I wonder...were rogue arms dealers responsible for this, or was it official Russian policy? Each new news story seems to indicate the latter.
To: SJackson; Askel5; Just mythoughts
To: TapTheSource
"By denying him new weapons and the means to modernize and service the weapons he already had, the UN intended to prevent him from carrying out acts of aggression against other countries and his own population."The UN had no such intention, ever, at any time.
3 posted on
10/29/2004 10:00:21 AM PDT by
Bahbah
(Proud member of the pajamahadeen)
To: TapTheSource
The missing explosives play right into this story, as well. If we resolved to prevent Saddam from possessing deadly weapons, than why in the hell did the UN allow these 1000's of tons of explosives to remain in Iraq. Even worse, instead of destroying them, they allowed them to be stored, so Saddam could have access to them as dual-use material.
5 posted on
10/29/2004 10:06:21 AM PDT by
cwb
(Only a Democrat could think that "truth" is partisan.)
To: TapTheSource
"The sanctions were working! The sanctions were working!
I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message."
9 posted on
10/29/2004 10:42:25 AM PDT by
talleyman
(A foreign leader told me on his deathbed: "Kerry is a liar - he just makes stuff up...")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson