You forgot the biggest one, Russia. And most of those arms trades are illegal. Saying that the EU armed militias in congo is not accurate.
Yes I thought of the Russian one after I made the post. I'm not saying the EU directly, only countries in the EU who have companies based in their countries and sellers. I don;t care if it is illegal or not. product does not get manufactured and shipped without someone in authority knowing about it.
this war was not necessary to 'disarm' iraq, the adminstration knew this, and the UN Security Council did (not) agree that war was necessary.
So it was part of the puch, if by push you mean propaganda.
How would war being a necessity have a damned thing to do with disarmament being an SC matter and the Bush administration using disarmament (the SC matter) as a reason for war?
Not once did I say the SC approved it or that war was an SC action, but you pounced on it as if I did and instead of acknowledging that you read what you wanted rather than what was there you are being fatuous and blatantly so.
Quote:
No, but in this case the situation desperately needs it. The peacekeepers are dramatically outnumbered and have been confined to their overcrowded compound.
Would you apply this logic that the anti-war nations weren't friends of the Iraqi people? Or is there a nice double-standard there?
Comments
Originally posted by giant
You forgot the biggest one, Russia. And most of those arms trades are illegal. Saying that the EU armed militias in congo is not accurate.
Yes I thought of the Russian one after I made the post. I'm not saying the EU directly, only countries in the EU who have companies based in their countries and sellers. I don;t care if it is illegal or not. product does not get manufactured and shipped without someone in authority knowing about it.
this war was not necessary to 'disarm' iraq, the adminstration knew this, and the UN Security Council did (not) agree that war was necessary.
So it was part of the puch, if by push you mean propaganda.
How would war being a necessity have a damned thing to do with disarmament being an SC matter and the Bush administration using disarmament (the SC matter) as a reason for war?
Not once did I say the SC approved it or that war was an SC action, but you pounced on it as if I did and instead of acknowledging that you read what you wanted rather than what was there you are being fatuous and blatantly so.
No, but in this case the situation desperately needs it. The peacekeepers are dramatically outnumbered and have been confined to their overcrowded compound.
Would you apply this logic that the anti-war nations weren't friends of the Iraqi people? Or is there a nice double-standard there?