Why France, Germany and Russia are pissed about Iraq

[anonymous]

Originally posted by john9001
the french have never forgiven the USA for invading france during WW2, the peacfull french were being defended by their german allies against the anglo-american invaders.


degaull never liked americans , before, during or after the war.

degall never got a chance to meet a kerry! if only he had!

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by anonymous
"The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order"

no outrage over this. only a comment on blacked out american names. nah no axe to grind or agenda here.

Everyone knows by now that it was totally corrupt.

So why bring it up at all?  Because of the deep concern that Ripsnore has about starving Iraqi children?  No, this is being brought up as something to beat on France and the UN, never mind the American oil companies that were mixed up in it.


LOS ANGELES TIMES
October 7, 2004

Snip-

U.S. companies and individuals made at least $30 million in profit by participating in the illegal oil voucher scheme, according to figures in Duelfer's report. The names of two, and perhaps three, U.S. citizens and an unspecified number of U.S. companies appeared on 13 "secret lists" maintained by the Iraqi Oil Ministry to keep track of payouts.

Duelfer said that U.S. law prevented him from listing the names of the companies and individuals in the report, though he said the names had been turned over to appropriate authorities. He said he had argued strongly for releasing the names, but government lawyers had stopped him.

"I am not a lawyer, and so if someone tells me I'm going to go to jail for something … I listen carefully," he said.

The exclusion of the U.S. companies drew outrage from Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.

"Isn't it interesting that we print the names of petty criminals in the police blotter sections in weekly newspapers across the country, but somehow the names of these companies don't get in?" Nelson asked during the hearing.

At least four U.S. companies have received subpoenas in connection with an investigation of the U.N. program by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., El Paso Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. have not been named as targets of the investigation.



Enron-Halliburton '04!

[AKIron]

Maybe a few Americans were mixed up in this scandal. However, they did not influence their country to avoid ousting this dangerous and murderous dictator. There is a pretty significant difference between having a few criminals as citizens with no influence over their government versus countries that balked at removing this genocidal maniac for profit. I know some of you are so blinded by your hate for America that you will refuse to see this.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by -MZ-
Everyone knows by now that it was totally corrupt.

So why bring it up at all?  Because of the deep concern that Ripsnore has about starving Iraqi children?  No, this is being brought up as something to beat on France and the UN, never mind the American oil companies that were mixed up in it.


LOS ANGELES TIMES
October 7, 2004

Snip-

U.S. companies and individuals made at least $30 million in profit by participating in the illegal oil voucher scheme, according to figures in Duelfer's report. The names of two, and perhaps three, U.S. citizens and an unspecified number of U.S. companies appeared on 13 "secret lists" maintained by the Iraqi Oil Ministry to keep track of payouts.

Duelfer said that U.S. law prevented him from listing the names of the companies and individuals in the report, though he said the names had been turned over to appropriate authorities. He said he had argued strongly for releasing the names, but government lawyers had stopped him.

"I am not a lawyer, and so if someone tells me I'm going to go to jail for something … I listen carefully," he said.

The exclusion of the U.S. companies drew outrage from Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.

"Isn't it interesting that we print the names of petty criminals in the police blotter sections in weekly newspapers across the country, but somehow the names of these companies don't get in?" Nelson asked during the hearing.

At least four U.S. companies have received subpoenas in connection with an investigation of the U.N. program by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., El Paso Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. have not been named as targets of the investigation.



Enron-Halliburton '04!

what in the world to enron and haliburton have to do with each other? enron a bunch of cliton good ol boy crooks. haliburton one of best in world at oil related construction by only way they ever get a contract is from "conspiracy". and i believe that ripsnort cares more about little kids starving to death than anything you have to say. hes a dad with kids of his own. your a self appointed expert and blinded by hate bushophobe.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe a few Americans were mixed up in this scandal. However, they did not influence their country to avoid ousting this dangerous and murderous dictator. There is a pretty significant difference between having a few criminals as citizens with no influence over their government versus countries that balked at removing this genocidal maniac for profit. I know some of you are so blinded by your hate for America that you will refuse to see this.

Except the country had to lie about the danger he poses.
Do not try to think your country is somehow better in the issue than the rest, your country does also have it's own cow in the ditch.
For now we can only guess what kind of a cow.

I find this kind of american hypocriticism quite distasteful.

When it was about WMD, there was lots of bashing on france et al... when there was no WMD, everyone forgot they were bashing france for it and instead excused it wíth something else... etc. etc. without going into a lenghty dialog.

[AKIron]

I'm at a loss Fishu. What do you find hypocritical about what I said?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'm at a loss Fishu. What do you find hypocritical about what I said?

"However, they did not influence their country to avoid ousting this dangerous and murderous dictator. There is a pretty significant difference between having a few criminals as citizens with no influence over their government versus countries that balked at removing this genocidal maniac for profit."


In your post alone there are contradictions.

I guess the war simply started out because CIA somehow had faulty intelligence and Bush figured it to be a greater danger than N.Korea or Iran.

[AKIron]

Contradictions? Perhaps I wasn't clear, please elaborate. BTW, I saw those edits.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by AKIron
Contradictions? Perhaps I wasn't clear, please elaborate. BTW, I saw those edits.

I didn't *edit* anything, I *added* more lines.
...to be more clearer on the issue.
The contents should be still the same.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
Except the country had to lie about the danger he poses.
Do not try to think your country is somehow better in the issue than the rest, your country does also have it's own cow in the ditch.
For now we can only guess what kind of a cow.

I find this kind of american hypocriticism quite distasteful.

we are better than many. weve sent more guys into harms way on others behalf than any other country that has ever existed. ive been shot at in bosnia and it wasnt for us oil companies or us turning bosnia into 51st state. it was war against genocidal thugs. been shot at in somalia and we were there to protect red cross and other aid agencies so food and medicine got to people who need it not warlords. i dont see us presence or exploitation in somalia but we left before all the roaches were killed that was a mistake. i could go on. and there was no lying about why we did it. we werent comfortable with husseins attitudes lack of accountability hatred for us and uk and potential power. he got a chance to solve things without a war and he opted not to. sorry your hero had to fall but maybe you ought to choose your heros more carefully. i think your lack of real world experience in these matters has you doubting that good and evil actually exist.

[AKIron]

I believe your original "hypcocriticism" was directed at me rather than America. No biggie. Still, please elaborate on the hypocracy and contradiction.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
"However, they did not influence their country to avoid ousting this dangerous and murderous dictator. There is a pretty significant difference between having a few criminals as citizens with no influence over their government versus countries that balked at removing this genocidal maniac for profit."


In your post alone there are contradictions.

I guess the war simply started out because CIA somehow had faulty intelligence and Bush figured it to be a greater danger than N.Korea or Iran.

what do you consider faulty intelligence? since when has intelligence ever proven to be totally accurate? do you deny that hussein conducted actions where the only possible reason was concealment of wmd or wmd program? your mention of north korea shows you are misinformed or intentionally mistating things. no comparison between north korea and iraq. north korea already was in position where it held hundreds of thousands of innocents hostage to any type of attack. iraq wasnt there yet. if you cant see reasoning of why iraq and not north korea youre a fool.

[Fishu]

"Even though these targets and agendas have been set, in the past decade and more almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of aid has been around 0.2 to 0.25%, some $100 billion short.

In addition some interesting observations can be made. For example:

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.
Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan's amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show)."

- http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp



Akiron,

I guess.. it's too easy to generalize.
Although it seems to be a common agenda on these forums...  well, at least for the loudest speakers.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
"Even though these targets and agendas have been set, in the past decade and more almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of aid has been around 0.2 to 0.25%, some $100 billion short.

In addition some interesting observations can be made. For example:

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.
Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan's amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show)."

- http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

so let me get this straight. its not enough that we spend more money on other countries every year than anyone else. were in the dog house because our percentage of gnp isnt also the highest? you need to be an ex wife instructor.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Fishu
Akiron,

I guess.. it's too easy to generalize.
Although it seems to be a common agenda on these forums...  well, at least for the loudest speakers.

Well, guess most of us are guilty of generalizing from time to time. In my post I meant specifically what I said.

Here's my bottom line:

Even if Bush had doubts about his intelligence, ousting Saddam was the still the right thing to do for two reasons:

1. Even if Saddam didn't have the weapons as suspected, he would have rebuilt them at the first opportunity and had already proven himself an aggressor and willing to use whatever weapons he had.

2.  He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America has gone to war on many occasions for this reason.