Aren't human rights violations and genocidal practices enough?

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

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?

In late 1995, at an air force base in Dayton, Ohio, the leaders of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia signed a peace accord ending their three-year civil war.

"The agreement was negotiated under intense American pressure, and it paved the way for the dispatch of 60,000 heavily armed U.S. and NATO troops to enforce the peace in Bosnia. This original peace in Bosnia. This original peace implementation force has since been replaced by stabilization force half that size. All the troops, including the remaining 8600 U.S. soldiers, are due to be withdrawn in June of next year. "

No US troops on the ground, sorry your memory is not very accurate.

I love how you keep pointing out EU countries used military force in a CIVIL war without UN authorization....

Notice who brought LEGITIMACY AND THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE TABLE.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

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.

The REAL truth is known by a handful of men...

 

[UltraQuiet]

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

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?

Incredible, Iraq claims their major suppliers were not the US in their detalied 12,000 page report, of which only 8,000 pages were even made public. They say out of 21 companies that helped them 19 were EU, the US, 2, both out of business now....

But then again you are one of FEW MEN who know the REAL truth, funny I would bet Iraq has a little more knowledge of their WMD than YOU, what do you think? lol

We trained the TALIBAN against the Russians invasion, they became involved with Al-Queeda afterwards.

We also trained Timothy McVeigh and the US soldier who tossed a grenade into his own troops tent, we did not train them to do those things though, their ILLEGAL actions were borne of free will.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

never let the facts get in the way of what you believe....

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

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?

In late 1995, at an air force base in Dayton, Ohio, the leaders of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia signed a peace accord ending their three-year civil war.

"The agreement was negotiated under intense American pressure, and it paved the way for the dispatch of 60,000 heavily armed U.S. and NATO troops to enforce the peace in Bosnia. This original peace in Bosnia. This original peace implementation force has since been replaced by stabilization force half that size. All the troops, including the remaining 8600 U.S. soldiers, are due to be withdrawn in June of next year. "

No US troops on the ground, sorry your memory is not very accurate.

I love how you keep pointing out EU countries used military force in a CIVIL war without UN authorization....

Notice who brought LEGITIMACY AND THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE TABLE.

Your links are accurate and true, but they do not show what really happend...

I am fully aware that there were no US troops on the ground, but Sweforce and other troops were there long before the bombings started, THAT was my point...

The Civil war started long before that, but of course, you knew that too, right?

Yes, as peacekeeping troops the UN got involved, that is, as peacekeeping, non-hostile troops, the hostility was not brought from an outside force until the US started bombing.....

I'm not sure if you get the point, but that was the first hostile sign from an outside force, and no, you ar correct, it was not UN sanctioned, it was not needed and it was wrong...

Many things went wrong in Bosnia, the bombing of civilians are really just an example... As peacekeepers we did many things wrong also, but then again, a civil war is rarely a clean war, it's civilians fighting civilians and in many cases you get caught in between...

We were far from innocent, and did many things wrong...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

You want me to rip off your arms or what?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

never let the facts get in the way of what you believe....

Nah, i know you never do...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

never let the facts get in the way of what you believe....

Nah, i know you never do...

Haven't seen any that cotradict what I have said..... asked for links even, I gave plenty to support my contention...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

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?

Incredible, Iraq claims their major suppliers were not the US in their detalied 12,000 page report, of which only 8,000 pages were even made public. They say out of 21 companies that helped them 19 were EU, the US, 2, both out of business now....

But then again you are one of FEW MEN who know the REAL truth, funny I would bet Iraq has a little more knowledge of their WMD than YOU, what do you think? lol

We trained the TALIBAN against the Russians invasion, they became involved with Al-Queeda afterwards.

We also trained Timothy McVeigh and the US soldier who tossed a grenade into his own troops tent, we did not train them to do those things though, their ILLEGAL actions were borne of free will.

Alistar, don't get me wrong, Timothy should have been shot long before he had a chance to do what he did...

That soldier should have been stopped long before and the army does have tests that you have to go through, somebody should have seen it coming...

Don't think, even for a secaond that it makes me happy when an American soldier dies, it doesn't...

Things are rarely as black or white as you want them to be, and i am not your enemy...

 

[Alistar7]

The sad fact is the UN is a reactionary body, and slow at that. The evening Bush gave Saddam his ultimatum he also said something that went largely unnoticed considering. What he said was after this we should look at basically giving US forces to the UN to be used at their discretion, that would be a historic and dramatic policy change for the US, but I think it is a good idea. He suggested an internationally comprised force for the UN to have the "big stick" it needs as it walks softly.

IMHO they need to elimnate the veto power, if a majority feel the cause is right, that should be sufficient. All sides have thwarted legally and morally correct resolutions out of personal interests, that is not the purpose of this international body, in fact it is in direct conflict with it's very reason for existence.

Also they need to change the way countires are awarded certain positions, you do realize next year IRAQ was in line to head the UN Disarmament Council........good timing on our part I would say.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

never let the facts get in the way of what you believe....

Nah, i know you never do...

Haven't seen any that cotradict what I have said..... asked for links even, I gave plenty to support my contention...

Regarding Kosovo, i was there, i know what did happen and what did not happen...

You can choose to believe it or not, i couldn't care less, acutally.... There's a reason i have been staying out of this forum, and i am reminded of that reason now...

So i hope you are ok with everything, i'm out of this forum now...

be well...

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
IMHO they need to elimnate the veto power, if a majority feel the cause is right, that should be sufficient. All sides have thwarted legally and morally correct resolutions out of personal interests, that is not the purpose of this international body, in fact it is in direct conflict with it's very reason for existence.

Definitely.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Alistar7
IMHO they need to elimnate the veto power, if a majority feel the cause is right, that should be sufficient. All sides have thwarted legally and morally correct resolutions out of personal interests, that is not the purpose of this international body, in fact it is in direct conflict with it's very reason for existence.

Definitely.

So is that a link to all UN vetoes or just the one country you bash? I said ALL SIDES, don't agree with me and then try to troll people to a link that only shows your duplicity and bias....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Anything else?

No that about cover's it.

You were on your knees with a submissive look on your face when you posted it, right?

never let the facts get in the way of what you believe....

Nah, i know you never do...

Haven't seen any that cotradict what I have said..... asked for links even, I gave plenty to support my contention...

Regarding Kosovo, i was there, i know what did happen and what did not happen...

You can choose to believe it or not, i couldn't care less, acutally.... There's a reason i have been staying out of this forum, and i am reminded of that reason now...

So i hope you are ok with everything, i'm out of this forum now...

be well...

The only point you made was reminding everyone that EU countries operated without UN approval, and that the US led the way for peace and legitimacy for international involvement, also they are still the only country to ever ask the UN to go to war......

Thanks again......

 

[drewshin]

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.

wtf does this have to do with what was being discussed, this guy does this all the time, if he is losing a battle he just starts throwing random things out there. funny you dont mention that sweden supplied these precursor chemicals during the iran-iraq war when everyone seemed to be helping iraq, including the u.s.. looks at all the u.s. companies:

U.S. Military Web Site/US Supplies Iraq with Chemical weapons
3. The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile-system programs, including:[8]

chemical warfare agent precursors;
chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical
drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans);
chemical warhead filling equipment;
biological warfare related materials;
missile fabrication equipment; and,
missile-system guidance equipment


all of their information was taken from:
See "United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait," Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992).
i dont really know how to get a copy of this, but it details some of the information below:

from another link:

* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.

* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.

* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).


The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH

Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol


yes, the ec and the u.n. were involved much before the u.s. was ever involved in bosnia.

also, you totally glossed over my main point of course, i guess because you agreed with it.

 

[HappyGamer2]

No, because for the most part the USA didn't care about it before the first gulf war

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: drewshin

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.

wtf does this have to do with what was being discussed, this guy does this all the time, if he is losing a battle he just starts throwing random things out there. funny you dont mention that sweden supplied these precursor chemicals during the iran-iraq war when everyone seemed to be helping iraq, including the u.s.. looks at all the u.s. companies:

U.S. Military Web Site/US Supplies Iraq with Chemical weapons
3. The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile-system programs, including:[8]

chemical warfare agent precursors;
chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical
drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans);
chemical warhead filling equipment;
biological warfare related materials;
missile fabrication equipment; and,
missile-system guidance equipment


all of their information was taken from:
See "United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait," Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992).
i dont really know how to get a copy of this, but it details some of the information below:

from another link:

* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.

* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.

* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).


The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH

Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol


yes, the ec and the u.n. were involved much before the u.s. was ever involved in bosnia.

also, you totally glossed over my main point of course, i guess because you agreed with it.

I'm sorry, I was relying on the information Iraq submitted to the UN that outlined who helped them with their WMD programs, while the US comapnies you may have listed sold them precursor chemicals, apparently they were dual use and according to IRAQ only 2 US companies supplied materials, while 19 in the EU did (14 from Germany), with France being one of the LARGEST in QUANTITY. If you care to insist YOU know more than IRAQ go ahead, I for one am pretty sure they knew what they were talking about when they said WHOSE DUAL PURPOSE chemicals were diverted to WMD and whose were not. This was a fairly recent report, no better chance for Iraq to cast a critical eye on the US and submit a report which says we were the primary reason he had WMD, why does it say exactly the opposite?

What was your "main" point anyway?

"yes, the ec and the u.n. were involved much before the u.s. was ever involved in bosnia."

Yes we went through this, the EU used military force in a civil war without UN approval, the US got both parties to the table, got the Dayton Peace Accords signed, and the very next day the UN AUTHORIZED force. The point is the US is the one who brokered the peace and brought legitimacy to any military action by garnering international support and UN approval. Anyone there BEFORE that were doing exactly what they have been crying about the US doing right now. Once again, the US IS THE ONLY COUNTRY TO HAVE ASKED THE UN TO GO TO WAR.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

No. And soon this will blow after WMDs aren't found. The Bush regime will be held to finding WMDs one way or another; if they don't carry though THE reason they expressed that they entered into this war for (WMDs), the Bush regime will lose all credibility.

If the Iraqi's don't kick us out sooner than that, that is.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

No. And soon this will blow after WMDs aren't found. The Bush regime will be held to finding WMDs one way or another; if they don't carry though THE reason they expressed that they entered into this war for (WMDs), the Bush regime will lose all credibility.

If the Iraqi's don't kick us out sooner than that, that is.

If we cannot find them that still leaves the big question Saddam never answered, and the whole problem, WHERE ARE THEY?

Remember he ADMITTED to them, they have to be SOMEWHERE.....

I would love for ALL of them to be found and accounted for, not because it will prove anything, but just to be sure it wasn't passed on already, IMHO, some probably has been, it's not like he ever planned on giving them up and our attack was hardly a suprise.

 

[phillyTIM]

I really think you guys are on an endless witch hunt.

Saddam is Saddam, and he was probably being Saddam in saying that they had no WMDs but didn't say how/where they were destroyed (kind of his gesture of sticking up his middle finger at Bush).

Obviously that got him nowhere, but that's what I'd guess.

Bush's regime has been on such a long witch hunt for the past 1.5 years now, it's just a sham.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
I really think you guys are on an endless witch hunt.

Saddam is Saddam, and he was probably being Saddam in saying that they had no WMDs but didn't say how/where they were destroyed (kind of his gesture of sticking up his middle finger at Bush).

Obviously that got him nowhere, but that's what I'd guess.

Bush's regime has been on such a long witch hunt for the past 1.5 years now, it's just a sham.

Your anti-Bush stance has been linked before, don't make me do it again.

The idea he admitted what he had, destroyed them all as agreed, and didn't save the only evidence that would save him is crazy. His self preservation was always his primary concern. What if he provided the evidence? Inspections stop, sanctions are lifted, he remains in power with no oversight or restirctions with all that oil to rebuild ANY weapons program he wants. He could have done this in a few years, and would have if he thought logically.

 

[phillyTIM]

I don't think there was any scenario that would have saved Saddam, in the Bush regime's eyes.

I don't believe that anything could have stopped the invasion; they'd always accuse him of having something or other.

And if I was Saddam I'd rather go out on top, rather than to be Bush's bent over b#tch bottom.

I'm not Anti-Bush regime without reason, and I'm far far far from alone; deal with it.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
I don't think there was any scenario that would have saved Saddam, in the Bush regime's eyes.

I don't believe that anything could have stopped the invasion; they'd always accuse him of having something or other.

And if I was Saddam I'd rather go out on top, rather than to be Bush's bent over b#tch bottom.

I'm not Anti-Bush regime without reason, and I'm far far far from alone; deal with it.

his compliance would have stopped anything, he could have done that 10 years ago...

I can deal with your anti-Bush stance, it just makes your bias that much more obvious and explains your inability to accept anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and agendas.

It hardly makes for a persuasive arguement and really only makes you look rather foolish, I'm not alone in thinking this either, and with good reason, deal with it...

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by:

his compliance would have stopped anything, he could have done that 10 years ago...

I can deal with your anti-Bush stance, it just makes your bias that much more obvious and explains your inability to accept anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and agendas.

It hardly makes for a persuasive arguement and really only makes you look rather foolish, I'm not alone in thinking this either, and with good reason, deal with it...

Well I guess we are in the same boat then, because you expressed exactly how I perceive you and your pro-warhawk friends (except, substitute in "Pro" for "anti" in what you said above).

It's just like str8 people wonder how in the world someone could be gay; and gay people wonder how str8s are the way they are. You both think you are in the right, who could win?

Makes my opinions just as valid as yours; makes my opinions just as worthless as yours.