Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
How about the French who provided them with technology and material to build a nuclear reactor (which Israel so kindly took care of for us in the early 90's)? How about the replacement parts for their *Mirage* fighter jets sold to them while there was an international embargo?
Russian companies sold them the equipment that they used to use to manufacture chem/bio weapons. Where do you think the T-72 tanks came from? They were purchased *after* Gulf War I.
Comparing the US to those two is apples to oranges. We're also cleaning up this mess that we helped to create (not by ourselves though). I will not be one bit surprised to see find that France and Russia have known about the chem/bio weapons all along and have been worried that the rest of the world would find out (pure speculation on my part but not too far-fetched).
|
Considering that we still have no proof of chemical or biological weapons, I think you're jumping the gun a bit on that last point.
As for comparing apples to oranges, I don't really think so. Russia and France gave weapons to Iraq? So did we. Either way, those weapons were used in similar fashions. Not one of the three countries is blameless in its role in "oppressing the Iraqi people," as you mentioned before, and whether the weapons were handed over before or after the Gulf War doesn't mean they were any less (or more) "oppressive." I don't think that's a legitimate reason to keep Russia or France out of Iraq.
I think a far more reasonable point is simply that they didn't want to get involved when there was risk, so why should they be allowed to get involved after the risk is gone? You don't put something in, you shouldn't get anything out.