Re: Terrorist attack in London.

"Berto" <Albertocarro@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KCDBe.17278$fV.6869@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > Which is of course, why we *might* have shared tactical intelligence
with
> > the Iraqis.

> You do not think we did?? I am kinda pretty sure. I believe that
reasonable
> people could infer that it was done since Iraq was "not an enemy"at that
> time. He fed us information, albeit, some of it crappy and untrue, but
> information, the coin of the realm(as oil is).

I haven't verified the charges; they seemed so unimportant in comparison to
what the Weasels gave him that I didn't see any reason to follow up on it.

> > I see nothing unusual or immoral here;

> Then why the high ground with France, Germany, etal?

I think you're missing my point. I am criticising hypocrites who whine
about the minimal US involvement with Saddam, yet are deafeningly silent
about the overwhelming support he received from the Weasels. If these folks
are *really* so opposed to arming madmen, then they need to gripe at
Monsieur Chiraq...

Their assertions also factually incorrect and their arguments are logically
flawed and absurd.

Seems to me that they are unwilling to let either facts or logic get in the
way of blaming America for everything.

> ... But we did play with him. And in that, I agree that it was
> nothing unusual, but I do not think immoral, just practical at times to
do.

Well, I think that all the morons who have so stridently condemned the US
for supposedly creating or supporting Saddam hold the Weasels to the same
standard. Their unwillingness to do so speaks volumes about their *real*
motivations.

> > of support to Stalin during WWII on the reasonable basis that Hitler was
> > the greater immediate threat.

> Stalin was not the threat during WWII(20 million deaths by German hands).

Agreed, isn't that the logical corollary of my statement? :-)

> I
> do not understand your term of "immediate" since political friends may
turn
> in the future and back very quickly. IMHO, It was when the final prize
> (Berlin/Germany etal) was being fought for is when politics became the
rule
> of the day. The prizes of land, technology, and style of rule were on the
> table.

Well, I think that Stalin was a very profound threat to the West. But he was
not the most serious threat in the early 1940s. Of course, the record shows
that Stalin's democide greatly exceeds anything the Nazis were able to do,
but then, Stalin had more time.

> . Yet I haven't heard too many whingeing antiwar
> > Euros complain about that...

> I believe that the biggest antiwar people are the people who fight the
wars
> who will always try to sue for peace. Hearing an ex-General, "whining or
> complaining" doesn't create treason or cowardice, just important dialogue
> that should be explored.

<shrug>

You can always find *someone* un uniform to support your position no matter
what that position. I suppose that the most useful exercise would be to ask
what the majority of soldiers think about the war.

And my point what to point out the logical and practical absurdity of
arguing that the US is somehow wrong for removing Saddam merely because the
US (purportedly) armed him.

> > My point was to (a) drive a stake into the absurd implication that
Saddam
> > was somehow created by the US;

> No, you are right.We all had a hand in that one.

No, "we" did not to any meaningful extent. The Weasels, not the US, deserve
99% of the credit for creating Saddam. And therefore, I think the
sanctimonious twits who whine about purported US support for Saddam need to
focus on the *real* supporters of Saddam -- the Weasels.

> (b) point out who really did support him (the
> > same nations who were implacably opposed to his removal);

> Reasonable people can disagree on his removal, and prior to 9/11, we were
> opposed to removing him. Situations and time changed our decisions. As to
> whether Intel was good or fabricated, a decision to take him out was done.
> We did it. However, I have arguments with friends about decisions and some
> of us are on different fences, we vote, one side loses, and life goes on.
> Then we go to the next issue and hurdle. Like the old saying goes "build a
> bridge and get over it"

I'd agree that reasonable people can disagree as to whether it was the best
use of our assets to remove him. I think that it was the best thing to do
for the US, but YMMV. However, I have no patience with the ridiculous
arguments put forth by so many self righteous lefties who *claim* to be so
worried about the Iraqi people, yet then opposed the removal of Saddam
Hussein.

> (c) illustrate the
> > absurdity of the notion that it was morally wrong to purportedly support
> > him, then remove him;

> See above. I agree with above statement, however,information and changes
in
> the geopolitical climate in a region can affect decision and change.
Nothing
> absurd about this.

Never said there was. What's absurd is the idea that arming a nation
precludes fighting that nation later on.

> (d) correct the factual error about who really
> > provided Saddam with WMDs; and

> Only someone above my paygrade can answer whether he ever received
mustard,
> GB, VX, from other countries, but CERTAINLY never from us...

Well, those darned efficient Germans built the factories that produced his
chemical arsenal. Given Saddam's oft-stated goal of wiping out Israel, this
is more than a little ironic... I have read some reports that the Russians
provided technical assistance with binary chemical warheads. The French sold
him a reactor capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. And of course,
the Russians and Chinese gave him delivery systems for chemical, biological
and nuclear warheads. His anthrax came from strains provided by US and
French universities to Iraqi universities for agricultural research. And his
thousands of tanks, APCs, missiles and aircraft were provided by the Weasels
and a few other countries (but not the US).

> (e) highlight the hypocrisy of whining about
> > the tiny involvement the US had with him

> Involvement was not tiny. It was significant enough.But I guess the
> definition of tiny and significant can be debated.

I don't think so. It was insignificant when compared to what the Weasels
were doing. Therefore, anyone who was *really* outraged about arming
dictators would logically focus their attention on the Weasels.

> are or you ain't. We were involved. Period. And....

In a modern economy, every exporting nation is "involved" with every other
one. So your statement really doesn't get us very far. I submit that *if*
you're going to assess blame, the most reasonable approach is to hold
nations accountable in proportion to the degree to which the provided him
with weaponry.

--Ty


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Terrorist attack in London.
    ... > what the Weasels gave him that I didn't see any reason to follow up on it. ... Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.) ... But other countries were exercising their ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: OT: A Decent Constitution for Iraq?
    ... "Do you really think the only reason for invading Iraq was to get rid ... there was also because Saddam possessed massive stockpiles and had ... I am disappointed that so many Iraqis have chosen to support the ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: (off topic) Scott Ritter on what to do with Iraq
    ... >> But I'll tell you the reason that I support the war in Iraq and ... >> in a terrorist act when Saddam gave gas or biological weapons to Al ... There are a few thousand Kurds who might disagree with you. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: The Wintard Preoccupation with Price and Marketshare
    ... "You provided support when Macs were used as the ... is no reason to think even you believe your claims. ... You have claimed to disagree that similarly configured Macs ... When I talked about teaching "on OS X" you insisted I ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: interesting
    ... Clifford Heath wrote: ... The reason that EE is being hit so ... > When you haven't got a support industry, ... wrt the non-repairability of electronics, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Loading