🚀 go-pugleaf

Glen Hallick wrote:
> "Carter Lee" <crlee@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message

>>The operative words being '..up until the last war.'  Are those
>>companies still '..active in Iraq's nuclear program..'?

> The three US companies, of which one was Eastman Kodak, are not. Strange
> though, as much as the US shouts of the evils of Hussien regime, it played a
> very active role in arming him. Even after the Israelis bombed an Iraqi
> nuclear reactor the US was still involved in helping Iraq develope a nuclear
> bomb.

Not since the gulf war.  What exactly has previous US involvement in 
Iraq's nuclear program, military or civilian, got to do with Iraq's 
subsequent non compliance with UN sanctions?


>>Of course they are not.  What you fail to take into account is that the
>>lack of US activity in Iraq's nuclear program since the gulf war is a
>>large reason why Iraq, despite it's efforts in contravention of UN
>>resolutions, has thankfully not yet been able to produce a nuclear weapon.

> Perhaps it flew past your eyes as I clearly posted "...up until the last
> war".

Sure it did, that's why I said it was the operative words.


> So while Hussien was gassing first Iranian troops and then Kurds, the US was
> still more than happy to help this evil dictator develope a weapon of mass
> destruction. Tell me dude, what was the difference between Saddam Hussien in
> the 1980's and Saddam Hussien today?

Today he is in violation of UN sanctions prohibiting him from having 
weapons of mass destruction.


>>  Also 80 German, 24
>>
>>>US, and 17 British companies, along with others from Russia and China
>>
> still
> 
>>>doing business with Iraq.
>>
>>What kind of business are they doing?

> According to the journalist the CBC spoke with there were companies dealing
> with military weapons.

Where they weapons of mass destruction?  Selling conventional weapons to 
Iraq AFAIK is not illegal or even inappropriate.


>>The above is a disingenuous tactic, used often by purveyors of socialist
>>propaganda, of taking something out of context and not including all of
>>the facts in order to make a point.

> You are, as always, so full of shit.

Now there is the last resort of someone who is out of any reasoned argument.

>>For example the above is an attempt
>>to make people believe that if a country was doing business with Iraq it
>>must be involved in or implicitly condoning Iraq's activities.

> So Carter, do you check underneath your bed for reds every night? For some
> one who claims to have fought for freedom and democracy you are damn
> paranoid.

I thought 'You are, as always, so full of shit.' was a last resort. 
You're amazing.

>>Additionally note the use of the word censored to describe an act that
>>was not at all censorship.  Those pages were removed from the Iraqi
>>report as being superfluous and irrelevant to the central issue of
>>Iraq's compliance with UN sanctions.

> Really?

Yes, really.


> I guess HOW Iraq has got these weapons of mass destruction ain't important.

That is essentially correct.  The issue is not that it got them 
somewhere but that it is in violation of UN sanctions prohibiting it 
from having them.  Now if you could show that the US or the UK sold WMD 
to Iraq since the UN sanctions were put in place you would have a case, 
otherwise you are posturing.

> The last thing the warmongers, such as yourself, want to deal with is this
> very issue.

It is not an issue.

  The warmonger in their zealotry only want to focus on the WDM
> that Iraq has.

What else is there?


>>>Also of note, it is very interesting that when it comes to Iraq's use of
>>>chemical weapons the rhetoric is directed only on the horrific attacks
>>>inflicted on the Kurds in 1988. However these same countries denouncing
>>>those attacks are strangely silent on chemical attacks 3 years earlier.
>>
> I
> 
>>>guess these countries didn't give a shit then and still don't give a
>>
> shit
> 
>>>today about those victims: Iranian troops.
>>
>>This is another disingenuous tactic, used by the left, of trying to make
>>  previous incidents appear the same as subsequent ones in order to
>>discredit those who are attempting to deal with the subsequent acts.

> So often do you masturbate looking at a picture of Sen. Joe McCarthy?

Wow, comments like that sure add to your credibility!

> 
> It is never surprising what you will say in an attempt misdirect others from
> the greater issue. You want an extremeluy narrow focus, tunnel vision, on
> only what WDM Iraq has.

That is the issue being dealt with, didn't you notice?

  You sure as hell don't want to deal with which
> countries have supported Iraq and how the country acquired these weapons.

Are you really trying to propose that Iraq should be allowed to keep 
it's WMD because of where it got them?

  Is
> there something you don't want to admit to yourself about the countries
> driving hard for war?

No, not a thing.


>>Anybody reading the above ought to ask themselves if the Iranian troops
>>mentioned were members of a formed and authorized military unit engaged
>>in war fighting and if they were deliberately gassed by their own country.

> Perhaps they were. Nevertheless it is known that during the Iran-Iraq War
> chemcial weapons were used by both sides, beginning with Iraq as means to
> defeat the massed infantry attacks of the Iranians. The bottom line is
> Carter, and perhaps it is one you do not wish to acknowledge, is the use of
> chemical weapons, be on civilians or military personnel, is wrong.

I can acknowledge that quite readily.  The use of chemical weapons 
against civilians who are your own citizens is 100 times as wrong as 
their use against an opposing army.


>>The Kurds mentioned were mainly civilians and were deliberately gassed
>>by their own country, or at least the country generally accepted by the
>>world as being their country

> No one is arguing about that Carter, get that through your thick skull. What
> is being said is that AFTER the Kurds were gassed there were corporations
> from other countries, including those from the US, that still did business
> with Iraq.

...and there still are, what's your point?

  Add to that why only now after FIFTEEN years since those terrible
> attacks is the US doing anything about it? The record shows 15 years ago the
> US wasn't too concerned, not when Iranian troops were subjected to chemical
> attacks and not when the Kurds were also inflicted.

...and you believe those facts excuse Iraq's non compliance with UN 
sanctions?  If you don't believe that, what point are you trying to make?


> If getting rid of dictator was a reason for war, then there could be a hell
> of a lot more wars then there are now.

ROTFLMAO!  The operative word being 'If'.  I think you have missed the 
whole point of the effort to get Iraq to comply with UN sanctions.

  If the US so truly desires democracy
> to take root in the Middle East then why a war with Iraq?

Because one has to start somewhere and it seems prudent to first disarm 
the greatest threat and destabilizing influence in the area.

  The US has close
> relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and several Gulf states. It would seem
> that fostering the growth of democracy would easier without war in a country
> that is peaceful.

LOL! 'A country that is peaceful'?????????????????

Which country fought a war with Iran?

Which country massacred thousands of it's own citizens?

Which country attacked Kuwait?

I really think you've lost touch with reality Glen.

Carter