View Full Version : Anti-war for a price?
David Kay (no, he's not British after all) has said we can't find 'em. He had 'em but we can't find 'em. That will be another thread, soon.
For now. let's see who was against this war and what their motivation may have been....
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq plans to investigate allegations that dozens of officials and businessmen worldwide illegally received oil in exchange for supporting former leader Saddam Hussein, officials said Tuesday.
Their statements came after al-Mada, an independent Baghdad newspaper, published a list it said was based on oil ministry documents showing 46 individuals, companies and organizations from inside and outside Iraq who were given millions of barrels of oil.
The list includes members of Arab ruling families, religious organizations, politicians and political parties from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria, France and others.
Organizations named include the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2374442)
Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Oil for Chirac (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm), not Bush
freako104
1/28/04, 09:25pm
you have only one motive for one of those groups. what about the other motives? and the motives for war too
Ain't it amazing what kind of crap you dig up when you're willing to take a pick-ax to the pile of utter BS that politicians tend to pile around themselves?
Thanks Gonz!
Oil for Chirac (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm), not Bush
Exactly! Thanks for making our point.
:confused:
I think France was on my shit list, not yours
freako104
1/29/04, 06:48pm
OMG hes correct
Gotnolegs
1/30/04, 03:58am
Fuck me!
[dripping with sarcasm]You don't think that some people gettign oil and some not might have had something to do with this war do you?[/dripping with sarcasm]
All that list shows me is that the people who actively supported the war are now better off as they now control Iraq's oil.
AlphaTroll
1/30/04, 04:04am
Fuck me!
h, OK - if you insist :winkkiss:
Fuck me!
[dripping with sarcasm]You don't think that some people gettign oil and some not might have had something to do with this war do you?[/dripping with sarcasm]
All that list shows me is that the people who actively supported the war are now better off as they now control Iraq's oil.
excuse me????
THat list shows people that did NOT support the war, Turkey being the one variable. :rolleyes:
Gotnolegs
1/30/04, 11:25am
excuse me????
THat list shows people that did NOT support the war, Turkey being the one variable. :rolleyes:
My point exactly.
That list shows clearly that the people supporting the war were not getting Iraq's oil. Now they are.
Gotnolegs
1/30/04, 11:25am
h, OK - if you insist :winkkiss:
So when are we going shopping? :devious:
freako104
1/30/04, 11:27am
and those that didnt support it no longer get it. I think everyone half expected this at least
Gotnolegs
1/30/04, 11:29am
and those that didnt support it no longer get it. I think everyone half expected this at least
I distinctly remember someone telling us it wasn't about oil... Now strangely it seems it was :confused:
My point exactly.
That list shows clearly that the people supporting the war were not getting Iraq's oil. Now they are.
You may want to re-read....those are the people that saddam bribed with his "food for oil" reserves before we kicked his ass.
freako104
1/30/04, 04:24pm
I distinctly remember someone telling us it wasn't about oil... Now strangely it seems it was :confused:
well he did say it wasnt about oil but i think even he sort of would expect this.
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 10:08am
You may want to re-read....those are the people that saddam bribed with his "food for oil" reserves before we kicked his ass.
Either your list shows that the supply/non supply was a significant issue regarding the war or it doesn't. You simply can't have it both ways.
So it proves that France had a lot to lose financially because of the war, big fucking deal, we already knew that. The absence of the US from that list shows that you had a lot to gain financially from the war. Those of us who aren't too brainwashed to see it already knew that too...
read more if it's more than you can understand...it was pure bribery
Yahoo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040129/ts_afp/iraq_worldwrap_040129162110)
MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA16004)
Sofia (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=30345)
NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/16900.htm)
NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/68627/1/.html)
ABCNews (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-1.html)
I don't see Haliburton anywhere on those lists. Hell, even the name Cheney is evading capture.
Personal gain was more important than national security & the sanctity of the United Nations.
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 10:18am
read more if it's more than you can understand...it was pure bribery
Yahoo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040129/ts_afp/iraq_worldwrap_040129162110)
MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA16004)
Sofia (http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=30345)
NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/16900.htm)
NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/68627/1/.html)
ABCNews (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-1.html)
I don't see Haliburton anywhere on those lists. Hell, even the name Cheney is evading capture.
Personal gain was more important than national security & the sanctity of the United Nations.
Ok I was wrong. You obviously can ignore fact and have it both ways.
Let me try and make this easy for you.
I know France and other countries had a vested interest in stopping the war.
By putting up a list that proves that the US is now financially better off because of the war shows the possibilty of another vested interest that certain people worked damn hard to cover up.
Simple enough?
What happened to France, et al, being against the war because it was wrong instead of because they had illegal financial interests?
Simple enough for you?
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 10:45am
What happened to France, et al, being against the war because it was wrong instead of because they had illegal financial interests?
Simple enough for you?
Did I say that?
No
Don't put words in my mouth. I quite vocally supported the war because I firmly believe Hussein was abusing human rights on a grand scale. I quite vocally disagree with people who can't see past the propaganda and claim the war was about terrorirsm.
I don't give a shit one way or the other why the French decided what they did.
Your post however stated that getting Iraq's oil was the deciding factor in whether a country supported the war. I pointed out that this argument metaphorically shot you in the foot.
In response you argued that I had said something I hadn't.
I am trying to stick to facts and objective discussion, you are using propaganda and untruth. In all honesty this kind of makes it a little poitless for me to argue as I will never be able to win if I am forced to stick to the truth.
Your post however stated that getting Iraq's oil was the deciding factor in whether a country supported the war.
I said no such thing
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 10:59am
Personal gain was more important than national security & the sanctity of the United Nations.
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.
Now I could be wrong but it doesn't sound like you thought you were fighting for the sanctity of the UN.
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 11:07am
I said no such thing
You said The list includes *snip* France and others.
You said he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
You saidthose are the people that saddam bribed with his "food for oil" reserves
You saidWhat happened to France, et al, being against the war because it was wrong instead of because they had illegal financial interests?
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
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?
Once Hussein did neither
Did he or did he not let the inspectors in before the war started?
He did not allow free access
freako104
1/31/04, 02:00pm
I thought he had to?
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?
freako104
1/31/04, 03:12pm
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
its how we get what we want.
I dont think Israel ever did but I could be wrong on that
Gotnolegs
1/31/04, 03:27pm
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?
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.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.