Author Topic: Saddams Oil for Food program paid for suicide bombers (Read 860 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #15 on:** November 18, 2004, 07:26:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
It may be true but....congressional investigators? Who are they? How did they get the evidence? What is the evidence?

And the biggest question: are they republicans trying to justify Iraq's invasion afterwards?

Documents prepared for a hearing today by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings.

justify? We had plenty of justification even without the WMD. You just don't see the bigger picture is all.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #16 on:** November 18, 2004, 07:48:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys

And the biggest question: are they republicans trying to justify Iraq's invasion afterwards?

Actually the outrage here is comming from both sides of the isle.

For once the Democrats and the Republicans are on the same page

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 18, 2004, 07:51:14 AM »

you guys do realize that allmost all euros are anti semites right? except they do like kerrie voting new york jews so long as they stay in the U.S.

lazs

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #18 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:13:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Momus--
Oh, how emotive of you. To say that successive US administrations have paid for the death of Palestinian children would be equally true.

American law applies to French banks now?

Two points.

1) The US has contributed money to the Palestinian Authority. Using your own logic, this would imply that the US has also helped pay to "blow up school children in busses" (sic)

2) No-one has ever seriously argued that there were no links between the Ba'athists and Palestinian organizations. Such links are a matter of record. Similar links exist with the Syrian regime and the Kuwaiti and Saudi regimes (both prime US allies but don't let that bother you). What the less logically challenged amongst us have argued is that such links constitute no threat to the USA, especially not one warranting military action on the scale recently witnessed. That's a nice straw man you've constructed though.

The thing is, once you peer past all the emotive crap, the self-righteous moralising and the bogus rationalisations for war, the truth is that the US rush was to war to equally motivated by material considerations. I 'm sure that you're psychologically unable to grasp this idea, but it doesn't make it any less true.

US laws apply to French banks that are in the USA
So in a word ... yes

the USA as did many other countries gave money to the Palestinian authority (much of which Arafat pocketed himself)
What we didn't do and Saddam did is pay families for suicide bombers.

One country at a time please

ONLY the logically challenged would consider action after 12 years of UN resolutions and diplomacy as being "a rush to war"

Just what, or how long I should say isn't a rush to war?
12 years? 20? 50? 100?

You do not impress

Your logic is at best, flawed

deSelys · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:21:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Documents prepared for a hearing today by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings.

justify? We had plenty of justification even without the WMD. You just don't see the bigger picture is all.

Yes and....wtf is the HIRC? Any link?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #20 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:23:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
Yes and....wtf is the HIRC? Any link?

They'll be made public soon enough. Patience, grasshopper.

straffo · « **Reply #21 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:25:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
US laws apply to French banks that are in the USA
So in a word ... yes

I doubt it, I doubt it will be this simple.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #22 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:33:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I doubt it, I doubt it will be this simple.

Hey Straffo, just curious if they report over there in Europe, that Annan is apparently now refusing to cooperate...hiding something? Looks like it to me. There is a link in the article (.PDF) to the actual letter sent by Norm Coleman and Carl Levin to the UN.

Quote

NEW YORK — Two U.S. senators investigating the U.N. Oil-for-Food (search) program have told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a letter that they were "troubled" by his decision to withhold documents or witness testimony from lawmakers.

Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Carl Levin of Michigan sent a letter to Annan Tuesday in which they blasted Annan for "affirmatively preventing" their congressional panel from getting requested information

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136621,00.html
(I can provide other "sources" if Fox is not to your liking)

deSelys · « **Reply #23 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:38:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
They'll be made public soon enough. Patience, grasshopper.

You mean, like the WMDs you're about to find?

I think I'll go read a book instead.

straffo · « **Reply #24 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:43:02 AM »

I don't know for the rest of Europe but here we seldom hear of this perhaps 1 time per 2 month.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #25 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:47:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
You mean, like the WMDs you're about to find?

I think I'll go read a book instead.

You *do* understand that WMD was not the sole reason for war, right? I just want to make sure I'm dealing with sanity here, rather than argueing pointlessly.

They post their findings here but since the hearings are not complete yet, the documents are not on this page.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #26 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:47:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I don't know for the rest of Europe but here we seldom hear of this perhaps 1 time per 2 month.

Thanks Straffo. Thats about how often we've been hearing it too.

Momus-- · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:49:43 AM »

Quote

US laws apply to French banks that are in the USA

That's not what the article says. And I think you'll find that most of the under the table oil for food stuff was taking places in places like Geneva, which last time I checked was firmly outside of US juristiction.

Quote

What we didn't do and Saddam did is pay families for suicide bombers

Yes, as have regimes allied with the US such as the Saudis. No comment?

And how exactly does Ba'athist Iraq paying pensions to Palestinian families constitute a threat to the US?

Quote

ONLY the logically challenged would consider action after 12 years of UN resolutions and diplomacy as being "a rush to war"

A straw man argument that evades the point that Iraq didn't constitute a threat to the US. Next!

Quote

Just what, or how long I should say isn't a rush to war?

There was no threat to you. Take a deep breath and accept it. A rush to war wasn't justified under the rationalisations that your adminstration provided, irrespective of the time frame.

Despite the best efforts of your ruling clique to prove a threat, the best they could come up with was a half baked and easily disproved WMD thesis made more palatable to you by a large dose of post 9/11 paranoia.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:52:11 AM »

Momus, Germany was not a threat to the U.S. either. But we got involved, didn't we? Matter of fact, because of our involvement, you exist today. Your welcome.

Momus-- · « **Reply #29 on:** November 18, 2004, 08:53:04 AM »

Have they released the names of the US firms implicated in the so called "oil for food" scandal yet?