|
|
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote:
Don't think I support Iraq, I don't. Bush got into power on the contributions of the oil industry towards his election expenses, it's now pay-back time. He has to wrest control of the Iraqi oil fields from Iraq and put control into the hands of US oil industry stooges. It's tough that thousands will be have to die to boost the oil company profits. I actually don't buy that. For one thing, by and large, the business community is against a war. Just look at how the markets are reacting. Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. I am still not convinced there actually will be a war. I guess I have been indulging in wishful thinking when I theoretized the noise would subside after the mid-term elections. Anyway, which rationales are we left with, besides the assumption that this administration is living in a parallel universe, fightinmg windmills out of their own imagination? One would be simply an exercise of killing Arabs. For the sake of the US collective psyche, which needs revenge after the loss of face we all know of. Which US right wing, now out of the closet en masse, is really craving for. Another one, somewhat less cynical if also more stupid is that this administration may have decided they can't live any longer with our friend Saddam making them look like fools time and again. Except, of course, if, after the war is over, no weapon of mass destruction is found and their dishonesty/stupidity becomes clear. Which would be the man's last irony... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
devil writes
Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. What do you make of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do. It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:00:23 +0000, Simon Elliott wrote:
devil writes Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. What do you make of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. Right. If you don't let them buy, of course one has to look at plan B... Seriously though, this was a much more critical situation, and they didn't do it. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Simon Elliott" wrote in message ... The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. You mean Britain *thought* the United States considered using force .... Just a small difference. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:22:19 GMT, "devil" wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote: Don't think I support Iraq, I don't. Bush got into power on the contributions of the oil industry towards his election expenses, it's now pay-back time. He has to wrest control of the Iraqi oil fields from Iraq and put control into the hands of US oil industry stooges. It's tough that thousands will be have to die to boost the oil company profits. I actually don't buy that. For one thing, by and large, the business community is against a war. Just look at how the markets are reacting. Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things Oh yeah and who commands the military, the same faggots who take huge kickbacks from the jewish comapnies in the U.S. you dummy. ANd the rest of the so called Americans are just some stupid, ignorant fools who donīt know a ****thing whatīs happening to them. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. I am still not convinced there actually will be a war. I guess I have been indulging in wishful thinking when I theoretized the noise would subside after the mid-term elections. Anyway, which rationales are we left with, besides the assumption that this administration is living in a parallel universe, fightinmg windmills out of their own imagination? One would be simply an exercise of killing Arabs. For the sake of the US collective psyche, which needs revenge after the loss of face we all know of. Which US right wing, now out of the closet en masse, is really craving for. Another one, somewhat less cynical if also more stupid is that this administration may have decided they can't live any longer with our friend Saddam making them look like fools time and again. Except, of course, if, after the war is over, no weapon of mass destruction is found and their dishonesty/stupidity becomes clear. Which would be the man's last irony... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Tosser writes
The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. You mean Britain *thought* the United States considered using force .... Just a small difference. Nope. The US Defence Secretary told the British Ambassador that the US was considering using force. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Simon Elliott wrote in message ...
devil writes Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. What do you make of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public. So? Did they do it? No. A lot of things get "considered". Nixon and Johnson both "considered" using nukes in Vietnam. Part of every analysis is to look at all the options and decide what is best. The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in the world to believe such a lie. Sjoerd |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Tchiowa" wrote in message om... The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...114586,00.html If we are to belive this article, the US did at least consider going to war over oil. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:19:30 +0100, the renowned "Trent Stensnes"
wrote: "Tchiowa" wrote in message . com... The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...114586,00.html If we are to belive this article, the US did at least consider going to war over oil. Even when the Soviet Union was still around. It was a no-brainer in 2003, by comparison. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:13:32 +0100, Sjoerd wrote:
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in the world to believe such a lie. I certainly do. I see possible reasons for the war as: 1. Offering the US folks revenge for 9/11, by just go kill Arabs. 2. Providing a showcase for the Bush doctrine of preventive attacks when it suits him. 3. Dream on, trying to redo the map of the Middle East. A la post-WWII Japan. On oil, surely it would have been much much cheaper to hear Saddam begging for negociation and offering whatever cash he wanted. As to the 1973 story, it's quite different in the sense that these countries *refused to sell.* That's of course a crime beyond salvation. Imagine... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote:
Hi Guys, I am amazed that something I said over a year ago, before the Iraq war, has suddenly re-appeared. I can only think it was on my website, "Maps of Iraq", http://users.powernet.co.uk/mkmarina/iraq/iraq.html Since then the situation has changed somewhat :-o and my website has been updated, although not recently. To pull things back on-topic I have loads of great maps of Asia on my websites, check them out. Cheers, Pete Loud "devil" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote: Don't think I support Iraq, I don't. Bush got into power on the contributions of the oil industry towards his election expenses, it's now pay-back time. He has to wrest control of the Iraqi oil fields from Iraq and put control into the hands of US oil industry stooges. It's tough that thousands will be have to die to boost the oil company profits. I actually don't buy that. For one thing, by and large, the business community is against a war. Just look at how the markets are reacting. Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it. I am still not convinced there actually will be a war. I guess I have been indulging in wishful thinking when I theoretized the noise would subside after the mid-term elections. Anyway, which rationales are we left with, besides the assumption that this administration is living in a parallel universe, fightinmg windmills out of their own imagination? One would be simply an exercise of killing Arabs. For the sake of the US collective psyche, which needs revenge after the loss of face we all know of. Which US right wing, now out of the closet en masse, is really craving for. Another one, somewhat less cynical if also more stupid is that this administration may have decided they can't live any longer with our friend Saddam making them look like fools time and again. Except, of course, if, after the war is over, no weapon of mass destruction is found and their dishonesty/stupidity becomes clear. Which would be the man's last irony... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Sjoerd" wrote in message ...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in the world to believe such a lie. Absolutely I believe it. It doesn't make any sense that oil had anything to do with it. BTW, that's the business I'm in. I know for unquestioned fact that the US oil companies would prefer it if Iraqi oil stayed off the market. It forces the oil prices up and the oil companies are making near record profits because of it. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Tchiowa wrote:
BTW, that's the business I'm in. I know for unquestioned fact that the US oil companies would prefer it if Iraqi oil stayed off the market. It forces the oil prices up and the oil companies are making near record profits because of it. Think about infrastructure contracts for both rebuilding and on-going operation. France and Russia had those, albeit severely limited by sanctions. Now the US has lifted scanctions, cancelled the existing contracts and is goving those contracts to US firms. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
In article , tchiowa2@hotmail
..com says... Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it. And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in the world to believe such a lie. Absolutely I believe it. It doesn't make any sense that oil had anything to do with it. BTW, that's the business I'm in. I know for unquestioned fact that the US oil companies would prefer it if Iraqi oil stayed off the market. It forces the oil prices up and the oil companies are making near record profits because of it. *****Poor old Tchiowa, blindly following the party line. :-) |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
nobody wrote in message ...
Tchiowa wrote: BTW, that's the business I'm in. I know for unquestioned fact that the US oil companies would prefer it if Iraqi oil stayed off the market. It forces the oil prices up and the oil companies are making near record profits because of it. Think about infrastructure contracts for both rebuilding and on-going operation. France and Russia had those, albeit severely limited by sanctions. Now the US has lifted scanctions, cancelled the existing contracts and is goving those contracts to US firms. Now think about the money for those contracts. It's mostly coming from US taxpayers. Are you suggesting that the US spent billions of dollars invading Iraq so that they could spend billions more dollars rebuilding it using US contractors? This is just one example of how the whole conspiracy theory doesn't wash. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Tonkin wasn't a "lie" but just a "spin" and the gummint has a way of
"spinning" it the way they want... ("Spin" - meaning "I'll tell the story whatever way I want to tell it") "Craig Welch" wrote in message ... On 2 Jan 2004 18:04:07 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so (in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things. Dead right. The US does things the proper way. By lying. About WMD in Iraq, and about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Pete Loud" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote: Hi Guys, I am amazed that something I said over a year ago, before the Iraq war, has suddenly re-appeared. I can only think it was on my website, "Maps of Iraq", http://users.powernet.co.uk/mkmarina/iraq/iraq.html Since then the situation has changed somewhat :-o and my website has been updated, although not recently. To pull things back on-topic I have loads of great maps of Asia on my websites, check them out. Cheers, Pete Loud Interesting site Peter. While I was reading it I was thinking how millions of Americans were outraged that Steve Irwin took his child into the crocodile enclosure, but those same people cheered as the bombs and missiles rained down on the people of Iraq. Bob |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
In u "Bob"
wrote: While I was reading it I was thinking how millions of Americans were outraged that Steve Irwin took his child into the crocodile enclosure, but those same people cheered as the bombs and missiles rained down on the people of Iraq. Are you certain it was "millions", and are you certain that they're the same people? Why? -- Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Bob" wrote in message . au...
"Pete Loud" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote: Hi Guys, I am amazed that something I said over a year ago, before the Iraq war, has suddenly re-appeared. I can only think it was on my website, "Maps of Iraq", http://users.powernet.co.uk/mkmarina/iraq/iraq.html Since then the situation has changed somewhat :-o and my website has been updated, although not recently. To pull things back on-topic I have loads of great maps of Asia on my websites, check them out. Cheers, Pete Loud Interesting site Peter. While I was reading it I was thinking how millions of Americans were outraged that Steve Irwin took his child into the crocodile enclosure, but those same people cheered as the bombs and missiles rained down on the people of Iraq. Yup. We were outraged when some idiot put a baby's life at risk with a crocodile so he could entertain people and make money and we cheered when America removed a violent tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands of people and began a process where freedom and democracy can come to the millions of people in Iraq and where they no longer have to fear torture and death at Saddam's hands. We probably saved a million lives. And we removed a threat from the US. Yes, we cheered. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was
supporting him. The US didn't care one jot about Saddam murdering Iraqis, they were prepared to support and supply Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld was the key guy at that time. Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml So it's no good trying to make out that US attacked Iraq because Saddam was a violent tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands of people, US was supporting his murderous activities in the 1980's. Cheers, Pete Loud "Maps of Iraq", http://users.powernet.co.uk/mkmarina/iraq/iraq.html |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Pete Loud wrote in message ... When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was supporting him. Another whinging Pom............... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
No, I am simply pointing you to the facts behind the Iraq war.
If you regard someone presenting factual information about such a key issue as a "whinging Pom" then you have a rather strange attitude to politics and history. I see that your email address appears to come from an Australian educational institute, do others in education treat analysis of political developments the way you ? Perhaps you should give up education and stick to boozing and slagging off anyone whose views you dislike. Pete Loud "Maps of Iraq", http://users.powernet.co.uk/mkmarina/iraq/iraq.html "RT" wrote in message ... Pete Loud wrote in message ... When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was supporting him. Another whinging Pom............... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:07:49 +1000, RT wrote:
Pete Loud wrote in message ... When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was supporting him. Another whinging Pom............... So? Does that make him wrong? |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
devil wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:07:49 +1000, RT wrote: Pete Loud wrote in message ... When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was supporting him. Another whinging Pom............... So? Does that make him wrong? No. He's wrong, but that's not why. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
No. He's wrong, but that's not why
Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Pete Loud "Tchiowa" wrote in message om... devil wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:07:49 +1000, RT wrote: Pete Loud wrote in message ... When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was supporting him. Another whinging Pom............... So? Does that make him wrong? No. He's wrong, but that's not why. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Another moronic Aussie with his head up John Howards arse.
John L. On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:07:49 +1000, "RT" wrote: Another whinging Pom............... |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
"Pete Loud" wrote in message ...
No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. The fact is that we supported Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war. When he gassed the Kurds we absolutely condemned in and began the process of isolating him that continued until last year. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:
"Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. I am not all that familiar with the British press. Is The Independent really anything like "extremist propaganda?" I would think not? |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On 7 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote:
"Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. Never mind the URL. The discussion is about Rumsfeld/Shultz conduct during 1983-1984. Do you deny the truth of the statements made? |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
john wrote in message . ..
On 7 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: "Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. Never mind the URL. The discussion is about Rumsfeld/Shultz conduct during 1983-1984. Do you deny the truth of the statements made? The statement made was that the US supported Saddam while Saddam was gassing Kurds. Yes, I deny that. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
devil writes
I am not all that familiar with the British press. Is The Independent really anything like "extremist propaganda?" I would think not? Not at all. It's a well respected broadsheet with no overt political bias. Its main fault IMHO is that its middle eastern coverage tends to be over reliant on Robert Fisk, who seems to be only interested in telling one side of the story. -- Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/ |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
|
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
No one has to take the word of Pete Loud in this issue.
If you wish to get a more factual account of the US involvement in Iraq in the 1980's you can get quite a bit of information using Google. I have just done a search on [Rumsfeld Iraq 1984] and come up some interesting info. Of course there will be much more information which the US Gov. does not release. You might find that US wasn't involved, you might find it was. Either way it's much better to attempt to find the real situation than simply screaming "whinging Pom" Cheers, Pete Loud "Maps of Iraq", http://users.powernet.co.uk/mkmarina/iraq/iraq.html "Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Pete Loud "Tchiowa" wrote in message om... devil wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:07:49 +1000, RT wrote: Pete Loud wrote in message ... When Saddam was killing and gassing Iraqis, guess who it was who was supporting him. Another whinging Pom............... So? Does that make him wrong? No. He's wrong, but that's not why. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
Tchiowa wrote: john wrote in message . .. On 7 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: "Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. Never mind the URL. The discussion is about Rumsfeld/Shultz conduct during 1983-1984. Do you deny the truth of the statements made? The statement made was that the US supported Saddam while Saddam was gassing Kurds. Yes, I deny that. (Oxford dict) deny /dI"nVI/ · v. (denies, denied) 1 refuse to admit the truth or existence of. :) |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On 8 Jan 2004 00:19:27 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote:
john wrote in message . .. On 7 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: "Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. Never mind the URL. The discussion is about Rumsfeld/Shultz conduct during 1983-1984. Do you deny the truth of the statements made? The statement made was that the US supported Saddam while Saddam was gassing Kurds. Yes, I deny that. I guess "you can't handle the truth!" Many comments were made in the article about Rumsfeld's conduct and Schultz's conduct during 1883-1984. Please tell us WHY you believe the statements to be false. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
john wrote in message . ..
On 8 Jan 2004 00:19:27 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: john wrote in message . .. On 7 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: "Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. Never mind the URL. The discussion is about Rumsfeld/Shultz conduct during 1983-1984. Do you deny the truth of the statements made? The statement made was that the US supported Saddam while Saddam was gassing Kurds. Yes, I deny that. I guess "you can't handle the truth!" Sure I can. Fantasies like this are a little more difficult. Many comments were made in the article about Rumsfeld's conduct and Schultz's conduct during 1883-1984. The article was nothing but propaganda from an extermist left wing group. Please tell us WHY you believe the statements to be false. Because when Saddam gassed the Kurds the US government immediately condemned him and his actions publicly, including in the UN. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:36:15 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:
The article was nothing but propaganda from an extermist left wing group. Nonsense. The web site may have been. But the article was a reprint for The Independent, which a british poster confirmed to be pretty much mainstream. I thought I had already posted that. Mind you, extremist left folks have been known to be right more often that not. Just take that WMD crap for example. |
How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal
On 8 Jan 2004 15:36:15 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote:
john wrote in message . .. On 8 Jan 2004 00:19:27 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: john wrote in message . .. On 7 Jan 2004 16:40:56 -0800, (Tchiowa) wrote: "Pete Loud" wrote in message ... No. He's wrong, but that's not why Are you saying that US, and specifically Donald Rumsfeld, were not supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Read this article http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122603C.shtml Are you under the impression that your URL is anything but extremist propaganda? It's kind of like quoting a KKK website about opinions of blacks. Or quoting a PLO website for opinions about Israel. Never mind the URL. The discussion is about Rumsfeld/Shultz conduct during 1983-1984. Do you deny the truth of the statements made? The statement made was that the US supported Saddam while Saddam was gassing Kurds. Yes, I deny that. I guess "you can't handle the truth!" Sure I can. Fantasies like this are a little more difficult. Many comments were made in the article about Rumsfeld's conduct and Schultz's conduct during 1883-1984. The article was nothing but propaganda from an extermist left wing group. I suppose you don't believe that there is a picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand? Get your head out of the sand or your ass. Please tell us WHY you believe the statements to be false. Because when Saddam gassed the Kurds the US government immediately condemned him and his actions publicly, including in the UN. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TravelBanter.com