🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:33:28 -0600, Uncle Samuel
<stars@bars> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Uncle Samuel wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>>> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>>> >Saddam in power?"
>>> 
>>> Ask the people he butchered.
>>
>>Ask the guy who armed him....
> 
>You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
>people and torture little girls!

 Ooooooo, "leftist goon"!  But please, just explain what
evidence you have that proves that Saddam's use of the
weapons we gave him, was disapproved of!  Did it even cause
us to break relations with Saddam?  Or was this known
activity ignored and therefore tacitly approved of?

>Btw - you as peeved at the Russians, Germans and French for being his
>MAIN suppliers for the past decade?
>
>Idiot.

  Well, obviously you've never been the leader of any
soverign nation!  You are obviously unaware of international
law!  As a Soverign leader Saddam had both the right and a
need to buy arms from someone, if only to defend his regime,
not to mention his nations soverignity.  Clue, that's one of
the exact reasons we gave him arms, so that he could defend
against Iran and not be taken over by them.

  Obviously, since we embargoed Iraq, they couldn't buy arms
from us, so they turned to the international market and
brought legal arms, not arms proscribed by international
treaties or laws!  And certainly not wmd's!  

  Obwon