An Indian newspaper columnist on hypocrisy in war

Anonymous

Ofcourse that is what democracy is about. It means that a large number of the people in a country have to accept it, before a leader can go out and apologize. It is not that the leader made a unilateral decision to do so. In politics, you see too many alliances of opportunity. Even with the best of motives, to stay on a just, ethical and moral track requires great people. But, it is up to the general public to choose them, and also reprimand them when they go wrong. If, we as a nation fail to do that; we have to assume responsibility for all the actions that our governments do.

Anonymous

I would not go as far as that. :-) My problem with USA is that given the time, they show all inclination to rectify that record. They never acknowledge their mistakes; but nations rarely ever. I am neutral on this. I am not a fan of US, neither do I have any hatred. But, I sure hope that they would promote the same core values outside US, that they promote inside US; which has not always been the case Thomas

Brit

There's actually nothing terribly damaging in the report. The summary is: This Chilean arms manufacturer [shown on screen] sold Saddam deadly cluster bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes. Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. - "with technical assistance from US companies" != the US approved their sale to Iraq - "American computer technology to go to Iraq" != military hardware - notably the US approved the sale of Bell helicopters after Iraq promised they would only be used for civilian purposes - you can hint that the US was naive, but these weren't combat helicopters. For the last three years Sarkis Soghanalian has been under a federal indictment for--among other things--conspiring to sell 300 American-built Hughes combat helicopters to Iraq. Interesting that he's under arrest for selling arms - which indicates that the US isn't intending to sell arms to Iraq. Further, it is telling that he was indicted in 1988 - thus this is NOT connected to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Rather, in 1988, the US was putting people in jail for selling arms to Iraq. Isn't that point telling? One has to wonder: if he was acting as a middleman with the US consent, as he claims, why was he indicted in 1988 by the US government for doing what he says the US knew about? Despite the title of the article and the short summary at the beginning, Sarkis Soghanalian never actually said anything to confirm the title of the article nor the summary - which was spoken by Mr. Moody, but never actually backed up with evidence. As my previous links show, Iraq is armed with other people's weapons - Russian, Chinese, French, Austrian. Iraq's Air Force[^] Iraq's Ground Forces[^] Run through the list and find how many of the Iraqi military's armaments are US-built. Then comp

Chris Losinger

Brit wrote: As my previous links show, Iraq is armed with other people's weapons - Russian, Chinese, French, Austrian. and as my link shows, Iraq has (or at least had) American weapons (and American anthrax and American botulinnin, and American chemicals). and, from the 60 mins interview: "I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. so, at least one person involved think the US govt was fully aware and even complicit. i'm not claiming the same things as the journalist you're railing against, so you can relax a bit. but don't go claiming the US (wehther via private citizens or through govt. approved bio/chem sales) has given no military help to Iraq. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Paul Watson

Thomas, the guy was saying that America is good or at least less evil. Through his convoluted English he said that America could destroy cities, but it is not or is at least minimizing what it can do. Nice change for an Anonymous poster don't you think?

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

Roger Wright

Paul Watson wrote: Nice change for an Anonymous poster don't you think? Indeed! Anon is usually a cowardly troller; nice to see that she's cleaned up her act a bit!:-D "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom

Roger Wright

You write sensibly, despite the difficulty you're having with English. Why not join us, become a member - we'd love to have you among our membership. Welcome to CodeProject, a land of diverse views of life, and invaluable resources... Join us; your English will improve, and our understanding of your land will grow.:) Anonymous wrote: USA could easily win war destroy cities. It do not do it due to their more good heart A good point. The people we have in Iraq are doing all that they can, and exposing themselves to great risk by doing so, to minimize the harm they cause to innocent civilians. We could easily take Baghdad, but it would be wrong for us to do so the easy way. So many innocents would be harmed - we would, as a nation, suffer great pain if we did not do all that we can do to protect the people of Iraq. Many American and British lives will be lost because it is not acceptable to our people to simply destroy the town - we can, with minimal effort, but it would be impossible to live with our collective conscience if we chose to follow that route. The world press depicts us as Imperialist conquerers - no American I've ever met has any aspirations to be an aggressor, and none have any imperial ambitions. We really are a nation of isolationists, and would much rather not be bothered by the rest of you. But we have a strong moral sense that makes us want to meddle when we see great injustice being done to people in other places. The barbaric abuses of the Hussein regime against their own people and their generally peaceful neighbors make us forget our isolationist yearnings - we want all the people of the world to enjoy the freedom to choose their own fate - so we get involved in things we, perhaps, should not. Anyway, I got distracted... sorry. Welcome to the fray, and I for one, appreciate a voice of sanity. Join us, and contribute to the fracas we enjoy here!:-D "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom

Michael A Barnhart

Roger Wright wrote: You write sensibly, despite the difficulty you're having with English. Why not join us, become a member - we'd love to have you among our membership. Welcome to CodeProject, a land of diverse views of life, and invaluable resources... Join us; your English will improve, and our understanding of your land will grow. I agree with your offer. Well said. Depending on where he/she is from it may be difficult to accept though. ""

Bedri Egrilmez

Have you read that? Maybe the guilt belongs not to the countries who legally sold some conventional weapons, but to the one who supplied the chemicals.

Brit

Hmmmm you make it sound like the US was Iraq's chemical arms dealer. This, of course, is false. I understand your trying to pin the blame on the US because you want to grind an axe, but the US was guilty of looking the other way (just as a majority of nations did - and there are a LOT of nations which backed Iraq Map[^] ). I'm sure US companies had supplied dual-use chemical precursors to Iraq, but to say that the US was "the one who supplied the chemicals" is just your own imagination. From your source: Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. Even further, the US' policy towards Iraq comes as little surprise when this fact is revealed: "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation." These sources should raise some doubts about the idea that the US "the one" who supplied the chemicals: Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press. http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html[