entities.

But with the very real threat of Iran and terrorists supported by China, NK, Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, we have to look for ways to uproot those enemies not merely contain them. That is one reason I think we need to study the possibility of invading communist China.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-16 5:17:48 PM

What were they thinking?

You ask what military was thinking, or people handling military equipment were thinking?

The long, and the short explaination, is a contradicition of terms, no doubt.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 5:27:24 PM

The Americans have made many equally stupid blunders over time and will make more in the future no doubt. At the same time they have done many great things, which means that no country is without faults. The most recent stupid blunder is probably the Baker-Hamilton report and recommendations.

None of this means that they qualify as an evil empire, but it is a good example of why no nation/country should ever solely place its defense on another nation/country. That is not only stupid but folly, and we in Canada are very guilty of it. It is not that we should prepare for war with the Americans, but we need to be able to defend our borders and country. At present we cannot expect any such thing.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-16 5:38:38 PM


The American people have done their best at bringing freedom to Iraq.

I totally admire their fortitude.

I pity the fact that they have shouldered this without the backing of the UN. And, France, with their fingers in the oil for food and medicine monies and the UN security council, can and should be blamed 100% for this situation; not America.

And, although America went in without the blessing of the UN Security Council, the problem has gone well beyond th initial push.

It is now a world issue.

The global threat of terror, has amassed a massive push within the Iraqi population. And, no amount of blaming the Americans (as I see you have not done but others do) will change the fact that global terrorism is a threat to all Western peoples.

But the threat does not stop there.

Global terror is also a threat to all Eastern peoples.

It is simply that America figured it out sooner than any of the other nations, second and third world included, have done so.

First they came for America, but I was not American....

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-16 5:51:06 PM

Lady I was not implying that the attempt to bring freedom to Iraq was a blunder. I do think that their biggest problem there continues to be demanding that their military fight with one (and sometimes both) hand tied behind their back. Allowing the inclusion of Islam in the new Iraqi constitution however was clearly not bright when your stated goal is to bring freedom and democracy to the country.

Even so I am not part of the hate America crowd.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-16 6:07:52 PM

Winston: You come from a what? - A F-14 related family, and you served in the Iranian Air Force, you must be much older then most of us assume. Have never heard of an "F-14 Related Family" only in Iran, eh. Pardon me for laughing, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.
You must be the only ex Iranian Air Force Veteran
in the entire Western World. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-17 3:47:43 AM

Hey DJ,

When are we going to see your post ripping the Harper government for flip-flopping on China and instituting policy of increasing trade? Or is that only bad when it is a Liberal Government in charge?


Posted by: bob | 2007-01-17 8:25:40 AM


I understand that that was not what you were implying. I should have stated that my comments were in addition to your reflection, and not in spite of your thoughts on the matter.

There are almost 200 nations in the UN, and a handful of nations who have stood with the US while they have gone in to address concerns that were so huge, that the UN security council had a vote on whether to go in or not to go in. It was only the vote of one nation (FRANCE) who had their fingers in the cookie jar so to speak, that stopped most countries from taking action. From my analysis, they are now using the vote as a reason to not only condemn the US for taking action, but also to absond from any responsibility they really do have, in ensuring world peace now. Their participation in the UN is therefore nothing but the lip service that we have recognized them as having presented. BS smells, with all due respect, like perfume in comparison.

My point is that it is unacceptible for other nations, to stand by and criticize the US, and even tell the US what to do, and how they agree with the numbers of troops going in, or not going in, when they have contributed nothing to stabilizing the region themselves. In this analysis, they have given up their right to contribute political thoughts on the subject, as they are either getting their fingers dirty from supporting the terrorist element, or keeping their fingers clean, from not supplying troops to stabilize the region. If it might take US a couple decades to stabilize the region, then that is what it will take, but it would take a couple years, if they all made their fair share of the contribution to stability.

Furthermore, they seem to be gloating on the subject, and pushing the US to exhaustion (which was what the terrorists wanted all along).

If the countries in the region want stability, then they have the moral duty to ensure they contribute as equal partners, including men, women and equipment, to stopping the civil war, and making Iraq safe and fuinctional once again. If they do not, then they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, as if they were doing the nasty themselves.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to clarify my position.


Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-17 11:26:23 AM

And Alain,

They have made a dreadful mistake by permitting the state and the religion to be on the constitution. That action has ensured civil war. Religion must be removed from the document, in order for freedom to be manifested.

I believe you agree.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-17 11:29:52 AM

Hey Bob..when are we going to see your beloved liberals apologize for ignoring basic human rights in 3rd world countries, as well as middling countries like China? Can you really tell me you enjoy our leaders cavorting with tin pot dictators al la PET and Castro?

They would rather bleat about human rights at home, where it plays well to rubes such as yourself,than to actually have to do the hard work and state the obvious..

What are you worried about? Do you think China will feel hurt and stop buying our national resources? good luck..

Posted by: kursk | 2007-01-17 4:05:17 PM

"There are times?"

You're kidding.

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2007-01-17 7:54:09 PM

I think this fits here:

from The Price of Oil by Billy Bragg

and I quote:

"Saddam killed his own people
just like general Pinochet
and once upon a time both these evil men
were supported by the U.S.A.

And whisper it, even Bin Laden
once drank from America's cup
just like that election down in Florida
this shit doesn't all add up."

End quote.

I'm glad our asshole of a PM is allowing Canada to be ass fucked by a country that has supported genocide. I really am.

(I really hope you can detect the sarcasm.)

Posted by: Stones | 2007-01-18 9:30:34 PM

Pinochet committed genocide? That's rather far fetched. He was a tyrant to be sure, as was Saddam, but only Saddam could be considered to have committed genocide.

And bringing up the Florida election again = that's old news. Rather pathetic too.

Bin Laden was NEVER an American agent. Get that fantasy out of your mind too.

And Stones, uh, the Liebral/NDP Party may have made anti-US comments in the past, but they are still that country's strongest allies. No one party is complicit in such statements.

Oh yeah, what about Canada's genocide - the treatment of aboriginals?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-18 10:22:35 PM


Now that you're done your rant, anything intelligent to add to this discussion?

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-18 10:36:26 PM

I just did. What I'm saying that the US must be accountable for its actions. The US provided millions in dollars and weapons to Bin Laden and the Taliban to fight the Soviets! Look what happened there. Or the millions in weapons and dollars to Iran..... and Iraq during the Iran - Irag War? At some point the US needs to admit it has been wrong. And South America.... can I yell Operation Condor any louder??

Posted by: Stones | 2007-01-19 1:03:20 PM


Once upon a time Saddam was an innocent baby. You would have reached over and given him one of those sloppy political kisses, if you thought it would have won you bonus points with his sexy momma!

fact remains, until a person has proven they are evil, you have to work with what you have.

Remember, business was as usual in Europe, pre WWII, between all of Europe and Germany. Things did not go bad until the true colours of Hitler were expossed, and he attacked the integrity of the other nations.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-19 1:21:28 PM

Stones, rant and rave all you like about "holding America responsible." Nothing will ever come of it. International law is whatever the US says it is.

And you're factually incorrect about the US relationship with Bin Laden. At most, he paid lip service to US encouragement over fighting the Soviets.

Peter Bergen, CNN journalist who met OBL in the 90s, said this about the "relationship."

"The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently."

The other things you mentioned - supplying Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and Operation Condor - those are all in the past and nothing can be done to stop them. The only thing that can be done is to learn from these lessons and avoid such activities in the future.

Outside of a US court, no US official will ever stand trial for anything they ever did. Never gonna happen, so spare us your rantings.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-19 1:33:34 PM

Zeb is right. There has never been a good relationship with Osama. He has always been al quada. He financed his terror groups with his own money, and never has had any legitimacy at any point where he has reached into being an international terrorist.

Now, you go back far enough, and you will see that the Americans had a policy in Afghanistan, to support them against the Soviets. That, however, was part of the cold war, and had nothing to do with Osama. Osama, though, saw an opportunity, when the Americans left, and jumped in and took over this wayward group of people, including his second in command. That was the time when he gained power. But, it was at the cost of his own people, who had tossed him out, for being a terrorists.

So, my question has been for some time now, if the Saudis can kick out and disown bad people, and the Jordanians can do the same, why is it we would never consider doing that in the same manner?

Even Cuba did that.

We have tens of thousands of morons here, who are terrorists supporters and sympathizers. I say, they are taking Canadian currency and using it to back terror. Although Liberals want CAnada to be neutral, with the kind of things they permitted to start in Canada, we are going to require at leasta decade to get things back to the straight and narrow. And by then, there will be a third generation of nuts on this land of ours.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-19 1:43:41 PM


The Liebrals only say they want Canada to be neutral. However, their track record has been exactly the opposite despite decades of opportunity to do so. Canada is still a member of NATO, Norad, the G-8, ASEAN, the OAS, etc, etc. These are the markers of a country closely aligned to the West and the United States in particular. Like everything the Liebrals of Ontario say - it's all lies.

As for deporting undesirable people, they can be and should be. The law passed after 9/11 to deport undesirables gives the gov't sweeping powers to do so. However, it has only been used once - against Ontario's favorite son Ernst Zundel, a nuisance if ever there was one, but not the threat posed by these Islamic extremists. The tools, therefore, exist to dispose of these people; only the political will is lacking.

Keep in mind that if the government acted against these extremists, the controversy would be furious. Cries of racism and oppression would be raised from many quarters. Sad as it may seem, but Harper shouldn't act so ruthlessly unless he has a majority government. Even then he'd be reluctant, and I dare say with good reason. It's a touchy subject. If only we had the guts like the Saudis do.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-19 1:57:00 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.