Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (200129)	8/29/2006 10:26:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You argued that we provided them with chemical weapons. Even if what we actually did was as bad as supplying them with the weapons (and it wasn't) you would still not be making a logical argument. See en.wikipedia.org for a description of what you are doing. Actually the chopper situation gets much worse. After the Gulf War the 'generals' gathered in a tent and hammered out the agreement. The Iraqis, rather offhandedly asked if they could use choppers and the Americans apparently offhandedly said yes. The Iraqis then asked if they could used armed choppers and, I think it was Schwarzkopf striding out of the tent, said yes. Yes that wasn't exactly wise, but on the other hand it not only is not providing them with chemical weapons, it also isn't morally equivilent, not even remotely close. Its a stupid mistake on our government's part not an attrocity that it supported.