We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[tinyp3nis]

Everyone thought they had? What the hell? I could have sworn I had this memory in my head of a world where most believed the UN over the US, oh wait, the US is everyone, just like the Hollywood movies tell me! And not just the Hollywood!

I bet everyone who watched this show as a kid thought they did!

Yo Joe!
He'll fight for freedom where ever there's trouble.
GI Joe is there.

It's GI Joe against Cobra the enemy
Fighting to save the day.
He never gives up.
He's always there,
Fighting for freedom over land and air

GI Joe- A real American hero
GI Joe is there

GI Joe is the codename for American's daring, highly trained
special mission force.
It's purpose, to defend human freedom against Cobra-
a ruthless, terrorist organization determined to rule the world.

He never gives up.
He'll stay til the fight's won.
GI Joe will dare.

GI Joe- A real American hero
GI Joe

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In the interest of fairness wrt 1), France was one of the main countries presuring to relax/do away with the containment of Iraq. They only backed off that quest due to intense American pressure before the war started in an attempt to head it off.

True, and it was cohesive with France considering Saddam's Iraq as a client State. Now, it doesn't mean France would give WMD know-how for some oil. We want much money for that, and I strongly doubt post-war Saddam had anything close to our prices. Besides, it's one thing to be bribed, it's another to provide efficient weapons that could be used at some point against the most powerful military in the world.

WRT 2): He'd been granted over a decade. How much longer would you have given him?

Res 1441 created new demands on Saddam, that had to be satisfied extremely quickly. True, 1441 wouldn't have existed in the first place if Saddam had played nice in the past decade. However, 1441 was seen as an ultimatum that Saddam would hopefully not be able to obey.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
WRT 2): He'd been granted over a decade. How much longer would you have given him?

This is mildly amusing. Israel has been ignoring a bunch of UN resolutions, but rightwingers don't have a problem with that.

[DinoDoc]

People who live in glass houses, UR.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Everyone thought they had? What the hell? I could have sworn I had this memory in my head of a world where most believed the UN over the US

Believe the UN over the US? I'm not aware that the UN, as such, even had an opinion as to the existence of illicit arms ...

And the claim was about what people in the know thought. What a billion ignorants on the streets thought is not relevant to that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't forget Saddam had domestic matters to attend as well. He had to show to his population that he was strong. So he tried to kick out the inspectors when he believed he could go away with it.

That's an approach many dictators use. It doesn't help the rest of the world when they are trying to ascertain whether you do, or do not have, a weapons program.

To say France and Germany profited from this corrupt program is most certainly true.

Thank you. Now, does that not render their opposition to Bush meaningless, from the standpoint of pacifism? One might as well be as bad as the other.

As for the scope, I'd be willing to lay even money on France and Germany being the principle culprits with their hands in the till.

If they wish to condemn the US for being mistaken, that's much more culpable than a group deliberately engaging in fraud, eh?

Hint: they weren't concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people, but for their own petty interests. Just like the US, Russia, Iraq, and pretty much everybody involved in the whole mess.

Good. So why are the French given moral high ground to condemn Bush and his actions? They've got a pretty big plank in their own eye.

Sure. So sending terrorists strike NY, and preparing to nuke some American target is the way to make the Yanks go away.

Whoah. Where did I say Saddam was responsible for 9-11?

Maybe that's just myself, but I imagine the best strategy for Saddam to have the Yanks stop it is to fall under the radar, and to use the bribed contacts to make trade open once again.

Oil for food anyone? Seems Saddam was quite successful in this.

Froö France, specifically. My, my country must be the heart of evil

Well, you sure seem to heap blame on the Americans for everything that is wrong with the world.

Now, I like the French. I even speak French, but blaming Americans for the world's ills gets old fast. Oh, look. The Americans are to blame for the oil-for-food corruption.

I do not know, but I don't exclude the possibility.

Thank you. So it is possible that this is Bush's team, and not the other way around, eh? The man isn't as stupid as you make him out to be.

I would rather imagine he is an arbiter between different points of views, and he has nearly always supported the POV of Cheney and Rumsfeld, while nearly always opposing the POV of Powell.

That's far from being a puppet, if he allows those with different views to be heard on his staff.

Their identity is not a secret. Look at the list of senior members of the cabinet, and you have it. The Bushies are the ruling team that was bundled with Bush's election.

I think they are much more fractitious in private, than they are in public, but this is just my experience in another organisation under somewhat heavy scrutiny. You argue in private, and everything in the board room, stays in the boardroom.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is mildly amusing. Israel has been ignoring a bunch of UN resolutions, but rightwingers don't have a problem with that.

The UN would pass a resolution against the consumption of oxygen by Israel if they could.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. Now, does that not render their opposition to Bush meaningless, from the standpoint of pacifism? One might as well be as bad as the other.

Depends from whose opposition you are talking about. If you are talking about the opposition of the French, German or Russian States, to the war, it is true it had no moral high ground (no more than the American willingness to go to war).
Now, if you talk about the opposition from the people, it's something entirely different. Because the people were not really in the know of the bribing that occured, and it's not like they got a share of it, ya know? In the public opinion, the opposition to the war was infinitely more principled than among the rulers.

As for the scope, I'd be willing to lay even money on France and Germany being the principle culprits with their hands in the till.

You know about it as much as me. I expect we'll have reliable info about who was the most corrupt in 30-odd years.

If they wish to condemn the US for being mistaken, that's much more culpable than a group deliberately engaging in fraud, eh?

I don't know who condemns the US for being mistaken. My country certainly doesn't (it has been surprisingly discreet on the whole matter since the war, despite all the "I told you so" gloat-potential). And I certainly don't either. In case you have missed it, I accuse the US not of being misguided, but of having deliberately lied in order to get support for their splendid little war.

Good. So why are the French given moral high ground to condemn Bush and his actions? They've got a pretty big plank in their own eye.

Both countries (France and US) tried to get the moral high ground in order to gather support. The moral high ground is nothing else than a propaganda stunt. And I hold any person who believes one country was more moral than another, to be gullible.
For once my personal morality (peace) coincided with the realpolitical decisions of my country. It doesn't happen often, and it doesn't mean the French diplomats are any less immoral than they had always been.

Whoah. Where did I say Saddam was responsible for 9-11?

Sorry, I skipped to quick conclusions. It just happens that the (quickly fading) population that thinks "Saddam would have attacked us !" often happens to think he was already behind Sept. 11

Oil for food anyone? Seems Saddam was quite successful in this.

Yup, and there was a good chance oil-for-food would be dropped in the not-so-distant future. Saddam had to wait, and to continue flattering his friend States, while appeasing the US. I wonder why he'd have disturbed these progresses by attacking the US. It serves simply no purpose...

Well, you sure seem to heap blame on the Americans for everything that is wrong with the world.

"You" = the French or "you" = Spiffor?
I am personally not keen of blaming all the evils in the world on the US, as the evils of the world are due to a great many factors (and a great many "evildoers"). I'm not blaming the US for AIDS, for the Tsunami, or for unemployment. When it comes to saying who started Gulf War 2, however, yes, I say it without hesitation: the Americans wanted, initiated and rushed a war of aggression.

Now, I like the French. I even speak French, but blaming Americans for the world's ills gets old fast. Oh, look. The Americans are to blame for the oil-for-food corruption.

I don't remember reqding that in the nedia. The oil-for-food corruption has always been presented (AFAIK) as a UN problem. It was quite a shock to the trust most Frenchmen have toward the UN.

Thank you. So it is possible that this is Bush's team, and not the other way around, eh? The man isn't as stupid as you make him out to be.

That's far from being a puppet, if he allows those with different views to be heard on his staff.

Again, I do not know how decisions are made in the ruling team. For all that I know, Bush may be a puppet, he may be a mastermind, or he may be something in between (which strikes me as the most plausible).
Thus, I cannot tell whether he initiated, tolerated, or believed the forgeries. I cannot tell whether he is the mastermind of the lie, an associate, or a victim. This is why I use the word "the Bushies", because I consider the lie to have been orchestrated by the Bush team, no matter how Bush himself was personally involved.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the public opinion, the opposition to the war was infinitely more principled than among the rulers.

As a whole? I'd be less confident in that. Sure, there will always be people who disagree with the war regardless of who is involved, but there will also be those with a vested interest in Iraq under Saddam.

In case you have missed it, I accuse the US not of being misguided, but of having deliberately lied in order to get support for their splendid little war.

True, but the evidence seems to point out that they were misinformed, rather than deliberately lying.

Sorry, I skipped to quick conclusions. It just happens that the (quickly fading) population that thinks "Saddam would have attacked us !" often happens to think he was already behind Sept. 11

I'm still a Canuck. For all my empathy with Americans, we tend to see some things differently.

As for you personally, I'll qualify that statement to say that many people, particularly europeans, (Canucks included) tend to blame the US for most of the world's problems.

This is why I use the word "the Bushies", because I consider the lie to have been orchestrated by the Bush team, no matter how Bush himself was personally involved.

I see his staff sincerely believing that Saddam had more weapons than he was shown to have after the war. I don't see evidence that they deliberately fabricated such evidence, and that their concerns seemed reasonable given the lack of compliance by Saddam.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The UN would pass a resolution against the consumption of oxygen by Israel if they could.

You need to work on your flamebaits some more.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flamebait?

Every word of that is true.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Flamebait?

Every word of that is true.

When did you become a conspiracy theorist?

[Agathon]

True, but the evidence seems to point out that they were misinformed, rather than deliberately lying.

Oh come on Ben. They were telling fibs. We know that. The stories that Cheney was peddling were absurd.

They're still telling fibs too. Bush and company do not care about the truth, they believe that they create reality (they've actually said this in print).

The whole rationale for the war was phony, and the people who bought it were saps.

I haven't gloated for a while, but I think I'll give it a couple now.

*gloats.

[Ben Kenobi]

When did you become a conspiracy theorist?

You support all the motions against Israel? I think the evidence is pretty clear who is supporting these motions, and why they are doing so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh come on Ben. They were telling fibs. We know that. The stories that Cheney was peddling were absurd.

How do you know this? Have you spoken to Cheney?

They're still telling fibs too. Bush and company do not care about the truth, they believe that they create reality (they've actually said this in print).

Oh, his response afterwards seems to be indicative that he is more after the truth. You don't call an inquiry, and fire your head of the CIA because you are interested in covering up.

The whole rationale for the war was phony, and the people who bought it were saps. I haven't gloated for a while, but I think I'll give it a couple now.

You know me so well, eh? Is that why I didn't support the war, even though I accepted that Saddam had his WMD?

I'm just another sap, eh?