Re: an arteest

Oh, there's no question in my mind that the US has done far more heinous
things than it has ever admitted. And if we agree, just for a moment, that
the US supplied Hussein with dual use chemicals and not chemical weapons,
that doesn't exactly make the act innocent, either. It's not clear to me why
we supplied those chemicals, but I think there's something else we need to
keep in mind here:

If the US is responsible for Hussein's use of chemical weapons during the 80s
because of what we traded with him, Russia and France are responsible for
Hussein's atrocities in the 90s. They've been far closer and more
significant trading partners with Hussein than the US has ever been, and
opposition to a US invasion of Iraq on their parts probably has far more to
do with them being cut out of the loop economically than any commitment to
"diplomacy" or, if you want to accurately represent the apex of their
hypocrisy, "peace."

It's not that anyone is "good" or particularly better than anyone else. It's
just that everyone is "bad." I'm glad Hussein is out of power -- very much
so. I'm not at all happy how it came about. And I'm not talking, at all,
about the deployment of the US military.

Jim

tina carson wrote:

> Agreeing on all points except that we can't be sure the US didn't do far
> more heinous things than it admits, though that hardly exonerates Saddam
> tina

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Apr 11 21:04:28 2003