If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Oh the irony!
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12212120,00.html
Not so evil and dangerous to mankind when he was protecting US interests then...
Roll on Gulf War II :rolleyes:
Not so evil and dangerous to mankind when he was protecting US interests then...
Roll on Gulf War II :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
This really isn't "news" it was certainly something I knew a while ago, but you have a point. Political expedience overrides everything. The US was more concerned about the rise of fundmentalism following Iran's revolution to pay attention to Saddam. Or at least to care about Saddam.
Things have changed though. And its an old story. 1939-1945 Russia was an allay - then an enemy. Most countries have the same fleeting friendships.
Of course, one thing this story does show is that the US may well have the evidence they claim because one of the cabinet personally sold the chemicals to makethe weapons...
If you cant see this whole crisis for what it really is (i.e. A play for total control of the regions economic interests and a way for our power mongering leadership to silence any living connection between themselves and their previous criminal activities in supplying chemical and biological agents (amongst other nasty weapons systems) to Iraq, then you are sadly bling to the truth.
You wonder why the US government has patently rejected endorsing the ICC, well connect all the dots of our own criminal complicity in this and many other global crises or abuses and youll start to see the real motivations at work. Chief amongst these is clear indication that by supplying any form of chemical or biological weaponry to Saddam is in itself a direct criminal contravention of our own signned (and thus "contractual" - as Greenhat has once claimed is a crucial point - obligations under the BWC which came into force in 1975 (well before our dealings with Saddam and the Iran/Iraq conflict).
So, perhaps you moderate your snide remarks and start examining just how complicit the US government itself has been (especially under right wing Republican control) in many of the crimes it accuses other regimes of (many of which we put into power to do our dirty work in the first place).
It boggles my mind how you can think any of this is justified. Quite pathetic really!
Along these same lines you might see why many of those who you and Greeny might label as conspiracy nuts can legitimately believe that foreign terrorists has just become the buzz word excuse of the day for a government which has sought a blank check to do as it pleases without too many questions or opposition from the electorate and why, with a CIA that has shown itself involved in far worse atrocities around the globe, and a continuing drug trade, I can believe that 9/11 is just one small matter to such power brokers. Heck, 3000 lives may be spectacular news on our own soil but on a global and historical scope of US geo-political manipulation, its a drop in the bucket.
I wouldnt even be surprised if US agencies have been responsible for many so-called "terrorists" actions of recent months. Since non of us were there, nor the media, until after the fact, who's to say it could not have CIA or US special forces or the NSA who planted the odd bomb or who fired stinger missiles at the El Al jet? Such could easily have been carried out by our own people and conveniently layed at the feet of Al Quaeda or any other terrorist group, carried by the media to a public primed to believe such reports and further the war aspirations of the Bush admin and the military industrial complex which is enjoying a new found wealth of national revenues.
Don't think they wont create global incidents to keep the gravy train going, you can't be that naive!
At the time in question, the US saw Iran as a bigger threat than Iraq. At the time they wanted to avoid an Islamic revolution spreading throughout the Arabian peninsula. By tying up Iranians to fighting Iraq they went some way to achieving this.
Now consider a current world situation. China has one of the worst human rights records, yet we trade with them, we have "normal" relations with them. Are they going to be friends in the future?
Edited to add: There were no snide remarks intended - unless you count the one aimed at the Daily Mail.
So the story itself is not new, but the publication of the papers officially puts the US government 'high moral ground' position on Iraq into disrepute. Presumably it is okay to use Anthrax on enemy troops, so long as they're not white or called Smith.
NB The US has also used them in a conflict of their own...
Since when has "contractual obligations" formed part of world politics? Who are the injured party going to appeal to?
I know what you are saying, dude, and I agree that the US was remiss (in the extreme) in supplying these weapons. Doesn't mean that they should sit back now though...much as I hate to say this (because it belittles the situation) but the fact that it was US companies selling of those arms is a political embarrassment, nothing more.
Much as it was when we discovered that a UK company had supplied and built Saddams "super gun"...
They weren't so keen in the 70's and 80's were they!!
I think you need to understand that this is not an issue of cause and effect as you seem to believe. It is not a matter of to whom must anyone appeal, but rather as Aladdin has put it, it shows that the political underpinning and moral justifications for yet another gun-ho "go get em cowboy" invasion are completely remiss and hypocritical.
America does not need (nor should it be so compliantly allowed) to control the planet. We all share this globe and must learn that our interference in the lives of countless milions is only creating more and more hatred (and thus fuel for eventual greater enlistment by radical extremist groups) against the West and the US in particular.
Look how even South Korea is increasingly up in arms over our US military presence and the fact that we seem to think we are above the law wherever we plant our bases.
You may think this WoT is a good thing, but I suggest to you that it is nothing more than a smokescreen for yet more extensive controls being instituted around the world. I would venture that the truth about Al Qaeda is that it has been inflated into a menace far more insidious than it currently is, and that most of these recent random acts of violence have been staged covertly by our own agencies (military or otherwise) for a ravenous media appetite to further the propaganda keeping this military bandwagon going as long as possible.
And I think that you need to understand that past actions should prevent current ones. The UK and the US once imported slaves, does this mean that we shouldn't comdemn it now? My country once had the death penalty, now we condemn the US for allowing it to happen, is this right? Do we have the political underpinning or moral grounds to "preach" to other countries? Most of my nation's history is littered with piss poor (based on current morals) actions, does this negate our atempts to do something now?
I know that the US doesn't have moral high ground, name me one country that does, and that is willing to act...
Now come back into the real world, one which is (rightly or wrongly) dominated by greed and religion. Regardless of how much we bend to the wishes of others we cannot please everyone. Sometimes, most of the time, nations must act in what they see as the best interests of themselves and their people. Personally, I would hope that they too would see a bigger picture, but I think it is naive to believe that it will ever be possible to have peace. Someone once said the to ensure peace you must be prepared for war...
It makes no difference what we actually do, if people have the impression that they are being oppressed, they will resort to violence.
BTW I agree that the US shouldn't be compliently allowed to control the planet, unfortunately there is bugger all we can do to stop it from happening. Short of military solutions that is...
In most of the world's hotspots you have opposing views, with little ground to negotiation, these groups then splinter off into terror groups, many funded by nation states who recognise that deniability is enhanced through terror.
Then look how they turn to them when they feel threatened...
I think that most terrorist acts will now be classed as Al Qaeda, regardless of who carried out the attack - we will find that organisations "allied" to them will be condemned to each atrocity. Purely propaganda though, because its easier for the public to identify with a single enemy than it is a multiple of terror organisations. It give a "focus", you might say.
I still think that no matter how naive I may be, and I accept that I am in some areas, I don't hold a candle to your massive conspiracy theory...
How come South Africa has a black president? They weren't so keen in the 70s & 80s were they?
BTW They still aren't keen when it comes to their own arms...
Huh? My have my stupid head on...
You said how come the US is so keen now, when they weren't in the 70s...I'm saying they still aren't when it comes to their own weaponry (but they are if it's someone elses)...you say that is your point...
Now I'm just confused, usually I pick up on irony...
Time to pick up your US passport then
What I mean is I know so there's no need for the BY THE WAY..
Apologies for confusion....
I was being Ironic
What I mean is they expect another country to give up their arms without having to do it themselves!
Nooooooooo! Wrist cutting comes first...
~~~~~~~~~
Picked this up from a thread in anything goes.
Well, it made me laugh...