🚀 go-pugleaf

"Carter Lee" <crlee@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3E6B75B9.7070106@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Glen Hallick wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.


>
> 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".

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?



>
>   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.


>
> 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.



> 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.


> 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?

I guess HOW Iraq has got these weapons of mass destruction ain't important.
The last thing the warmongers, such as yourself, want to deal with is this
very issue. The warmonger in their zealotry only want to focus on the WDM
that Iraq has.


>
>
> > 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?

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. You sure as hell don't want to deal with which
countries have supported Iraq and how the country acquired these weapons. Is
there something you don't want to admit to yourself about the countries
driving hard for war?

>
> 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.


>
> 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. 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.

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

Now let's see how does that song go again...

"Osama bin Laden drank from the US cup,
and just that shit in Florida it doesn't add up."


Glen