Do the writers for the Guardian live in a parallel universe?
Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned yesterday that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.
This writer for the U.K. Guardian doesn't seem to see the difference between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq having chemical weapons and the U.S. having chemical weapons. They quote scientists who think it's a paradox that the U.S. is developing such weapons at a time when it is proposing military action against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is breaking international treaties.
Oh, now I understand what the planned Iraq offensive is all about. Silly me, I though it was about Iraq supporting and promoting terrorism and threatening the lives and the freedom of millions of people.
The Guardian typically quotes the scientists as saying that it is the U.S.'s fault that the Iraqis are developing chemical weapons in the first place. The U.S. and the British apparently encouraged them and showed them the way. They were just following the U.S. and the British lead. They couldn’t help themselves, the poor dears.
I notice they don't say if it was the U.S.'s fault the Iraqis USED chemical weapons on their own population.
Maybe Ribbity's conspiracy theory is not so far fetched after all.
On second thoughts, his theory gives them too much credit. It seems more likely that they are just, how can I say this without being offensive? Not very bright?