Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 07, 2004, 07:36:27 AM
-
..we messed up a perfectly good scam! (http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Report+links+U.N.+to+Iraq+bribes+-+Oct+6%2C+2004&expire=11%2F5%2F2004&urlID=11876766&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2004%2FWORLD%2Fmeast%2F10%2F06%2Firaq.wmd.un.vouchers.ap%2Findex.html&partnerID=2006)
The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.
The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.
Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.
The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.
-
you still searching for something to justify the war?
you found something. *g*
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
you still searching for something to justify the war?
you found something. *g*
R
Gh0stFT
There was plenty of that. Why don't you ask Saddams sons? ;)
-
Hey, the war was unjustified, right?
Alright, let's put Saddam back.
We've got him holed up. He's rested. Let's put him back in Baghdad, pay him reparations, and start rebuilding his palaces.
Now, who would like to make that argument.
If the war was unjustified, then we need to do all of the above.
-
Americans whining about corruption in foreign oil deals? The irony is killing me :lol
-
Vouchers
LOL
-
you still searching for something to justify the war?
Lebensraum.
Worked for you guys.
I wonder if getting rid of your insane megolmanic genocidal idot and imposing democracy on you would meet todays global test of legitamacy. Becuase god knows we shouldnt act unilaterally.
Oh I see the Iraqis dont deserve democracy, or they should provide it for themselves. Just like the Germans and Japanese did in the 40s, when the population rose up and demanded democracy.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The USA reluctantly joins WWII when they get attacked by Japan and Germany declares war, after the rest of the world had been fighting for two years... and Jeezy calls it a unilateral action to bring democracy to the German and Japanese peoples (whom you killed by the hundreds of thousands and even nuked btw.). Top notch education there Jeezy.
Talk about playing loose with the facts!!
OK class you have one paragraph to describe WW2 and 1 minute to write it!
On your mark...Set....Go.....
Bush is eeevvviiilllll, there fore ameerika is eevvviiillll....
Done....
IKON
-
please back to topic, dont know why this fliped into a wwii thread.
-
Yep, we did that. Killed them by the hundreds of thousands and nuked them. Stopped them from killing by the millions and imposing brutal conditions on everyone who came under their control.
-
And the Yanks go : "Lalalala Lalalala"
-
The price of crude oil hit 52$/barell yesterday , almost double than before this war in Irak, now my questions;
1. Don't you think the reason #1 for the high oil price is this war in Irak, ??
2. How many more "oil hits" can the world economy take ? Is it possible the world economy to colapse for this reason?
-
Originally posted by ghi
The price of crude oil hit 52$/barell yesterday , almost double than before this war in Irak, now my questions;
1. Don't you think the reason #1 for the high oil price is this war in Irak, ??
2. How many more "oil hits" can the world economy take ? Is it possible the world economy to colapse for this reason?
1. Nope
2a. As many as they need to
2b. Nope, you think the world would stand by and let that happen?
all we'd have to do is dangle "oil vouchers" in front of Germany and France and they'd roll tanks - LOL
-
So.. are you saying that France, Germany, Russia and China are just smallish criminals, whereas the USA decided to beat them all by being the biggest and baddest criminal of the bunch?
-
Adjusted for inflation, Crude is currently well below the 1981 high of $31.00 per barrel.
I believe if memort serves me, it's about $15.00 lower, in fact.
The price of crude is being driven up by:
1) Concerns over demand for home heating oil this year in the US
2) Unrest in Nigeria
3) Iraq and the greater Middle East
4) Terrorism concerns in Saudi
5) Iraqi pipeline sabotage incidents
6) Hurricanes damaging rigs and shutting down production in the gulf.
-
Dont forget the 1 Billion + Chinese who are deciding that getting to work in auto is better than riding the bike.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So.. are you saying that France, Germany, Russia and China are just smallish criminals, whereas the USA decided to beat them all by being the biggest and baddest criminal of the bunch?
Duuno about him but allow me to say that those countries participating in this scandal were happy, even insistent, on keeping Saddam in power, torturing and murdering his people while the "biggest and baddest criminal" insisted on ending his regime. If you can't see this then you're just refusing to look.
-
You could subtitle this thread Rip, "or why the UN will never work".
-
The USA reluctantly joins WWII when they get attacked by Japan and Germany declares war, after the rest of the world had been fighting for two years... and Jeezy calls it a unilateral action to bring democracy to the German and Japanese peoples (whom you killed by the hundreds of thousands and even nuked btw.). Top notch education there Jeezy.
Sarcasim unnoticed.
-
Straffo, I had little babies brain for breackfirst, It went great with the Saddam's palace winerie you sent me. I was thinking of inviting some Saddam's family member in my house in USA and laught on how we owned America's oil megacorps.
Care to join, or you are still in vacation with Bin Laddin in the French riviera ressort?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Duuno about him but allow me to say that those countries participating in this scandal were happy, even insistent, on keeping Saddam in power, torturing and murdering his people while the "biggest and baddest criminal" insisted on ending his regime. If you can't see this then you're just refusing to look.
Don't forget the USA's part with Saddam, prior to Kuwait invasion.
Too easy to forget own mistakes.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Don't forget the USA's part with Saddam, prior to Kuwait invasion.
Too easy to forget own mistakes.
Or this gem from today's Washington Post:
"Administration officials spent yesterday trying to refocus the attention of reporters on the disclosures in the report that many U.S. allies, top foreign officials and major international figures secretly helped Hussein generate more than $11 billion in illegal income in violation of U.N. sanctions. The report contains a long list of foreign officials and companies involved in helping Iraq -- while the names of Americans were blacked out because of privacy considerations. "
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Straffo, I had little babies brain for breackfirst, It went great with the Saddam's palace winerie you sent me. I was thinking of inviting some Saddam's family member in my house in USA and laught on how we owned America's oil megacorps.
Care to join, or you are still in vacation with Bin Laddin in the French riviera ressort?
Bin Laden is now drinking vodka with me, my friends-olygarchs and Orthodox priests.
BTW, how do you prefer little babies? We usually grill them and serve with tomatos and garlick.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Don't forget the USA's part with Saddam, prior to Kuwait invasion.
Too easy to forget own mistakes.
Not possible to forget.
We've got an entire continent of Ameri-stalkers watching our every move, reminding us of everything we're done wrong since 1776.
-
The irony is killing me
We should be so lucky.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Straffo, I had little babies brain for breackfirst, It went great with the Saddam's palace winerie you sent me. I was thinking of inviting some Saddam's family member in my house in USA and laught on how we owned America's oil megacorps.
Care to join, or you are still in vacation with Bin Laddin in the French riviera ressort?
Now I understand why you folks think Jerry Lewis is a comedic genius.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Bin Laden is now drinking vodka with me, my friends-olygarchs and Orthodox priests.
BTW, how do you prefer little babies? We usually grill them and serve with tomatos and garlick.
HEY Boroda!
Hows the soup these days?
-
I prefer my babies with:
(http://www.franksredhot.com/images/products/chile_lime_bottle.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Now I understand why you folks think Jerry Lewis is a comedic genius.
Jerry Lewis (whoever that guy is) is history, we have Bush now.
-
Frenchy do you mind if I bring some placentas of my personnal reserve ?
It's wonderfull even after 3 year in the freeze they taste like fresh !
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Don't forget the USA's part with Saddam, prior to Kuwait invasion.
Too easy to forget own mistakes.
mistake? iran was sworn enemy of us. iraq was at war with iran. "enemy of my enemy is my friend" especially when stronger of two if they won would directly threaten oil supply of us at height of cold war with sovs. surely you get "enemy of my enemy is my friend"? kind of like finns fighting with germany against sovs in world war two. but you dont see american calling finn nazi sympathizer here. probably because we have more mature view of the world and how it works?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The USA reluctantly joins WWII when they get attacked by Japan and Germany declares war, after the rest of the world had been fighting for two years... and Jeezy calls it a unilateral action to bring democracy to the German and Japanese peoples (whom you killed by the hundreds of thousands and even nuked btw.). Top notch education there Jeezy.
why would we be eager to get involved? our president told all those idiots in europe that versaille would lead to disaster and not one of them listened. too eager to get "payback" on germany for a war all of europe was eager to take a swing at. so the brilliant france and england bankrupt germany and then dont step in early when they could have stopped the whole deal but their leadership too gutless to do so and somehow the fact that germany gets out of control is fault of america and not europe which surrounds germany at the time. and why so critical of us not getting involved? after all germany was no threat to us. iraq no threat to us in some idiots opinions and you screaming about us getting involved in iraq? which is it? act on behalf of friends and innocents or mind our own business?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
mistake? iran was sworn enemy of us. iraq was at war with iran. "enemy of my enemy is my friend" especially when stronger of two if they won would directly threaten oil supply of us at height of cold war with sovs. surely you get "enemy of my enemy is my friend"? kind of like finns fighting with germany against sovs in world war two. but you dont see american calling finn nazi sympathizer here. probably because we have more mature view of the world and how it works?
Not too found of history are you? Remember when FDR got in bed with Vichy's government and dismissed De gaulle and the Free French?:o
-
Rip barking up the wrong tree and a 300 lbs black bear fell outta it.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Not too found of history are you? Remember when FDR got in bed with Vichy's government and dismissed De gaulle and the Free French?:o
i see. that explains why fdr never backed the normandy landings that never happened? :) as for vichy well those were frenchmen right? what right had fdr to oppose soveriegn french rule? i mean if people of france didnt support vichy they would have rose up and overthrown vichy? isnt current wisdom saying its wrong for us to intervene for oppressed when they should free themselves? mistake to protect south vn from communists. mistake to protect innocent iraqis from murdering dictator. mistake to protect french from their own french vichy govt. wasnt our business, right? :lol
-
Anonymous, your comments show without a doubt that you have no clue of what events I am refering too. Stop the "O'club history" 101 course, drop the "psychology for dumies" book and get some real education. Then, and only then, come have discussion about my country.
-
Vichy French. *Snicker*
Turned on their own people.
*giggle*
-
Originally posted by Torque
Rip barking up the wrong tree and a 300 lbs black bear fell outta it.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Anonymous, your comments show without a doubt that you have no clue of what events I am refering too. Stop the "O'club history" 101 course, drop the "psychology for dumies" book and get some real education. Then, and only then, come have discussion about my country.
educate me oh great one.
1.were the vichy french leaders frenchmen or germans?
1a.did the vichy french leaders round up jews?
2.did wilson speak out against versaille treaty?
3.whats your point about fdr and vichy govt? if vichy govt is ruling power in france is it better for statesman to recognize it or ignore it? degaulle and free french were capable of responsible for absolutely nothing at time fdr recognize vichy no? and while youre talking about free french who equipped them and delivered them to france to "liberate" their own country? was it the evil us again?
your soldiers are top notch worked with them many times. your govt and political leaders almost always have been useless and your own worst enemy. commies in french govt did best not to give your army fighting chance against germans. then withdraw from nato. then protect genocidal scum in bosnia because they killing the muslims that gave you such a hard time in algeria. then against deposing hussein over your precious contacts in hussein govt. and you have the gall to come here and act like us is evil. heres a tip us hasnt been around long enough to get even close to france and others in the race for evil govt points. dont be mad at me because your own frenchmen collaborated with genocidal nazis. be mad at them.
-
"The report contains a long list of foreign officials and companies involved in helping Iraq -- while the names of Americans were blacked out because of privacy considerations."
That really is quite funny. And no-one comments on it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That really is quite funny. And no-one comments on it.
Maybe I overlooked it but that quote you posted isn't from the link starting this thread.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe I overlooked it but that quote you posted isn't from the link starting this thread.
sometimes changing the subject away from uncomfortable topics takes a little work.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
sometimes changing the subject away from uncomfortable topics takes a little work.
It is on-topic, and it is true.
The Bush admin will not release the names of the Americans (and the companies) involved becuase of 'privacy' issues. What a joke.
Of the oil companies, by the oil companies, and for the oil companies.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
It is on-topic, and it is true.
The Bush admin will not release the names of the Americans (and the companies) involved becuase of 'privacy' issues. What a joke.
Of the oil companies, by the oil companies, and for the oil companies.
"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.
-
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! :lol
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 wνth something else... etc. etc. without going into a lenghty dialog.
-
I'm at a loss Fishu. What do you find hypocritical about what I said?
-
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.
-
Contradictions? Perhaps I wasn't clear, please elaborate. BTW, I saw those edits. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
I believe your original "hypcocriticism" was directed at me rather than America. No biggie. Still, please elaborate on the hypocracy and contradiction.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
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.
Well.. let's put it this way...
Theres Average Joe and Rich Joe.
Average Joe in this example earns $2000 in a month and Rich Joe earns $7000 in a month.
Average Joe donates 7 dollars to aid, which is roughly 0.35% of his monthly income.
Rich Joe donates 10 dollars to aid, which is roughly 0.14% of his monthly income.
Average Joe now has 99.65% to spend on other things, while Rich Joe still has 99.86% to spend on other things.
Therefor for Rich Joe the impact is not as big as for Average Joe.
So simply said.. the USA has more people than most of the countries and naturally has more money and therefore its less bigger impact for them to pay 20 million than for some other country with less people.
Why should smaller countries pay 0.30% of their GNP, if USA doesn't?
For the smaller countries lesser sums are a bigger deal.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
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.
and my thoughts of it are:
1. USA didn't care about Saddam warring Iran and gassing them - USA did use the veto right in UN to save Saddam from Iran's complaint of the use of WMD.
2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US diplomats acted in a way as if it was OK -> Saddam invaded Kuwait and USA declared war on Iraq. (thats something which I find interesting, raises questions whether Saddam would have attacked had the US diplomats acted in a way that its not OK)
WMD becomes a bad bad bad thing... had something to do with the fear of it raining on the US troops and israelis instead?
3. Many times I hear badmouthing of UN's incapability, but all the while USA is every once in a while vetoing in UN for Israel's benefit.
Many other countries sees Israelis as the oppressors in palestine.
So alot of things seems like simple excuses, whatever fits for the current political climate.
Guantanamo prison is perhaps the most obvious example of it: US Goverment thinks it's OK if their lawyers have found enough holes in the laws and excuses its presence based on that, regardless what the other countries and organizations thinks of their lawyers achievements.
However it's a big deal if some unfavored country does something alike - they WILL find a way to turn it illegal and what not.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
and my thoughts of it are:
1. USA didn't care about Saddam warring Iran and gassing them - USA did use the veto right in UN to save Saddam from Iran's complaint of the use of WMD.
2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US diplomats acted in a way as if it was OK -> Saddam invaded Kuwait and USA declared war on Iraq. (thats something which I find interesting, raises questions whether Saddam would have attacked had the US diplomats acted in a way that its not OK)
WMD becomes a bad bad bad thing... had something to do with the fear of it raining on the US troops and israelis instead?
3. Many times I hear badmouthing of UN's incapability, but all the while USA is every once in a while vetoing in UN for Israel's benefit.
Many other countries sees Israelis as the oppressors in palestine.
So alot of things seems like simple excuses, whatever fits for the current political climate.
Guantanamo prison is perhaps the most obvious example of it: US Goverment thinks it's OK if their lawyers have found enough holes in the laws and excuses its presence based on that, regardless what the other countries and organizations thinks of their lawyers achievements.
However it's a big deal if some unfavored country does something alike - they WILL find a way to turn it illegal and what not.
1. I can't find it here Fishu: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
What resolution are you referring to?
-
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.
And maybe the same is true for the other countries - maybe a few individuals and companies had no influence over their government's policies either.
Perhaps the other countries just felt that there wasn't enough evidence of WMDs or rearming to justify an invasion. Because the issue in front of the UN was not whether or not Hussein was a bad man, it was whether Iraq had disarmed or not. If the US wanted to make it about Hussein being a bad man, they should have introduced a resolution along those lines to the UNSC. They didn't, so the countries have to go on the issue at hand - WMDs. They said there wasn't enough evidence of them to invade, and they were right.
-
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."
Can you point out all those other occasions Iron, Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.
-
I'll grant you the possibility that governments weren't influenced to keep Saddam in power for the money, time may reveal otherwise.
A significant issue before the UN was cooperation to which Saddam had agreed and yet refused for many years. If for no other reason he should have been removed so the UN could maintain some semblance of functionality.
-
Originally posted by Torque
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."
Can you point out all those other occasions Iron, Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.
If I had the energy I could argue that our involvement in the very places you have listed were for the sake of democracy which most of us view as liberating.
-
I'll make it easy for you Iron pick the first country Iran, knock yourself out chasing your own tail.
-
Originally posted by Torque
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."
Can you point out all those other occasions Iron, Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.
yeah all those places it was us trying to opress the natives. no involvement by any-cough-communist countries in any instance. nosiree. and even if the commies were trying to put up their own govt everyone knows that at worst communism no more evil than democratic republic. :rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Just give up Fishu, they understand perfectly ... they're just being stunninghunks.
yeah we dont agree with him. how dare us. americans should just learn to not have an educated opinion so others can keep the walls to their fantasy world intact.
-
Originally posted by Torque
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."
Can you point out all those other occasions Iron, Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.
since your looking appears to be in all the wrong places let me start you out down a less indoctinated path. what countries were backing the sandinistas? what other countries were conducting covert and clandestine operations in and around congo? are you seriously trying to say that the only country to interfere in other parts of the world on its own behalf is the us? do you really think that every country with any type of intelligence service has not been doing these things for the last couple hundred years at least? id say your naive or your hatred of america above all else is showing.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
yeah we dont agree with him. how dare us. americans should just learn to not have an educated opinion so others can keep the walls to their fantasy world intact.
Mister Aryan speaking I see :rofl
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Mister Aryan speaking I see :rofl
uhm okay. didnt get that one. youre too smart for me now get back to the nuclear reactor and continue with your experiments.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
uhm okay. didnt get that one. youre too smart for me now get back to the nuclear reactor and continue with your experiments.
Well.. just had a though of you thinking of yourself as better person and better educated than the foreigners, who live in the fantasy world.. which reminded me of the aryans.
Which was also powered by this what you said: "id say your naive or your hatred of america above all else is showing." - they're out to get us!
For better educated person, you don't seem to have much insight into the foreign cultures or politics.
But that isn't a big surprise... the other world gets news of US politics every day, while in US people could care less of the foreign politics, unless it has something to do with them.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
educate me oh great one.
1.were the vichy french leaders frenchmen or germans?
1a.did the vichy french leaders round up jews?
2.did wilson speak out against versaille treaty?
3.whats your point about fdr and vichy govt? if vichy govt is ruling power in france is it better for statesman to recognize it or ignore it? degaulle and free french were capable of responsible for absolutely nothing at time fdr recognize vichy no? and while youre talking about free french who equipped them and delivered them to france to "liberate" their own country? was it the evil us again?
your soldiers are top notch worked with them many times. your govt and political leaders almost always have been useless and your own worst enemy. commies in french govt did best not to give your army fighting chance against germans. then withdraw from nato. then protect genocidal scum in bosnia because they killing the muslims that gave you such a hard time in algeria. then against deposing hussein over your precious contacts in hussein govt. and you have the gall to come here and act like us is evil. heres a tip us hasnt been around long enough to get even close to france and others in the race for evil govt points. dont be mad at me because your own frenchmen collaborated with genocidal nazis. be mad at them.
Please document yourself next time ....
I'll give you some insight anyway :
1.corrupted Frenchman who believed Germany will be the next superpower and "flip flipped" like fishes ...
1a. they did help the Gestapo like the *****es they were.
2. yes an so ?
3. FDR supported 1st Vichy, an illegal and illegitimate governement
Next recognizing his error he played some political stunt , supported Darlan and next played the Giraud card to get ride of De Gaulle (essencially because of personal reason).
Meanwhile Churchill recognized the legitimacy of De Gaulle years before.
The free french were equipped by the English not the US.
It's exact anyway the USA provided lot of equipement after the invasion of N. Africa and the renaissance of the French army
concerning the act of our different governement (and especially algeria and Bosnia , I can't disagree...)
commies in french govt did best not to give your army fighting chance against germans. then withdraw from nato.
Plain wrong it's not the commie that made France leave NATO.
dont be mad at me because your own frenchmen collaborated with genocidal nazis. be mad at them.
I'm mad at them , but you should know it's a grey area some fought the German other collaborated, in my own familly we had the 2 sides of this coin for reasons I'll not post here (mostly the collaborator where weak minded and misled).
-
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.
I've read the name of the French involved in this document as far as I know their influence is and was pretty limited
More influent than I , certainly but not to the point they have the hability to change the French decision.
Plus they were not on the political movement leading France at this time and at the other end of the policial spectrum of the more anti-war people.
Originally posted by anonymous
i see. that explains why fdr never backed the normandy landings that never happened? :) as for vichy well those were frenchmen right? what right had fdr to oppose soveriegn french rule? i mean if people of france didnt support vichy they would have rose up and overthrown vichy? isnt current wisdom saying its wrong for us to intervene for oppressed when they should free themselves? mistake to protect south vn from communists. mistake to protect innocent iraqis from murdering dictator. mistake to protect french from their own french vichy govt. wasnt our business, right? :lol
That suppose the vichy government was legal ,but it was not according to our law and constitution.
But in the 40's the average French believed it was legitim and legal ,how do the rise against a governement you sincerly trust ?
Don't forget the media were all controled by Vichy and all informations were filtered ,it's not before 1943 that most the French started to question the ligitimacy of Vichy.
Some like De Gaulle and lot of Free French knew this since 1940.
-
And another cut n paste by Ripsnort to try and justify the war. Keep searching.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Well.. just had a though of you thinking of yourself as better person and better educated than the foreigners, who live in the fantasy world.. which reminded me of the aryans.
Which was also powered by this what you said: "id say your naive or your hatred of america above all else is showing." - they're out to get us!
For better educated person, you don't seem to have much insight into the foreign cultures or politics.
But that isn't a big surprise... the other world gets news of US politics every day, while in US people could care less of the foreign politics, unless it has something to do with them.
i dont know where you get that i have a lack of insight into foreign cultures. ive spent a large part of my life interacting with them on a very personal level.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Please document yourself next time ....
I'll give you some insight anyway :
1.corrupted Frenchman who believed Germany will be the next superpower and "flip flipped" like fishes ...
1a. they did help the Gestapo like the *****es they were.
2. yes an so ?
3. FDR supported 1st Vichy, an illegal and illegitimate governement
Next recognizing his error he played some political stunt , supported Darlan and next played the Giraud card to get ride of De Gaulle (essencially because of personal reason).
Meanwhile Churchill recognized the legitimacy of De Gaulle years before.
The free french were equipped by the English not the US.
It's exact anyway the USA provided lot of equipement after the invasion of N. Africa and the renaissance of the French army
concerning the act of our different governement (and especially algeria and Bosnia , I can't disagree...)
Plain wrong it's not the commie that made France leave NATO.
I'm mad at them , but you should know it's a grey area some fought the German other collaborated, in my own familly we had the 2 sides of this coin for reasons I'll not post here (mostly the collaborator where weak minded and misled).
meant commies only for before second world war and during battle of france didnt mean they caused france to leave nato.
didnt know anything about fdr and vichy until you explained it.
as for the french in bosnia and payback over algeria i cant say i wouldnt feel same way. i dont know that id protect the guys leading the death squads but that was a few bitter extremist in french military and intel community from what i gathered. i talked to many french soldier who told about brutal stuff being done by muslim terrorist in algeria. arab culture can seem insane but i have to say bosnia and kosovo were most screwed up situations i have ever been involved in by far.
dont worry i know plenty of french were resisting germans and vichy. reading book about that right now. kind of funny interviews with french who resist in '41 they are bitter they say "after september of '44 EVERY frenchman was a resistance fighter" apparently the "come latelys" were trying to take the credit for the guys who had the real nerve and were resisting in '41 and '42. some things never change. :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll grant you the possibility that governments weren't influenced to keep Saddam in power for the money, time may reveal otherwise.
A significant issue before the UN was cooperation to which Saddam had agreed and yet refused for many years. If for no other reason he should have been removed so the UN could maintain some semblance of functionality.
Cooperation on what? As far as UN resolutions are concerned, it's cooperation on WMDs and the disposal thereof.
Well it's a similar story for the most part, it appears Saddam did cooperate: He let in inspectors, although as you'll no doubt point out when UNSCOM were being used as US spies, Saddam said so, and did not allow them access to presidential palaces and other areas that had no link to WMDs. And it was the US, not Saddam who told UNSCOM to get out when the US denied this and sought to strong-arm him into shutting up by bombing Iraq (the targets selected by using the latest intelligence gleaned from their informers in the UNSCOM inspectors).
And perhaps the best evidence of cooperation is that according to the latest US intelligence, he destroyed his WMDs mostly in 1991.
So perhaps France, Germany and Russia felt that he had cooperated enough to not need the UN to invade and depose him and in this they would of course have been correct too, according to the Bush Administration, at least.
Besides if oil-for-food was such a dreadful scam stopping the UN from functioning and so forth surely the bulk of the blame rests on the UN member that called for this ill-considered or perhaps deliberately corrupt resolution's introduction in the first place?