There clearly is inconsistency, IMO, that points to a hidden agenda.
Obviously.
The hidden agenda is that much of the Islamic world is assumed by many to be higher risk for the destructive use of these weapons.
That is no "hidden agenda" <g>
The hidden agenda is "OIL", Fred.
I realize you don't want to face this obvious, and in fact GLARING "hidden agenda". However, there is no way around it. Bush and his administration are all oil people. He was supported financially by oil people in Texas. Iraq has one of the world's largest reserves that are ALSO extremely cheap to extract. Do you think all this is a coincidence?
I also feel that is the hidden agenda is slowing Turkey's entrance into the Common Market.
Turkey is already in Customs Union ("Common Market") with the EU.
Its entrance into EU is prevented, first and foremost, by the fact that economically it is a decade away from conforming with Copenhagen criteria, both economically and as regards human rights.
I feel you will find it very difficult to argue that Turkey's entrance into the EU is hindered in some way by assumptions of liason with the "Islamic world" that makes Turkey more dangerous regarding weapons of mass destruction, as I think you are alleging below:
The hidden agenda is that much of the Islamic world is assumed by many to be higher risk for the destructive use of these weapons. I also feel that is the hidden agenda is slowing Turkey's entrance into the Common Market.
Given Halabja, Hama, the killing of thousands of Algerians by the Muslim brotherhood, and many attacks similar to those conducted in the West years ago (in fact, in 1937-'45), these fears are not without basis. Most of the Islamic governments are not as stable as those of the west.
Are you trying to say that Turkey, a SECULAR country with democratic organizations and a western law system since its inception in early 1920s, where people of all religions live as they please, is run by an "Islamic government"? Really, Fred...
. I agree with the post you cited that the US encouraged Saddam against Iran. Pinochet against Allende, etc.
That is an understatement if I ever saw one <g>, unless your definition of "encourage" is providing a country with chemical & biological weapons (in Iraq's case), and installing a dictator (in place of the democratically elected government of Chile) that tortured and "lost" so many of his own people.
Take a look at the links below for a taste of Pinochet's rule:
guardian.co.uk
My main thrust is that I want the Saddam's of the world to know they are accountable to international law
Great. How about America sets an example FIRST - no more of this "If UN does not agree, we will invade Iraq anyway", for example? International law DOES say, after all, that legitimate use of such force resides with the UN and the UN only.
I think the agenda of Saddam's threat to the world deflects attention from his crimes.
What "threat to the world"??? What has he done that threatened anyone in recent past? (Put aside your concern for Israel, for a minute). |
