Exactly what Iwas thinking
Robert Fisk revisits the circumstances that resulted in Saddam Hussein's rise to power, and asks, "Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability." Read the full article here
well, if the us had stuck to the nuclear treaty, and downsized, as was agreed years ago, instead of building up again, and allowing the indians nuclear what have you, I too, if I was an Iranian , would feel threatend, and realise that if I don't want to get bullied around , I would need nuclear as well, So unless the big boys start, or should I say stick, to downsizing, and cutting back their arsenal of nuclear weapons, than other countries, namely Korea, Iran etc.... will rightfully feel like "if they can have them, so can we " So only solution, no nukes whatsoever
Posted by: sunster | January 04, 2007 at 07:45
once again i agree with "some" of what mr Fisk
says,and did you know iran will full nucler capabilities in 2 months,so do you think we should stop them or let them finish making it?
Posted by: veritas | January 04, 2007 at 03:35
Pinochet comes to mind, but he just died, then there's the mess building up again in Haiti
Posted by: sunster | January 02, 2007 at 22:41
True - but then again...he is not the only one that has blood on his hands on behalf of the US.
Posted by: Frederique | January 02, 2007 at 15:21