Yeah, very interesting. ...Are you aware that what you are reading here just might be the only Baltimore-based news report on this subject up until now? And doesnât it mystify you that youâre finding it here, in a monthly community newspaper, when it ought to be on the front pages all across the US, and widely reported on the TV and radio ânewsâ shows? The real mystery, then, isnât so much the missing pagesâitâs the case of the missing news. And what possible motive could there be for this news to be omitted?... 24 US companies and possibly 50 subsidiaries involved. Also look at Japan, all of the reported companies helped Iraq illegally in the nuclear area. How can we confirm this? And how can we confirm anything else on the major networks? It goes back to the questions discussed earlier in these forums, about media sources, reports and information dissemination. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=182868&highlight=watchers#post182868 But one can easily see why such news may not hit the major networks. It's like this, we are trying to wage war against drugs trafficking, and drug users. BUT if it is widely known that we are the drug dealers, in violation of our own laws we try to enforce, it may not sit well with the officials on top. ...who watches the watchers...? Good posts! keep them coming. Josh
UNO-SICHERHEITSRAT (UN security council) Deutschland wird dem Krieg definitiv nicht zustimmen (Germany will definitely not agree to the war) Bei einer möglichen zweiten Uno-Resolution im Weltsicherheitsrat zu einem Angriff auf den Irak wird die Bundesrepublik nicht mit "Ja" votieren. Ebenso liefert sie keine Flugabwehrraketen in die Türkei. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,231310,00.html regards wild
I think it's Josh B Easily Impressed. I found it somewhat discomfiting when on another thread Josh B complimented one of my posts - but grouped it together with some others that the same post called nonsensical. This grand revelation - of the many companies involved in one way or another with arming Iraq, and of their names being withheld from public distribution of the compliance document - was widely reported at the time, on CNN and elsewhere. The explanation given was that the information was mainly old news, and that in any event attaching broad publicity to the information made getting practical cooperation and useful intelligence from the particular companies more difficult. Additionally, while some of the companies might be deserving of further investigation and potentially of legal action, others had valid or at least reasonable defenses for their involvement: Lumping the latter group together with the former would be unfair.
I glanced at the most recent article from that scholastic journal "The Guardian" (not!) with some typical leftist socialist screaming that the U.S. wants war. Nonsense. Does the U.S. want national security? Why wouldn't they? If Saddam Hussein decided to step down and go into exile voluntarily, and allow free elections to take place in Iraq... Would Bush & Company still want to attack Iraq? Of course not. It is not about war, it is not about oil, t is about countries being able to behave in a civilized manner with one another, our national security depends on it, as do all countries. Hell, if things were about oil, why aren't our troops being sent to Venezuela to get the oil flowing there? Hussein leaves, no war. Is Hussein really acting in the best interest of his people? Does he really care about the hundred of thousands who will die and suffer due to his stubbornness? I never hear the euro camp ever levy any criticisms his direction, as if he is some saintly leader in his homeland. What a joke. Well, all you euro weenies, imagine this. Say some country was Internet on attacking another country, and no one else in the world could stop it. Say that the country being attacked could simply avoid the attack by ousting the leadership in power, a proven despot and dictator, and that would save millions of lives....hold free elections, and get on with a democratic process of leadership in that country. Wouldn't you want to avoid bloodshed and have the tyrannical leader ousted? No, you braindeads would want there to be conflict so that you could focus on blaming the country that attacked. You guys are always looking for someone to blame, and I never ever hear the euronicks comment on the wrong doings of Saddam and company. It is always one sided commentary from an extremist perspective. Right wing extremists, left wing extremists, all birds of the same feather....they do nothing but fly in circles.....and never really go anywhere.
quote from OPTIONAL777 Say that the country being attacked could simply avoid the attack by ousting the leadership in power, a proven despot and dictator, and that would save millions of lives....hold free elections, and get on with a democratic process of leadership in that country. Wouldn't you want to avoid bloodshed and have the tyranical leader ousted? yes ... impeach G. W. Bush then asap and get rid of him and Cheney, Rumsfeld & Ashcroft regards wild
If Hussein goes into exile or is ousted in a coup, many questions may remain unresolved. Depending on precisely how such events unfolded, US and allied military action would probably at least be postponed, but could under a number of scenarios be re-accelerated, depending on the extent to which post-Hussein Iraq was more or less stable, more or less hostile to US and other interests, and so on.
You're so predictable, wild. To cut and paste from myself, on another thread, responding to parallel but less detailed comments less than an hour ago: "Referring to Bush as a dictator would be offensive if it weren't so absurd. Having a reasonable discussion about these matters becomes difficult when a popular if flawed US president at the ahead of a democratically if imperfectly constituted government is equated with an almost inexpressibly brutal megalomaniac who rules by terror. Before someone pipes up with some set of invidious comparisons, I'll also add that, in my opinion, equating, say, the Ashcroft DOJ and the prisoners at Guantanamo with Hussein's "republic of fear" or, as is also common on the internet, with the Third Reich, is inane, not to mention offensive to the millions of direct victims of truly dictatorial regimes. Such imbecilic overreaching also makes rational criticism of Bush and Bush policy more difficult."