Re: 17,000 deaths a year from the cold

"George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<snip>>
> I understand this.  But to say that because we did this that we then
> directly supported the use of chemical weapons in the war is a stretch, to
> say the least.

The U.S. had to be aware of the use to which their shipments and inteligence
were being pout. And I said that they supported Iraq in the war. I did not
say the supported use of chemical weapons. Both Iran and Iraq were assisted
to some degree *despite* the use of CWB by both sides.

<snip>
> >
> >
> > The point is what the above says about you. You make allegations and
> claims
> > that you cannot back up and stand by them without fact or evidence. You
> are
> > obviously in some sort of religious crisis so I will leave you with your
> > 'dogma'.
> >
>
> So, you are saying that Saddam Hussein was a saint?

One more example of your creative non-sequitors.  I can't think of one
leader of any country that I would term "a saint". One has to make too many
conmpromises.


> Are you suggesting that
> he didn't do the things he is accused of,

I am suggesting that, with the prevalence of propaganda produced to
"justify" the invasion, and the number of untrue allegations that are
observed, that a fair assessment must wait on impartial evidence.

> despite the tons of documentation of his atrocities?

I have found no documentation of such. Allegations are NOT documentation.

> Do you think the tons of documents (2 million at last
> count) were all made up, and therefore do not constitute evidence?

So you are just 'weighing' the "evidence" without inspection? How unjust.
How about if I pick up a pile of CIA documents using fredom of information
and when I have a few tons of "evidence" I can use them to claim that Bush
is a baby killer? After all, I have 'tons of evidence'...

The point is that, so far, I have heard of no solid physical evidence of
anything that would constitute a direct crime. Nor would such proof
constitute a 'pretext' for war if you had something. Criminal matters are a
domestic, not international legal matter, and heads of state are typically
immune from matters which involve the running of the country, such as
suppressing rebellion, or prosecuting a war.

> Do you also think Hitler was a good boy?

On what basis? We have the proof of genocide(Jews) in his case. Daschau,
Auchwitz, etc cannot  be termed "mere assertions". They are well established
physical evidence. Although he might get off on an insanity plea if he
hadn't offed himself.
>
>