"It is your deliberate mis-representation of the MD-500MD attack helicopter as a 'civilian' machine that is in question here, Tim."
It is? Why do you think its deliberate? You've never seen one of these helicopters flying over highways to report traffic for commuters? I am not here to argue whether or not we knew what Saddam was planning to do with tem, but there is a HUGE difference between selling someone a MiG or a tank and a helicopter which is not outfitted for military service. As you will notice on the list from above, this was not the only helicopter sold to Iraq during the 80's, and none of the other ones are for military use.
"The supply of weapons to Iraq from other countries is obvious. Our particular conversation is regarding your statement that the USA did not supply Iraq with weapons, despite your sarcastic attept to deflect attention away from it."
Show me exactly what weapons were supplied by the US. Then compare this to what other countries gave him. Then you tell me "who armed Saddam".
"Now, If you want your original statement to stand, you must show how these military helicopters where in civilian use only."
Impossible. There is no way to prove this and you know it. You could take a Ford Truck and mount a .50 caliber machine gun on the back and presto!- you have a military machine. My point was that they were not as military helicopters. If you would look closer, you will see that that is the case.
"Then we can move on to the rest of the weapons the USA supplied Iraq."
Please do. The helicopter argument is weak. Show me an F-16 contract, or a M1a1 tank order and we can talk.