Anti-war for a price?

Gonz said:
Personal gain was more important than national security & the sanctity of the United Nations.
Click to expand...

This I find to be an interesting quote.

I was under the impression that this was about terrorism and W.O.M.D.

I was also under the impression that the war went ahead without a UN resolution, against the wishes of the security council.

After all didn't you once say this:
Right this minute, the UN is a non-entity. We've a war to wage. Tomorrow is another day.
Click to expand...

Now I could be wrong but it doesn't sound like you thought you were fighting for the sanctity of the UN.
 
Gonz said:
I said no such thing
Click to expand...

You said
The list includes *snip* France and others.
Click to expand...

You said
he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

You said
those are the people that saddam bribed with his "food for oil" reserves
Click to expand...

You said
What happened to France, et al, being against the war because it was wrong instead of because they had illegal financial interests?
Click to expand...

This would seem to me to be an implication that the supply of oil was a deciding factor of whether France supported the war, I pointed this out.

You said
I said no such thing
Click to expand...

Just what are you saying then?
 
Before the War in Iraq started, many nations opposed said war. Some of those nations are in the United Nations Security Council, all of which voted for saddam to put up or shut up.

Once Hussein did neither, the United States and it's international coalition partners told the UN to put up or shut up.

It did neither.

Many of those nations (some from the security council) publically opposed the international invasion of Iraq. They said "there was a better way", "give him more time", "why now". "this is a war for oil", blah blah blah.

Recently, evidence has surfaced which points to an alternate reason to oppose such action. That new reason is the ILLEGAL use of Iraqi oil to bribe certain high level members of said countries opposition governments.

Something akin to

Hussein:"Hey, (x), if you block the international coalition in their attempt to overthrow me, I'll supply you with letters of ownership of oil which you can then trade for cash."

(x):"How much are we talking about here?"

Hussein:"I don't know, does ten to twentry million dollars or more sound reasonable?"

(x):"You knowm teh United States & it's coalition partners really have no right to stop you from assisting terrorists & committing genocide, I think I will help you." psssst, when will I get the letter of ownership?"

Hussein:"No, it is my country & I can kill as many of my peasants as I see fit. I am the new King of Baghdad" "thanks, soon you will have your letters, very soon. I have many to write."

The coalition did not specifically invade to aquire oil. The opposition, or many of them, opposed the war for personal financial gains.

Now, was that so difficult to figure out?
 
I believe Israel is guilty of the same noncompliance... This argument is getting so tired...

freako, Its "do what you want and say anything you need to to justify it" politics. Plain and simple
 
When, exactly, has the UN ordereed Israel to give up it's WMDs & allow full inspections?

Even more importantly, when did Israel agree to such an arrangement?
 
Squiggy said:
I believe Israel is guilty of the same noncompliance... This argument is getting so tired...

freako, Its "do what you want and say anything you need to to justify it" politics. Plain and simple
Click to expand...



its how we get what we want.








I dont think Israel ever did but I could be wrong on that
 
Gonz said:
Before the War in Iraq started, many nations opposed said war. Some of those nations are in the United Nations Security Council, all of which voted for saddam to put up or shut up.

Once Hussein did neither, the United States and it's international coalition partners told the UN to put up or shut up.

It did neither.

Many of those nations (some from the security council) publically opposed the international invasion of Iraq. They said "there was a better way", "give him more time", "why now". "this is a war for oil", blah blah blah.

Recently, evidence has surfaced which points to an alternate reason to oppose such action. That new reason is the ILLEGAL use of Iraqi oil to bribe certain high level members of said countries opposition governments.

Something akin to

Hussein:"Hey, (x), if you block the international coalition in their attempt to overthrow me, I'll supply you with letters of ownership of oil which you can then trade for cash."

(x):"How much are we talking about here?"

Hussein:"I don't know, does ten to twentry million dollars or more sound reasonable?"

(x):"You knowm teh United States & it's coalition partners really have no right to stop you from assisting terrorists & committing genocide, I think I will help you." psssst, when will I get the letter of ownership?"

Hussein:"No, it is my country & I can kill as many of my peasants as I see fit. I am the new King of Baghdad" "thanks, soon you will have your letters, very soon. I have many to write."

The coalition did not specifically invade to aquire oil. The opposition, or many of them, opposed the war for personal financial gains.

Now, was that so difficult to figure out?
Click to expand...

The "evidence" you posted quite simply gives a "possible" motive for opposing the war. The fact that the US didn't get any oil and now controls the lot gives a "possible" motive for the war.

If you want us to believe that this has to be the case for those who opposed the war you have to accept that the converse may be true of those who initiated the war.

If you read very slowly and carefully you might see that I am not saying that France was justified in its actions. I am simply saying that your logic is flawed.
 
Since none of this evidence surfaced previously nor would it have been taken seriously as a precursor to opposition (without supporting evidence), it was simply not a deciding factor.

If similar evidence were to surface with Bush cabinet names instead of the French & friends, it would be all over the press with the peacenics yelling for somebodies head.

Once again, we have a double standard even when there is overwhelming evidence that the opposition is the problem & has been all along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top