Very very interesting indeedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/06/saddam-verdict-four-days-early/ http://mediamatters.org/items/200611060010
It still comes down to the delivery systems, they are tailored to the Chemicals that they deliver, and Saddams systems were Soviet. As for your list would laundry soap be considered a chemical, and would a company that delivered laundry soap be considered as providing Chemicals to Iraq, and if you don't know there are some nasty poisonous gasses that can be made from cleaning products, would a company that delivered grain to Saddam be considered a supplier of Biological Weapons?, Raisin come as a byproduct of the molding of grains, How much more do I have to point out, to show that there were a lot of chemicals and products sent to Iraq which with a little tweaking, can become chemical or biological weapons, but it still comes down to who supplied his weapons systems, and that was the Communist Block, and later Russia, and Russia was supplying both side in the Iran Iraq war, and the French sold many weapons to Saddam even after the Cease Fire had been signed and there was to be a embargo of weapons sales to Iraq.
Why, are you a masochist, do you take responsibility for everything that someone else does? As for me, I'm not.
The way our system is set up, Spurious, it's actually our duty to support the government that was duly elected by the people. Or would you have our government change it's policies with every large, vocal demonstration on the streets? Or worse, would have us change our policies because a few foreign nations didn't like what we do? Baron Max
Wealthy kids go to college or into big business. Working class kids choose the military for job training and other opportunities not available to the non rich.
Here is some research that is verifiable on the Demographics of the people who enlist in the Services, and not some ones speculation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm October 27, 2006 Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005 by Tim Kane, Ph.D. Center for Data Analysis Report #06-09 A pillar of conventional wisdom about the U.S. military is that the quality of volunteers has been degraded after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Examples of the voices making this claim range from the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Daily News [1] to Michael Moore’s pseudo-documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. Some insist that minorities and the underprivileged are over*represented in the military. Others accuse the U.S. Army of accepting unqualified enlistees in a futile attempt to meet its recruiting goals in the midst of an unpopular war.[2] The current findings show that the demo*graphic characteristics of volunteers have contin*ued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality. Quality is a difficult concept to apply to soldiers, or to human beings in any context, and it should be understood here in context. Regardless of the standards used to screen applicants, the average quality of the people accepted into any organiza*tion can be assessed only by using measurable cri*teria, which surely fail to account for intangible characteristics. In the military, it is especially questionable to claim that measurable characteris*tics accurately reflect what really matters: cour*age, honor, integrity, loyalty, and leadership. Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen*tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005. This report updates the previous Heritage Foun*dation report, with data on all U.S. recruits during 2004 and 2005. We introduce the term “wartime recruits” to identify volunteer enlistees in all branches during 2003, 2004, and 2005. Like the previous report,[3] the analysis considers the follow*ing characteristics: Household income, Level of education, Race/ethnicity, and Regional/rural origin. In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) sup*port the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight dif*ferences are that wartime U.S. mil*itary enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on aver*age than their civilian peers. Recruits have a higher percent*age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distri*bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.
