Buying american was in fact a requirement for us to get into NATO. Also desrtoying soviet rockets we had, etc.
Do you have any idea how much you hurt your case with something as simple as the selection of your source? I can take an unconvential approach at this one: To help my case I would like you to read these articles against the US: This One This One Some fine quotes from your own source: I am going to let those sources speak for themselves in the same way that a person who says "I am a loser" speaks for himself. Your argument is to be held liable for the sources it uses. One of your articles said this: "Our current policy of arming unstable regimes could have similarly disastrous consequences, with U.S.-supplied weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, insurgents, or hostile governments," the report said. This is exactly what I was addressing when I said this: You are playing into my statement that the US is learning to not trust the rest of the world. Is the US responsible when a foreign country sells American weapons to a terrorist organization? Is the original owner of a car responsible when he sells it to a person who uses it to deliberately kill a pedestrian? You imply that the United States is responsible for the actions of the entire world. This is flattering, but untrue. About your "conspiracy" link, consider this. If the site claims that Watergate was censored, then how are they able to report about it?
You are assuming that if France isn't threatened by a nation, the nation is not hostile. France was not threatened by the Palestinians, France even befriended Yasser Arafat. This is again a representation of the naive French view of world affairs. The French knew that Argentina under Videla was a threat to British interests, but British people are not French people, so the sale of weapons to Argentina was no concern of France.
France has exported nuclear materials to hostile countries. The US has not done so. If France is in the same league as Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and China, then I would hardly say that the US is as guilty as France is.
Squirl... Of course I do... But I don't try to sound as derogatory as you do when I spot it I'm still amused by your "Tooth-fairy and Santa claus" link... As for my sources... tell me squirl... did you read the fine print on top of the articles I've posted? Sure, that geocities site wasn't worth much, ergo, I didn't use anything from it. I find it a direct insult that you think I'd be as stupid as to post a news bulletin that was aired by an Iranian propaganda network. BUT, this doesn't apply to my source. CommonDreams newscenter forwards news... It doesn't write it. The article I linked to was originally published in the Boston Globe on Tuesday, January 14, 2003. I don't think I need to reply to your comments on your own linked articles? Or are you rather directly calling me a loser? Because it would seem that you're starting to aim for the man instead of for the ball (I think you pointing that out, without watching the source, is kind of worse than the pot calling the kettle black, it's the black pot calling a white kettle black...) Is it? You didn't understand that the general tone of the article was that the US of A was selling weapons to countries and regimes that are unproven by your own governments criterium? Its kind of unsporty to read/quote only the articles that suit your greater goal Eh? In that source they're talking about the US Govt. selling weapons to those countries themselves. Tell me, when you sold weapons to Osama Bin-Laden when he was fighting for the freedom in Afghanistan (or what was he fighting for again?), when he was already a terrorist in the strict sense of the word, did you not sell weapons to a terrorist? You sold weapons to more than one nation. The US of A has the tendancy to supply weapons to poltically unstable groups/nations only to see those groups/nations switch sides only a year later on. It's not because those weapons were sold to them years ago that they aren't sold by you. The internet's filled with credible sources wondering about the ethics behind the US's arms exportation. Eh? Squirl, you're familiar with the internet aren't you? Then I guess you already know the answer. How would you recognise censorship? If something happens, and every news is effectively blocked out, how are you going to know it happened unless you are a witness yourself? In this case it's not that they couldn't find info (like in most cases, verbal communication usually can spread the news, here it was the media though), it's rather that the difference in info was very odd. The mass media downplayed the issue it seems. BTW, funny you should mention that exact quote, as it comes for a professor emeritus at the california state university in sonoma, whose word is surely more credible than yours <Z>
Eh? You're against Palestina as well now? It's really starting to seem Squirl and the US of A against the rest of the world hmm? French's naieve view of world affairs? If you ask me the US has made more severe diplomatical mistakes in the recent past than France. In fact, I'm starting to wonder what your crusade against France is all about? Your line of thinking seems very much like the author of this site. When the US sold F-16's to Pakistan they didn't consider the possibility they were to use these against India? Is India a hostile nation? In your reasoning a nation can be one of two things, hostile or friendly. What about neutral? Argentina was neutral towards France, France was neutral towards Argentina. When Argentina - more to draw away the attention from internal problems than anything else - invaded the Falkland islands, how could France have known? This could go on and on and on and on... you would still look for arguments, words, sources to suit your ends. I quite frankly simply don't care about how you feel towards France. I'm not even French myself. It's just so typical. If you want to live in a cocoon where you can enjoy 'voir la vie/les choses en rose' so be it (coincidence I didn't find a better way of saying it than using a French saying). There's nothing wrong with being a bit sceptical towards your own nation, but it's just plain arrogant to point a finger at the whole wide world's errors when you're full of sin yourself and only too ashamed to acknowledge it. <Z>
Did France try to get multiple dictators in power in South America? The US did more harm to South America than France did. On a sidenote, while France was building a nuclear reactor in Iraq the US was supplying arms to help Saddam in his war mongering efforts against Iran. Conclusion? If France was selling it to the same country as the US... and the US didn't think it was hostile back then... then why do you say it sold nuclear materials to hostile countries? <Z>
americain role in helping country is not new "a enemy on my enemy is the friend" a shame at america for helping stalinn defeat nazi's, stalinn was a brutal man! of course i am making on a joke when i say this so if america is the stupid one for helping to win iran then america is also the stupid for help at russia
Why the fuck is all east europe going to nato..umm already in it? You got just rid of warsaw pact, need for new master? Wouldn't it be better to ally with your neighbours than fight wars for US of A and support their armament industry?
Considering most of your sources come from the 'CIA factbook', this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. The CIA are hardly the most independent news providers around... As I said above... Of course it is. It is fucking arms and weapons we are talking about, NOT a car. You dont buy a car to kill someone, even though it is capable of it. But you do buy weapons to kill people, and when you are selling items such as this to rogue states, you have a moral obligation to ensure it is being used correctly. But the thing is, the US doesnt give a fuck how they are used, until it comes back to bite them. The same way that everyone finds out about scandals - when the heat dies down and the people responsible have a lot less to lose. I rust that atricle much more than I trust your 'assumptions' - they clearly stated in it that they went back and checked the media from that time - did you? What about Monsanto? Did you know about that?
Broz, do you really believe all you write? A country promotes nuclear energy to other country then and ONLY then, if it takes responsibility of a worked-out fuel. Why? Because it takes care of Plutonium which is much more easier to extract than U-235. If it doesn't, it promotes not new power source, but the Nuke.
O.K. Squirl, you are right. USA is good or better lets say holy and the rest of the world, especially Europe is evil. The 747 is the best greatest, fastest, nicest, cheapest plane in the world. The only country, which know the right way is the USA. Amerika rules the world. Wich you a nice day. Cu Flubby
Are you saying that France should have sold also the fuel for the nuclear plants? No way, if i sell a car i don't need to sell the fuel for that car for the rest of my life. I believe what i said before, that France made it (of course as a business too) to try to help a so needed people as was the Iraqi. The problem was Saddam (btw, he never made a nuclear weapon), not France
