I'm reposting this for you Perception, in case you missed it a few pages back:
US lets N. Korea get nuclear data
Transfer pact stays in effect
By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 3/7/2003 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has not suspended or revoked the authority of Westinghouse Co. to transfer documents related to nuclear technology to North Korea, despite the fact that the Asian nation has admitted that it violated terms of a nonproliferation agreement it signed with Washington in 1994, US Department of Energy documents show.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/066/nation/US_lets_N_Korea_get_nuclear_data+.shtml
With this "eye-catcher" -
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld -
I just want to re-call the National Security Archive with this link
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq
Walter
You will be Rummies friend for life.............
well yeah Walter but it was a great business deal, we sold to both sides of that little war at the same time.
Dys
No doubt you have proof of that claim---remember the Ayatolah would not be considered a favorite business partner.
I'm confused as well, since Rumsfeld visited on this journey his German relatives(, who don't want to see him now any more).
Walter
I somehow believe he didn't mind "burning those bridges"
perception, most of us remember it as Iran/Contra but you know Reagan forgot, perhaps you did as well.
Tartarin and Walter.
As if we needed reminding that it's business as usual--Westinghouse in Korea and Rummie in Iraq.
I'm getting depressed, but thanks for the links anyway.
Dys
Oh yeah now I remember----Iran was holding our hostages. That was when Oliver North got burned for lying to congress-----those same honorable gentlemen who lie on a regular basis but call it politics......................
BTW---I believe Oliver North did the honorable thing----I'm sure you disaggree with me on that also.
HofT, were you (are you?) a pilot? My life-long dream.
sumac, I am happy to see you with us again. perception says that you came down on the right side of the fence. Well, yes, the "right" side. But I thought this was an open forum, with all listening and learning from each other. Are we not an open-minded group, this long-lived all-night party? Are we so polarized that some are left and some are right -- or is it that some are anti and some are for? That is a ridiculous concept to me, in this controversy and in this time in the world.
There was an international forum this morning on NPR, sponsored by the BBC, titled What is a Just War? It was marvelous, well moderated and controlled, with views from every possible side. Why are our leaders not sitting down at a table and doing this?
Some are really that polarized, Kara, others are still listening, though maybe discarding some of the obvious hype from both extremes. Accepting a part of someone's position without being seen to give away an entire position is still somewhat more likley here than on other forums we can both remember.
This easy going moderate from Canada (greatest nation in North America by far) is ill at ease with the extreme positions voiced by those who hold differing views from my very thoughtful ones.
To exactly which easy going moderate might one be referring to here?
nice try perception however; The tangled U.S. foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald REAGAN confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He stated that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to obtain release of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later acknowledged that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap). Outcry against dealings with a hostile Iran was widespread. Later in November, Att. Gen. Edwin Meese discovered that some of the arms profits had been diverted to aid the Nicaraguan "contra" rebels--at a time when Congress had prohibited such aid. An independent special prosecutor, former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh, was appointed to probe the activities of persons involved in the arms sale or contra aid or both, including marine Lt. Col. Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) staff.
Reagan appointed a review board headed by former Republican senator John Tower. The Tower Commission's report in February 1987 criticized the president's passive management style. In a nationally televised address on March 4, Reagan accepted that judgment without serious disagreement.
LOL, Roger. It is surely our friend blatham who is the moderate. I, too, am a moderate. As are X X X and X. We are all the most moderate of moderates.
Wilso and Roger, I have been plain spoken that I am, a priori, against war. But I am willing to listen. And I have pondered every post here. I have listened to our president, and others in the administration, in their most articulate modes. I am a secondary citizen of Britain, and I have listened to Tony Blair. Essentially and primarily, I am a citizen of the US and a believer in individual freedom which we are uncommonly lucky to have and which is not possible or available to most people on this earth. But, in this current crisis, I am listening to the world, too. The world that we are a part of. I feel at this moment quite alone, as an American citizen who believes that we are making the biggest mistake in our country's history.
Roger
Good post--yes some of us are polarized and that goes for you also Kara with all due respect since you are the one that brought it up.
I have spent considerable time attempting to understand and analyze the motives of both sides of this interesting debate.
On the one hand we have the side that displays mostly anti-Bush animosity which of course started with the 2000 election. Their man Gore lost---but he didn't just lose----the election was stolen from him. That is cause for much self righteous indignation so after that he was fair game for any of the lowest crudest insults---not only about his policies but his integrety, his motives, his intelligence,you name it. The insults inflamed Bush supporters and thus the polarization became very apparent. Both sides became deeply entrenched. Over the months I have watched many good writers display logical arguments with excellent supporting evidence only to draw ridicule and invective from the other side.
During those past few months I have witnessed one personadmit to bing swayed by any of the presented arguments---Sumac was on the fence and finally bounced off the fence and in my view landed on the "right side" or should I say on the "correct side.
Now according to Kara as long as we are cordially discussing issues and the conclusions do not disrupt her world view everything is lovely----but as soon as lines are drawn toward the other direction suddenly we are "POLARIZED".
Such is the world of politics----no disrespect intended Kara.
Good job Dys---it would appear your statements are very close to reality. Does that justify your statement that we sold to both sides? If Iran had not provoked the situation by taking hostages there would have been no sales to Iran. You imply it was just business as usual----quite wrong I believe.
