Aren't human rights violations and genocidal practices enough?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

No, not when we told the world the basis for this invasion was Iraq's violation of resolution 1441, that is its possesion of WMD. If human rights violations and genocidal practices were enough, we should have gone after the regimes in Congo and Angola whose treatment of people makes Saddam look like a boy scout. Our credibility is at stake, WE HAVE TO FIND THE WMD.

You seem to be mistaken, what caused the material breach of 1441 was not possesion of WMD, it was non-compliance with disarmament and inspections. Remember, Saddam was required to submit a report detailing his WMD programs, capabilities, quantities, suppliers, etc..., which he did. He was also required to PROVE he had destroyed them, which he never did. Consequently there are TONS of nerve agent and @ 10,000 liters of anthrax still unaccounted for amongst other items. Those are figures submitted top the UN by Iraq. The question of where are they is a very valid one, we have been waiting 12 years for Saddam to answer ourselves. If we don't wind up finding any, where are they?

I suggest you read resolution 1441 before making any statements regarding it, as it would probably make you post less drivel that isn't relevant...

The WMD's that Irak was known to have was being destroyed, yes, acrually, both the VX and the Anthrax was for the most part destroyed, a very small part was unaccounted for, that is why the search continued...

You should really read it....
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

no, they are not enough to justify a war.

north korea: 50 years and counting, who knows how many have died?
china: 50 years and counting
cuba: 40+ years and counting
rwanda: mass genocide, u.s. has never intervened
sudan
zimbabwe

human rights violations/genocide have never been a reason for the u.s. to enter a war alone. bosnia was a war about human rights/genocide, but the u.s. went in with the u.n., not alone.

The US was the driving force for Bosnia, the rest of the world didn't intervene until WE decided to take action, once again EU couldn't handle something so we had to........

I will just assume you are joking, "the US was the driving force for Bosnia" Haaaahhhaaaa, funny... and the fact that there were soldiers from just about every country in the world EXCEPT from the US... nah... let's just pretend that never happend... LOL...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Well since you seem to be so confident of your intimate knowledge of the 12,000 page report, of which onkly 8,000 pages were even given to anyone other than the 5 permanent members of the security council you can tell me the page numbers that state that, I will glady take a look.

Unfortunately if you had read 1441 you would know it basically stated that this was the final chance, and ANY noncompliance would consitute a material breach. Not one member of the UN would dare suggest he had met this COMPLETE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT OF 1441.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
You are right Nitemare . . . human rights violations are enough. Let's start with TX and work our way around the globe.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

no, they are not enough to justify a war.

north korea: 50 years and counting, who knows how many have died?
china: 50 years and counting
cuba: 40+ years and counting
rwanda: mass genocide, u.s. has never intervened
sudan
zimbabwe

human rights violations/genocide have never been a reason for the u.s. to enter a war alone. bosnia was a war about human rights/genocide, but the u.s. went in with the u.n., not alone.

The US was the driving force for Bosnia, the rest of the world didn't intervene until WE decided to take action, once again EU couldn't handle something so we had to........

I will just assume you are joking, "the US was the driving force for Bosnia" Haaaahhhaaaa, funny... and the fact that there were soldiers from just about every country in the world EXCEPT from the US... nah... let's just pretend that never happend... LOL...





This details the US and Allied participation, notice the first paragraph describes the process in which the UN was brought into the scene, via the DAYTON, OHIO US LED PEACE INIATIVE WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE DAYTON ACCORDS

" will just assume you are joking, "the US was the driving force for Bosnia" Haaaahhhaaaa, funny... and the fact that there were soldiers from just about every country in the world EXCEPT from the US... nah... let's just pretend that never happend... LOL..."

Yeah, that's almost as funny as your bias and ignorance, which is it anyway? Do you just not know the facts, or do you just dismiss them because they don't fit what you "think", and I mean that term very loosely...

Are you sure you understand what happened, because everytime you seem to open your mouth all I hear is US bashing, while what you say is OBVIOUSLY unture.

The U.S. remains committed to the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina's long-term security. With completion of the Federation Train and Equip Program, the U.S. has already begun taking steps to help Bosnia develop a national-level defense establishment and capabilities that will meet NATO's requirements for eventual membership in the Partnership for Peace. It is our hope that our allies and partners will join us in this effort.

and we are still helping there as well.


sorry, forgot the LOL to show everyone how silly the facts are.....
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You are right Nitemare . . . human rights violations are enough. Let's start with TX and work our way around the globe.

Good plan. Let's make a list.

1. Physicians who overcharge or are incompetent. (I arbitrarily set the standard, move it when necessary.)
2. Texass
3. Iraq
4. California. Taxes are too high and there are still some places in the state where it's legal to declaw your cat. The horror



:D
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Well since you seem to be so confident of your intimate knowledge of the 12,000 page report, of which onkly 8,000 pages were even given to anyone other than the 5 permanent members of the security council you can tell me the page numbers that state that, I will glady take a look.

Unfortunately if you had read 1441 you would know it basically stated that this was the final chance, and ANY noncompliance would consitute a material breach. Not one member of the UN would dare suggest he had met this COMPLETE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT OF 1441.

I HAVE read the entire resolution, i doubt that you have, and what would actually happen if Irak failed to comply with the resolution, a quote would be nice...

And please tell me, as i took part of the war in Bosnia, as Brittish, Norwegian and Swedish troops were in place when the US Bombed, in what way did the US take part of the Balkan war before that?

I was there, i saw what happend, yet you think you know more than i do... i would like to ask you how you know more about that war than i do...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
SnapIT feel free to respond, I will gladly debate any issue about this war or US or anything really, but I will also expect the dialogue to be based on truth and logic, not subjective opinion and a lack of diametric thinking.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

No. The basis for the invasion was violation of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which speaks to the illegal procurement of WMD. There is no precedent for invasion of a country based on human rights violations. Not to mention that MANY MANY MANY countries around the world are guilty of human rights violations and genocidal practices, even some of the US' allies (think Israel, think Egypt)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Good plan. Let's make a list.

1. Physicians who overcharge or are incompetent. (I arbitrarily set the standard, move it when necessary.)
2. Texass
3. Iraq
4. California. Taxes are too high and there are still some places in the state where it's legal to declaw your cat. The horror


ONE is acceptable if ALL debt accrued in the acquisition of a medical degree is forgiven OR drug companies are prohibited from doing direct to consumer advertising and must use the balance retained to make medications more affordable.

TWO goes without saying.

THREE is not the worst offender so why not start with despotic holes in Africa . . . they've got oil AND diamonds.

FOUR . . . yeah but you can't declaw in NorCal . . . where all the REAL Californians live.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Well since you seem to be so confident of your intimate knowledge of the 12,000 page report, of which onkly 8,000 pages were even given to anyone other than the 5 permanent members of the security council you can tell me the page numbers that state that, I will glady take a look.

Unfortunately if you had read 1441 you would know it basically stated that this was the final chance, and ANY noncompliance would consitute a material breach. Not one member of the UN would dare suggest he had met this COMPLETE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT OF 1441.

I HAVE read the entire resolution, i doubt that you have, and what would actually happen if Irak failed to comply with the resolution, a quote would be nice...

And please tell me, as i took part of the war in Bosnia, as Brittish, Norwegian and Swedish troops were in place when the US Bombed, in what way did the US take part of the Balkan war before that?

I was there, i saw what happend, yet you think you know more than i do... i would like to ask you how you know more about that war than i do...

You obviosuly did not read the first paragraph of that first link, who created the document that secured peace for the region? the US, in Dayton, the Dayton Accords...

"Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations
In Paris on December 14, 1995, the
presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia
signed the peace settlement they negotiated in
Dayton, OH. The following day the United
Nations Security Council?s Resolution 1031
authorized for one year the multilateral
NATO-led implementation force (IFOR)
under the U.N. Charter?s Chapter VII. On
December 12, 1996, the Security Council
authorized a follow-on force, dubbed the
Stabilization Force (SFOR). This authorization
been renewed annually. In March 1998,
the NATO allies agreed that SFOR will remain
in Bosnia until significant progress,
according to specified benchmarks, has been
made in the implementation of the Dayton
Accords.
Bosnia and Kosovo.."

So according to YOU before the UN authorized force based on the US led Dayton (yeah that is in the states) there were Brittish, Norwegian and Swedish troops on the ground?

They took military action without UN approval? You sure you know what you are talking about, lol....

"U.S. and Allied Participation in Bosnia Peacekeeping (IFOR/SFOR)
IFOR/SFOR Mission. While steadfastly refusing to contribute ground forces to UN
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia, the Clinton Administration, beginning in
February 1993, maintained a commitment to provide them to oversee implementation of an
overall peace settlement. With the 1994 peace negotiations at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base in Dayton OH, Administration officials began to lay out their rationale and initial
planning for U.S. participation in a NATO-led peace implementation force (IFOR) for
Bosnia. Administration officials argued that U.S. participation with ground forces was
necessary for two main reasons: 1) the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serb negotiators all made
U.S. ground force participation a condition of their accepting any peace settlement; and 2)
U.S. participation was necessary for the United States to maintain a leadership position in
NATO. President Clinton subsequently emphasized a moral responsibility to aid in ending
the savagery of the Bosnian conflict.
On December 14, 1995, the Presidents of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia signed a peace
agreement in Paris. In brief, the military elements of the agreement, in addition to
establishing IFOR and granting it full authority and freedom of movement to enforce the
agreement, calls for: 1) withdrawal of forces behind cease-fire lines within 30 days, with a
demilitarized zone (DMZ) of four kilometers; 2) withdrawal of heavy weapons and personnel
to barracks; 3) provision of information on personnel, weaponry, and landmines; 4) arms
reduction negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Cooperation and Security
in Europe (OSCE). All these objectives have been completed, with the exception of the arms
reduction process which the OSCE continues to oversee.
To enforce the military provisions of the Dayton agreements, NATO sent the
Intervention Force or (IFOR), which comprised approximately 54,000 ground troops in
Bosnia proper. That force designation and lasted until December 20, 1996, when it was
changed to Stabilization Force (SFOR). This reflected the decision by NATO?s members
that the Bosnia deployment should not have a specified end-date, but rather that its duration
would be tied to successful accomplishment of Dayton Peace Accord provisions."

there is a breakdown of forces as well, but obviously you are not going to bother to read or acknowledge how wrong you are....
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

no, they are not enough to justify a war.

north korea: 50 years and counting, who knows how many have died?
china: 50 years and counting
cuba: 40+ years and counting
rwanda: mass genocide, u.s. has never intervened
sudan
zimbabwe

human rights violations/genocide have never been a reason for the u.s. to enter a war alone. bosnia was a war about human rights/genocide, but the u.s. went in with the u.n., not alone.

The US was the driving force for Bosnia, the rest of the world didn't intervene until WE decided to take action, once again EU couldn't handle something so we had to........

I will just assume you are joking, "the US was the driving force for Bosnia" Haaaahhhaaaa, funny... and the fact that there were soldiers from just about every country in the world EXCEPT from the US... nah... let's just pretend that never happend... LOL...





This details the US and Allied participation, notice the first paragraph describes the process in which the UN was brought into the scene, via the DAYTON, OHIO US LED PEACE INIATIVE WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE DAYTON ACCORDS

" will just assume you are joking, "the US was the driving force for Bosnia" Haaaahhhaaaa, funny... and the fact that there were soldiers from just about every country in the world EXCEPT from the US... nah... let's just pretend that never happend... LOL..."

Yeah, that's almost as funny as your bias and ignorance, which is it anyway? Do you just not know the facts, or do you just dismiss them because they don't fit what you "think", and I mean that term very loosely...

Are you sure you understand what happened, because everytime you seem to open your mouth all I hear is US bashing, while what you say is OBVIOUSLY unture.

The U.S. remains committed to the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina's long-term security. With completion of the Federation Train and Equip Program, the U.S. has already begun taking steps to help Bosnia develop a national-level defense establishment and capabilities that will meet NATO's requirements for eventual membership in the Partnership for Peace. It is our hope that our allies and partners will join us in this effort.

and we are still helping there as well.


sorry, forgot the LOL to show everyone how silly the facts are.....

Oh, well, find a link to actually prove your original point, i WAS THERE... In these links, can you find where it states that the US bombed a bus killing 58 civilians?

If you are looking for what the US governments wants you to know, you are looking in the right place...

Me? oh please, i am laughing out loud at these documens that in no way provides a single piece of truth...
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Good plan. Let's make a list.

1. Physicians who overcharge or are incompetent. (I arbitrarily set the standard, move it when necessary.)
2. Texass
3. Iraq
4. California. Taxes are too high and there are still some places in the state where it's legal to declaw your cat. The horror


ONE is acceptable if ALL debt accrued in the acquisition of a medical degree is forgiven OR drug companies are prohibited from doing direct to consumer advertising and must use the balance retained to make medications more affordable.

TWO goes without saying.

THREE is not the worst offender so why not start with despotic holes in Africa . . . they've got oil AND diamonds.

FOUR . . . yeah but you can't declaw in NorCal . . . where all the REAL Californians live.

Doc as far as I'm concerned you don't have to pay back a dime of your student loans. Screw 'em.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Do you know Sweden was one of the countries that supplied Iraq and Syria with precursor chemicals for WMD? Pretty big supplier of Syria. Funny, most of the Arab world was armed with them PRIMARILY by EU countires, France being the largest in quantity, Germany in number, but Sweden defifnitely contributed a good amount as well.
 

tbrooks40

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2001
1,970
0
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT


and we are still helping there as well.


sorry, forgot the LOL to show everyone how silly the facts are.....


Alistar do you really think the US had no other initiative than to free the iraqi people? are you that lost? after all the wrongs our government have come to admit over the years can you not imagine any other scenario than this Freedom War BS? give me a break, it is a very simple fact that america WILL NOT intervene anywhere unless we GAIN, GAIN, GAIN! period.

don't be stupid and blindly defend this war - it was wrong. the simple fact that we dealt with saddam for years providing tank after tank and missle after missle while he ruthlessly dominated surrounding countries should tell you that we as a country we could give a damn about what the overall state of the middle eastern people.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
If you want to dispute them fine, if you want to prove them wrong show me your version, links?

Doubt you will find anything that suggests a different timeline......

UN resolution that allows for military force the DAY AFTER the DAYTON ACCORDS. DISPUTE THAT.
 

tbrooks40

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2001
1,970
0
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
If you want to dispute them fine, if you want to prove them wrong show me your version, links?

Doubt you will find anything that suggests a different timeline......

UN resolution that allows for military force the DAY AFTER the DAYTON ACCORDS. DISPUTE THAT.


do you think you will find the REAL truth in an article? a link? its all classified - don't be ridiculous.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: tbrooks40
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT


and we are still helping there as well.


sorry, forgot the LOL to show everyone how silly the facts are.....


Alistar do you really think the US had no other initiative than to free the iraqi people? are you that lost? after all the wrongs our government have come to admit over the years can you not imagine any other scenario than this Freedom War BS? give me a break, it is a very simple fact that america WILL NOT intervene anywhere unless we GAIN, GAIN, GAIN! period.

don't be stupid and blindly defend this war - it was wrong. the simple fact that we dealt with saddam for years providing tank after tank and missle after missle while he ruthlessly dominated surrounding countries should tell you that we as a country we could give a damn about what the overall state of the middle eastern people.


It is your opinion it is wrong, most Iraqi's seem to feel it is a good thing Saddam is gone.

Was that our main objective, no, is it a great secondary benefit, of course. It also makes a cause for this war that is beyond debate, the people of Iraq are better off without Saddam, even you couldn't suggest otherwise.

Was it OIL, prices have gone down, Bush's boys are amking LESS money off their product, guess what, they will make even less once that Iraqi oil hits the market. Hopefully the US will provide accurate and PUBLIC accounting of where every dollar of the revenue generated goes, if they don't they are just asking for what they get....
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Well since you seem to be so confident of your intimate knowledge of the 12,000 page report, of which onkly 8,000 pages were even given to anyone other than the 5 permanent members of the security council you can tell me the page numbers that state that, I will glady take a look.

Unfortunately if you had read 1441 you would know it basically stated that this was the final chance, and ANY noncompliance would consitute a material breach. Not one member of the UN would dare suggest he had met this COMPLETE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT OF 1441.

I HAVE read the entire resolution, i doubt that you have, and what would actually happen if Irak failed to comply with the resolution, a quote would be nice...

And please tell me, as i took part of the war in Bosnia, as Brittish, Norwegian and Swedish troops were in place when the US Bombed, in what way did the US take part of the Balkan war before that?

I was there, i saw what happend, yet you think you know more than i do... i would like to ask you how you know more about that war than i do...

You obviosuly did not read the first paragraph of that first link, who created the document that secured peace for the region? the US, in Dayton, the Dayton Accords...

"Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations
In Paris on December 14, 1995, the
presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia
signed the peace settlement they negotiated in
Dayton, OH. The following day the United
Nations Security Council?s Resolution 1031
authorized for one year the multilateral
NATO-led implementation force (IFOR)
under the U.N. Charter?s Chapter VII. On
December 12, 1996, the Security Council
authorized a follow-on force, dubbed the
Stabilization Force (SFOR). This authorization
been renewed annually. In March 1998,
the NATO allies agreed that SFOR will remain
in Bosnia until significant progress,
according to specified benchmarks, has been
made in the implementation of the Dayton
Accords.
Bosnia and Kosovo.."

So according to YOU before the UN authorized force based on the US led Dayton (yeah that is in the states) there were Brittish, Norwegian and Swedish troops on the ground?

They took military action without UN approval? You sure you know what you are talking about, lol....

"U.S. and Allied Participation in Bosnia Peacekeeping (IFOR/SFOR)
IFOR/SFOR Mission. While steadfastly refusing to contribute ground forces to UN
Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia, the Clinton Administration, beginning in
February 1993, maintained a commitment to provide them to oversee implementation of an
overall peace settlement. With the 1994 peace negotiations at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base in Dayton OH, Administration officials began to lay out their rationale and initial
planning for U.S. participation in a NATO-led peace implementation force (IFOR) for
Bosnia. Administration officials argued that U.S. participation with ground forces was
necessary for two main reasons: 1) the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serb negotiators all made
U.S. ground force participation a condition of their accepting any peace settlement; and 2)
U.S. participation was necessary for the United States to maintain a leadership position in
NATO. President Clinton subsequently emphasized a moral responsibility to aid in ending
the savagery of the Bosnian conflict.
On December 14, 1995, the Presidents of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia signed a peace
agreement in Paris. In brief, the military elements of the agreement, in addition to
establishing IFOR and granting it full authority and freedom of movement to enforce the
agreement, calls for: 1) withdrawal of forces behind cease-fire lines within 30 days, with a
demilitarized zone (DMZ) of four kilometers; 2) withdrawal of heavy weapons and personnel
to barracks; 3) provision of information on personnel, weaponry, and landmines; 4) arms
reduction negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Cooperation and Security
in Europe (OSCE). All these objectives have been completed, with the exception of the arms
reduction process which the OSCE continues to oversee.
To enforce the military provisions of the Dayton agreements, NATO sent the
Intervention Force or (IFOR), which comprised approximately 54,000 ground troops in
Bosnia proper. That force designation and lasted until December 20, 1996, when it was
changed to Stabilization Force (SFOR). This reflected the decision by NATO?s members
that the Bosnia deployment should not have a specified end-date, but rather that its duration
would be tied to successful accomplishment of Dayton Peace Accord provisions."

there is a breakdown of forces as well, but obviously you are not going to bother to read or acknowledge how wrong you are....

In December 1992 Sweforce troops entered Kosovo followed by Norwegian and Brittish troops, this was before the bombings began, neither the bombings or the troop enterings were UN sanctioned... Actually, once the Brittish troops entered the entire operation was questioned by the US as it didn't follow UN procedures... but you knew that... right?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: tbrooks40
Originally posted by: Alistar7
If you want to dispute them fine, if you want to prove them wrong show me your version, links?

Doubt you will find anything that suggests a different timeline......

UN resolution that allows for military force the DAY AFTER the DAYTON ACCORDS. DISPUTE THAT.


do you think you will find the REAL truth in an article? a link? its all classified - don't be ridiculous.

The real truth is this, the US got them to the table in Dayton, Ohio and got them to sign the Dayton Accords, this paved the way for the UN to step in to enforce this, they passed the resolution authorizing force the very next day. Notice this was a US led initiative where the UN was used to authorize force, we are still the only country to EVER ask the UN to engage in war.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Hopefully the US will provide accurate and PUBLIC accounting of where every dollar of the revenue generated goes, if they don't they are just asking for what they get....


Hopefully we won't be asking Chalabi or any of his cronies to do this. He seems to get Ollie North disease every time somebody asks him to count money.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Doc as far as I'm concerned you don't have to pay back a dime of your student loans. Screw 'em.

Make a promise, keep a promise . . .

ahh a look inside your character, you have earned a measure of respect in my book for that one.
 

tbrooks40

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2001
1,970
0
76
the UN is nothing more than a high priced sams club of sorts that requires americas ok to gain membership... those involved are indebted to the US in some way so stop quoting UN resolutions - they mean nothing to me.
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Do you know Sweden was one of the countries that supplied Iraq and Syria with precursor chemicals for WMD? Pretty big supplier of Syria. Funny, most of the Arab world was armed with them PRIMARILY by EU countires, France being the largest in quantity, Germany in number, but Sweden defifnitely contributed a good amount as well.

Sweden is one of the largest suppliers of chemicals and weapons, yes, i know this, the US is a much, MUCH bigger supplier, yes, i know you ignore that....

Of course, it is all europes fault, can't blame US, now can we, oh, the fact that the US trained al-qaida memberes is now forgotten, the support of Saddam is also forgotten, that the US has supplied Irak with chemical weapons.... forgotten, that the biggest importer of Iraki oil is the us (2/3) is also forgotten...

But that Europe and France in particular has supplied a small part (if you compare it, a VERY small part) of the Weapons that can not be found is something to remember...

Oh, and let's not forget about the Nazis, how you saved europe... oh how thankful we must be...

Anything else?