🚀 go-pugleaf

"Carter Lee" <crlee@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3E6B8A68.9080005@ns.sympatico.ca...
> 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.

Which is what I clearly said in the first place.


> 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?

Nothing directly after the above mentioned war. What this involvement
between US companies with the Iraqi nuclear program demonstrates that there
is a great deal of hollowness to the rhetoric being spewed by the Bush
administration and its faithful lapdog in "3rd Way Blair". While the Bush
Administration denounces the Iraqi chemcial attacks on the Kurds back in
1988, US companies continued its business with that regime.


> >>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.
>

Operative words from the retired operative. Oooooooo.


> > 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.


I agree. However does that violation warrant a war? Not to me.

>
> >>  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.


Apparently so.

> >>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.

I see now, be against the war and one doesn't have a reasoned arguement. Be
for the war along with the other drooling warmongers and I guess then all
those opinions are right.



> >>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.

Nah, just me calling a spade a spade.



> You're amazing.

How touching. We must be bonding again.

> >>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.

Cheap excuse. Obviously Iraq had to acquire the weapons or the know-how from
another source.


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

Too bad. Sounds like a means for letting others get off scot free.


> 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.

Posturing? Nope. Merely pointing out more of the facts.

> > The last thing the warmongers, such as yourself, want to deal with is
this
> > very issue.
>
> It is not an issue.


And a lot of hypocrisy gets ignored.

>   The warmonger in their zealotry only want to focus on the WDM
> > that Iraq has.
>
> What else is there?


From who Iraq got the weapons and/or the know how.

> >>>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!


Sorry, I should have said Roy Kohn. You most certainly have an extremely
thin skin when it comes to sarcasm. I guess that's a side effect from the
days of being a spy for Canada.


> >
> > 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?

And such is unfortunate. Leaving out facts that show the enormous hypocrisy
of the US and other countries.


>   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?

Not at all. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the warmongers such as the
Bush administration. It is one thing for Iraq to have acquired these WMD
when such was in violation of the UN, it is another thing to use this for
fanatical calls for war, which what the Bush administration is doing.


>   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.
>

I do not disagree that such weapons being used on civilians was and still is
wrong. Do note that AFTER those horrible attacks the US was still willing to
do business with Iraq and did so.


>
> >>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?
>

It gets at the credibility of the Bush administration's calls for war. One
of their favourite things is to point out these gas attack from 15 years
ago. Yet as demonic as those attacks were there were US companies still
doing business with Hussein regime, particularly with its nuclear program.

>   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?

Not at all. I do not think that war is required.


> If you don't believe that, what point are you trying to make?

The enormous hypocrisy of the US.

> > 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.

Regime change is the politically correct term being used. The US has an
extensive record of supporting dictators yet now they suddenly want to get
rid of one. Yet when some this dictator's worst atrocities occurred the US
still did business with him. Now 15 years later those atrocities are being
trumpetted as a reason for war. And you support that?


>   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.

What threat? The Iraqi military is a shadow of its former self. Instead of
thirsting for war the US should be trying to broker a deal for arms
reduction in the region.



>
>   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'?????????????????

Egypt is not peaceful?

Saudi Arabis is not peaceful?

Oman, Qatar and other Gulf states are not peaceful?



> Which country fought a war with Iran?

Which war?


>
> Which country massacred thousands of it's own citizens?

Turkey.

> Which country attacked Kuwait?

Iraq.


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

Take a look Carter:

"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."

I don't see Iraq in that above line? Do you? Perhaps there is something
about reality that you should re-address.


Glen