Poll-Most Dangerous Country. - Page 5

View Poll Results :Which country do you see as the most threatning to world peace and democracy?
Iran 4 28.57%
Syria 0 0%
North Korea 5 35.71%
China 4 28.57%
USA 1 7.14%
Israel 0 0%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

July 19th, 2004  
Italian Guy
Good post, man.
Oh I'm so sick of these idealistic ...ideas
July 19th, 2004  
Originally Posted by sherman105
LOL. Hmmm....Lets see....So the world would be a better place with out the US? Hmm, so basically, you say that WWII should have been won by the Axis? Maybe you think the USSR should have won the cold war? Where do you think Europe would be today if the US dident back it up finnancially after WWII? US a threat to world peace? Well, if peace means that tirans get to do what they want while the democracys do nothing, than the US is a major threat, and I hope it will continue to be a threat to this foolish notion that if we ignore evil it wont come after us.
America sold things to the European countries in WWII, as did many other countries, America was NOT the sole supporter of the Axis during WWI and the Allies during WWII. That war could not have been won without America's "timely" entry at the end of the war, but could not have been won with only America in the war. So don't say things like that.

Secondly, if America wasn't there during the cold war, the land would have been seperated differently, and someone else would have opposed them. (you can disregard this if you don't agree, it's just my view)

Thirdly, America is not the only country that's democratic, and hell, Democracie wasn't a US invention and is not solely US upheld. There are many other countries that are democratic.

Fourth, if peace means letting America install dictators and tyrants when it wants, and then blasting them away when they step out of line. . .

Fifth, thanks. I hadn't done something like this in a while.
July 20th, 2004  
GA, you forgot to provide proof that the US sold WMDs to Hussein. Oh, and no links to independent websites.
July 20th, 2004  
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
GA, you forgot to provide proof that the US sold WMDs to Hussein. Oh, and no links to independent websites.
I was going against Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. . . ?
July 20th, 2004  
Disregard GA, I got you confused with eTboy.
July 20th, 2004  
Well, GADefence, your welcomed.

As to the matter at hand, the US joined WWII 1941, when the Axis was winning. Its support with hardware before that was huge, and its acctuall fighting roles in single handadlty defeting the Japanese and forming the bulk of the forces to invade normandy in 1944 are immense. An invasion of Normandy would have been impossible with the US, allowing the German army to give the eastern front immense resourses. But thats off-toppic.
America was the only power strong enough to stop the USSR after WWII, thats a fact.
The USA did not invent democracy but it seems that lately it is the only one willing to be its sword and shield(i know, i know, but i just like that phrase.).
Saddam was not installed by the US, though he was supported by it shortly. At the time Saddam was a good option when compared to those maniacs from Iran.
July 23rd, 2004  

Topic: Scraping out proof of weapons sales to Iraq

Im glad you asked me to find proff because everytime I go searching on the internet I learn something new. Hers waht I got so far, Im nto giving up on it yet. I may write to the UN to get the actual list of suppliers. These are not the most straight forward links, so "sigh", you may have to read a little. I will pull out the parts of most importance for your veiwing conveneince following the link.


Foreign involvement in the Iraqi CBW programme
It is not possible to make definite judgements concerning all of the allegations
made before and during the Gulf War about the assistance provided by other
countries to Iraq’s CW and BW programme.89 Before the Gulf War began, at
least 20 countries were accused of involvement in building up the technological
basis for different Iraqi weapon programmes, particularly the CW programme.
90 Much information came to light about German companies, and
officials in the Federal Economics Ministry investigated approximately 110
German firms on suspicion of violation of the embargo against Iraq. Nine of
them are under criminal investigation.91 Other countries, among them the UK
and the USA,92 were also accused of supporting the Iraqi CBW programme by
the sale of chemicals and technology. In the UK it was discovered that
chemicals on the Australia Group’s control list had been sold to Iraq from
1988 to October 1990.93
During the second UNSCOM investigation in Iraq in August, a list was
compiled of companies which had supplied technology to the Iraqi CBW programme.
According to August press reports, 207 companies from 21 countries
were involved in the buildup of Iraq’s CW capability.94 The list was not
released, but governments can obtain information on the involvement of companies
from their own country upon special request to the UN.95 The Inter-
86 ‘Report called “completely false”’, LD0602144891, Tripoli, JANA, 1415 GMT, 6 Feb. 1991 (in
Arabic), in FBIS-NES-91-027, 8 Feb. 1991, p. 9.
87 Reuters, ‘Giftgas-Produktion bestritten’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 9 Mar. 1991, p. 2.
88 Reuters, ‘Bald Medikamente aus Rabta?’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 1 Mar. 1991, p. 2.
89 SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 1991 (note 3), pp. 88–89.
90 Cordesman, A. H., Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East (Brassey’s: London, 1991),
pp. 64–65.
91 Associated Press, ‘Crackdown on Germans aiding Iraq’, International Herald Tribune, 7 Feb. 1991,
p. 3; Reuters, ‘Germans open embargo inquiry’, International Herald Tribune, 12 Feb. 1991, p. 4;
Donkin, R. et al., ‘A country that turned a blind eye’, Financial Times, 25 Mar. 1991, p. 20.
92 Wines, M., ‘U.S. tells of prewar technology sales to Iraq worth $500 million’, New York Times,12 Mar. 1991, p. A6; Friedman, A. et al., ‘The sinister alchemy of the Iraqi “doctor”’, Financial Times,
3 Mar. 1991, p. 4; Friedman, A. and Barber, L., ‘US cyanide shipped to Iraq despite warnings to CIA’,Financial Times, 3 July 1991, p. 1.
93 The Australia Group is a group which meets semi-annually to discuss which chemicals ought to be
subject to various regulatory measures. Mullin, J., ‘UK firms sent Iraq chemicals’, The Guardian,
29 July 1991, p. 1; Exports to Iraq: Memoranda of Evidence, House of Commons, Session 1990–91 (Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, 17 July 1991); Wilkie, T., ‘Iraq export row “due to ignorance of
statistics”’, The Independent, 8 Aug. 1991, p. 2.
94 ‘The UN should name names’, The Independent, 1 Aug 1991, p. 18; Pfäffle, W., ‘UNO erstellt Liste
westlicher Lieferanten’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, no. 182 (8 Aug. 1991), p. 6.
95 DPA, Associated Press, AFP, ‘UNO soll deutsche Firmen nennen’, Süddeutsche Zeitung,
16 Aug. 1991, p. 8.
national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also reported on the support given
the Iraqi nuclear programme by foreign companies.96




I know you said no alternative news sources but these pages link to what you would consider credible sources.




I think this one is the best it has its claims backed up by articles and repots that you can look up


Anyway have fun reading, Ill keep looking.

July 24th, 2004  
You seem to be supplying a lot of information on various companies, various chemicals, technology, research materials/samples, and pesticides ... but nothing on actual "WMDs" nor any ties to the US government making those sales.

Just because I sell you some wire, doesn't mean I sold you a bomb.
July 24th, 2004  

Topic: I disagree

Thats like saying we sold them heavy water or enriched plutonium but we didnt make the nuke for them.
July 24th, 2004  

Topic: Re: I disagree

Originally Posted by eTboy
Thats like saying we sold them heavy water or enriched plutonium but we didnt make the nuke for them.
No it isn't, firstly .. heavy water is a bit more limited in scope (although, it has various other uses) compared to chemicals, or anthrax samples meant for research. Secondly, a country such as Iraq could only do so much with heavy water, the intent of the sale would be a bit more obvious, not so with the items sold to Iraq.