🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rev. J. Toad" <jpaskarukSP@Mhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f54i6vs19rvvrd98d2i2omtngbde6mk6p0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:41:05 GMT,
> cru3l_3p1phany@salmahayeksknockers.edu wrote:


snip.

>
> Personally, I think their leaving demonstrates simple common sense. If
> they reflect badly on anti-war activism it's because of their naive
> idealism in thinking that Saddam Hussein was not the evil dictator
> that he is.


IMHO, that is an example of the mistaken assumption made towards of the
anti-war activists. I don't think they are being naive in any way, that they
most certainly do realize what kind of the bastard Hussien and Co. really
are. The peace activists who have gone to Iraq are concerned with the
innocent people who will be victimized in another conflict.

> The opposition to this war, in my view, should be on the
> grounds of the hypocrisy and lies of the US government, and not any
> attempt to defend Hussein - that way lies madness.


I don't see a peace activist going to Iraq as defending Hussien.

The hypocrisy of the US and other countries is quite extensive. When Iraq
submitted its 12,000 page inventory on its weapons, the UN Security Council
saw fit to censor 8,000 pages. A Scottish newspaper recently found out some
of the contents of what was censored. This included 3 US companies very
active in Iraq's nuclear program up until the last war. Also 80 German, 24
US, and 17 British companies, along with others from Russia and China still
doing business with Iraq.

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.


Glen