Centerfield

He would probably say "Hmmm, this Koran doesn't leave much room for diplomacy, does it?"

Justin: I think your comment is way off-the-mark. The Koran has provided spiritual nourishment for hundreds of millions for many years. Don't judge the many for the abuse of a few. Any religion can be twisted to serve the selfish ends of a few.

I don't wish to offend, but I had to say that.

Fair enough. As soon as some radical Christian, or Jew, or anybody else kills 3000 people in the name of God, I'll be the first to condemn that religion as well.

Come on you guys, stay on topic.

Do you really think the 50 year old comments and actions of IKE have much significance today?

He was talking about a war with an empire that we could not destroy without ourselves being destroyed. They were also no more eager to commit suicide than we were.

In the 1950's, only one or two nations posed a serious threat to us. Small countries simply could not threaten us. Today, WMD proliferation changes the equation.

Diplomacy is of limited use in dealing with fanatical organizations.

Are you suggesting that the US is trying to achieve absolute security? or is trying to do it with arms alone? or without allies?

From the very beginning, the US has been enlisting allies to fight this war. Many are cooperating in various ways, not just with military arms.

Remember that in 1955 we'd just signed a ceasefire in Korea the year before, that appeared unstable from day one. Ike had come into the Oval Office on the promise to get us out of Korea. The American public was sick of "unwinnable Asian land wars", and a foray into China a year later did not have public support.

Furthermore, Russia and China had an alliance which presumed that an attack on China would also be answered by Russia. This applied to nuclear as well as conventional arms. This was the agreement that caused Truman to reel in MacArthur when the dear general wanted to stop the November 1950 entry of the Chinese into the Korean war by nuking China.

Recall too, that Soviet and US troops faced each other across the streets of Berlin, and the Soviets needed only the slightest of provocations to move.

The Europeans, several of whom had supplied troops for the Korean conflict, generally saw the worsening Cold War as demanding more focus at home.

In the historical sense, this is apples versus oranges comparison.

Did Saddam send his WMD's to Sinochem in the PRC?

The above question is a logical one considering both what we know and what we do not know!

What we know-
1) The PRC was the leading supplier of weapons to Saddam.
2)China National Chemical Import & Export Corporation
(Sinochem) a formerly state owned firm is the PRC's
largest chemical supplier and trading company.
3)We have documentary evidence proving that Sinochem
was trying to collect a US$4.2 Billion pre-Gulf War debt
from Saddam.
4) The Sinochem joint-venture's, Sinohawk (Overseas) Ltd.,
managing director told me in 1996 that Sinochem had supplied Saddam with the material that caused Gulf War
Syndrome.
5) We know that a Sinochem Director denied that the joint-
venture, Sinohawk, ever existed, even though we have evidence to the contrary and two U.S. judges found that it
does.
6) The PRC's Embassy in Baghdad was kept open throughout the Gulf War and the Asian Wall Street Journal
Stated that the Saddam/ Sinochem trade continued well
after the war's end.

What we do not know-
1) What exactly did Saddam buy from Sinochem/PRC
for US$4.2 Billion?
2) Why is Sinochem offering no explanation of the details
of their trade with Saddam?
3)Did Saddam send or return WMD's to Sinochem/PRC
in lieu of debt repayment?
and
4)Is there too much pressure on the media for an in-depth
investigation to take place?

Sincerely,

Michael B. Hickland
CEO
Global Healthcare Technologies, Inc.