Originally posted by JaTo:
...and your point is?


We played an IMPORTANT, VITAL, and NECESSARY part in the development of their programs, yet a paper addressing their programs has no mention of us? Sigh.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Should I refer to countless other mentionings of mine on US shipments of chemical and biological weapons/supplies in the '80s under the Regan administration? It's shameful, it was a HUGE mistake and it's disgusting. Times, alliances, politics and THREATS have changed since then. Those that don't understand this and adjust to this fact will be left exposed to ALL sorts of grief.


Iraq was not a threat then, and they were not a threat now. Hindsight may be 20/20, but I was saying this before we too easily took their country, and before they did not use WMD, not even to defend their very own lives. The war shows how large a threat Iraq truly poised.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Would you also care to include France, Spain, China, England, Germany, Russia and others on your hit list, or since this is "bash the US" day, are we going to convienently leave them out of this mix?


If you will take time to reread my statement, nowhere will you see any sole mention of the US. Not only was I referring to the US, but also to countries like Germany who also supplied Iraq (only because we allowed them to of course). You assumed what you wanted to.

Originally posted by JaTo:
At least we are taking some measure of RESPONSIBILITY for our past actions. One of the main goals of ours is chemical/biological disarmament or Iraq. The US and England have stepped up to the plate to do this, and I think it's only appropritate that the countries that ARMED the regime with this stuff be the one's to pay the price to take it back and ensure that as little as possible is left over there. If anyone should go under the sword, it's the countries that have sat this one out that supplied Hussein...


And one of my main points is why is this one of our goals all of a sudden? They have had no significant development in any of their programs, in fact they were weaker than when it was not one of our main goals.

Originally posted by JaTo:
For the nth time, we've got blood on our hands. Need I use bold to get this point across? I've never said our Middle-Eastern meddling has been a rousing success (compared to Russia, yes, but that's another topic). Are you suggesting that we never try to wipe the blood off; simply keep things at the status-quo to justify a self-centered notion that we screwed up and we have to live with it regardless of the potential future consequences?


It is difficult to wipe blood off with blood. It is amazing to me how you can tell me how poor our "Middle-Eastern meddling" has been and then suggest we meddle even more. I simply believe the long term consequences of this action will cause more negative effects than if the war had never happened. I suppose we will see, and discover how it will "pan out, one way or the other."

Originally posted by JaTo:
Need I remind you 20 years ago our concerns were VERY different than they are today? Care to pick up a newspaper and check out who was running things in the Kremlin during that time and that our MAIN concern was the USSR and how it was trying to gain toeholds in the Middle-East, something that we didn't want to happen at any cost?


Again you assume I am attacking our decisions in the 1980s, when in fact I have offered no opinion on them. Reread. The only decision I am attacking is that of this current administration. Whether or not it is worth argueing about when the mistake, I mean war, has already been made is another matter.

Originally posted by JaTo:
In short, don't push your ignorance or blindness of history at me and hide it under a blanket-statement of hypocracy. We have used a number of countries as a means to an end and it HAS given us black-eyes at times. Some of what we have done has been rather distateful; some has been downright disgusting. Most all of it at the time was considered very necessary. I'm not going to argue about the validity of our actions in arming Iraq with what we did in the '80s as there's no excuse for what we did.


Again, reread.

Originally posted by JaTo:
If we don't care, why in the hell are we over there? Why are we handing out food to the civilian population? Why are we going to help rebuild their infrastructure? Why have we been feeding Iraqi prisioners? Why have we been operating on wounded Republican Guard troops? Why are 4 million Iraqi exiles ecstatic that Hussein and his regime have been toppled? If you DARE try and say oil, why didn't we waltz in 12 years ago when we had close to a half-million military personel in the area, which is more than what we started with this time around?


We are handing out food to the civilian population and feeding Iraqi prisoners because food keeps hungry people in line. Serious question, but I am wondering where this food comes from? We are going to help rebuild their infrastructure because WE are rebuilding their infrastructure. We are doing all of this because of there geographical location and certain resources that location may bring. Am I saying there is anything wrong with that? No, but that is why we are doing it. 4 million Iraqi exiles are ecstatic that the regime has been toppled because they are exiles. We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.

Originally posted by JaTo:
We aren't saints in this, but this administration and the military under it's control is FAR away from being the careless, heartless pricks that you are so eager to paint them out to be...


I do not doubt the sincerenity of our soldiers.

-Giovanni One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.