Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgg9 They had direct access to intel. YOU did not. |
Which they did not make public which is mandatory in most democracies. The only evidence they had to go on was the stuff produced by the US, which was to be kept secret from even some parts of our government. I still wonder how they got our second chamber to be in favor of the war...
Quote:
|
Can you possibly be this naive? Is it possible that you alone on the planet don't know France and others were bought off via Oil for Food money?
|
Really? And your evidence for this is where? Quite an accusation you make here. But let me help you out of your dream: The average german and frenchman on the streets will have had no such bribe, and they too were dead set against the war at that time.
Quote:
|
Then what excuse is there for all the European leaders and Congress who said otherwise? Bush lied but they were merely mistaken? The problem with your conspiracy theory is how to explain, without inducing laughter, how Bush ALONE in the world knew Saddam didn't have WMD even though everyone else said he did. A second problem is to explain in any coherent way why Bush would invade knowing there was no WMD, thus guaranteeing a politically damaging result.
|
There is none. The US pulled them in under false reasons. Like I said before, it already cost the spanish conservatives their seat of power... It will also cost the christian-liberal dutch coalition some votes. We (as europeans) put too much faith in the data produced by your CIA. The competence of that organisation however will now be questioned more easily.
As for your second problem... Why do you think we have this conversation? It IS politically damaging, but economically it'll be a victory in the end... And those are still the main reasons for this war I think, economic ones. A foothold in the mideast, within immediate striking distance of Syria and Iran.
Quote:
The SC stonewalled because theywere bought off by Saddam.
The UN stonewalled because the UN is a bunch of dictatorships voting to criticize the US and Israel and give each other a pass.
|
Odd that you mention Israel here. While it's indeed kinda regarded as the 54th state here (britain being 53) it's irrelevant to this discussion. The reason the UN stonewalls often is because it is far too large for it's own good. The reason the SC stonewalled is probably because they were unimpressed with the evidence. Russia wasn't about to sanction a war in a nation which they held economic interests in (such as the exploitation of the northern oilfields). I seriously doubt however that Iraq would have the funds to bribe security council members...
Quote:
|
International law was never more than a squalid fiction, as the recent debacle proved. It's time to put aside childish things.
|
And revert into another cold war? Or perhaps do a little nuclear WW3 instead?
Remember why these laws were founded: To prevent just that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved quite effectively the nature of a nuclear war. Your attitude will see the destruction of the entire planet...
Aside from that. A "Free" state CANNOT rule the world by military force and keep it's claim of valueing freedom highly.
[edit] Oh... And "France and others" and the Security Council being bribed? Talk about conspiracy theories...