OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/01280002aaa05619.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- 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. The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday. "I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted." Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground. A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment. French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary. "Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam. Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria and France, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Communist Party, India's Congress Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2003 UPI News Copyright © 2003 Interest!ALERT All rights reserved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 I'm just waiting around for the next time some left-winger on this board decides to reference the well established liberal call for international cooperation in the war on terror and Iraq. Stupid people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by The Elated OaktonSkinsFan I'm just waiting around for the next time some left-wingers on this board decides to reference the well established liberal call for international cooperation in the war on terror and Iraq. Stupid people. The international community is not against the war on terrorism. I think you can be against the war for reasons other then those cited by the French, so can a liberal reference the well established call for international support for the Iraq war if they do not bring up the French? Just needing some clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovellj Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 null this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by webnarc The international community is not against the war on terrorism. I think you can be against the war for reasons other then those cited by the French, so can a liberal reference the well established call for international support for the Iraq war if they do not bring up the French? Just needing some clarity. Sorry, let me be clear then. I believe this is an excellent example of why we should never be pressured or extensively influenced by what other nations or international organizations would like our foreign policy/action to be - they can never be trusted. Our nation's soveriegnty and national interest should never be subject to the whims - or corruption - of a foreign nation. How tragic it would be if Bush had acquiesced to the French in this case. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovellj Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by The Elated OaktonSkinsFan I'm just waiting around for the next time some left-winger on this board decides to reference the well established liberal call for international cooperation in the war on terror and Iraq. Stupid people. Wait a minute.....so if I'm a liberal who disagreed with the war on Iraq that would mean I am: A) Stupid and Against the war on terrorism? Somehow I don't think that adds up. Look, I was all for the war in Afghanistan (despite the fact that we haven't fixed that mess yet...we'll just leave that to NATO to do I guess), but the war on Iraq is still looking like it's not quite the massive success we all thought it was going to be...just ask some of the soldiers that are stationed there. It's asinine to assume that the terrorist factions we have been fighting and the old Iraqi regime are clearly connected. Outside of the Iraqi connection in these documents to the PLO (who we currently are not fighting a war against) there hasn't been any evidence found that any of the terrorist actions that have taken place (or likely would have taken place) have had any connection whatsoever to the former Iraqi regime (and talking about the guerilla warfare that are troops are under now as the same kind of terrorism doesn't qualify - if we hadn't intervened they wouldn't have been subject to the sitting duck syndrome they've been left with). I'm just as glad as the next person that Saddam isn't their leader anymore....but if you had to ask me if the casualties we suffered are worth the result we've gotten (or look to be getting)...at this point...I'd have to say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitting bull Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Pfffff mais quest ce que cest que ces conneries encore mdr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by lovellj Wait a minute.....so if I'm a liberal who disagreed with the war on Iraq that would mean I am: A) Stupid and Against the war on terrorism? Somehow I don't think that adds up. Look, I was all for the war in Afghanistan (despite the fact that we haven't fixed that mess yet...we'll just leave that to NATO to do I guess), but the war on Iraq is still looking like it's not quite the massive success we all thought it was going to be...just ask some of the soldiers that are stationed there. It's asinine to assume that the terrorist factions we have been fighting and the old Iraqi regime are clearly connected. Outside of the Iraqi connection in these documents to the PLO (who we currently are not fighting a war against) there hasn't been any evidence found that any of the terrorist actions that have taken place (or likely would have taken place) have had any connection whatsoever to the former Iraqi regime (and talking about the guerilla warfare that are troops are under now as the same kind of terrorism doesn't qualify - if we hadn't intervened they wouldn't have been subject to the sitting duck syndrome they've been left with). I'm just as glad as the next person that Saddam isn't their leader anymore....but if you had to ask me if the casualties we suffered are worth the result we've gotten (or look to be getting)...at this point...I'd have to say no. You're reaching the wrong conclusions in "a) and b)". Please read again including my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 OSF, I'm actually with you on the whole "international cooperation" thing. I was anti-war, and I was talking with one of my friends who was saying, "Well, I'd support a war...but only with UN approval." I got furious and said, "Well, either we should go to war or we shouldn't. Who gives a crap what the UN thinks?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 That's it! We're taking over France! I bet they are hiding Iraq's WMDs in their "wine cellars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by WallyG3Slice That's it! We're taking over France! I bet they are hiding Iraq's WMDs in their "wine cellars". I don't know what's scarier then the fact that u might be right. Screw the U.N! If we want to defend ourselves we don't need a permission slip. ------------------------------------------- 0-16, 16-0, skins fan till i die!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The day we trust the UN to "protect" the US is the day we will begin to lose the war on terror Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 Originally posted by TC4 The day we trust the UN to "protect" the US is the day we will begin to lose the war on terror Actually TC4, that would be the cue for someone to begin writing the next great rise and fall series - The Rise and Fall of The United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 sad but true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black OSF, I'm actually with you on the whole "international cooperation" thing. I was anti-war, and I was talking with one of my friends who was saying, "Well, I'd support a war...but only with UN approval." I got furious and said, "Well, either we should go to war or we shouldn't. Who gives a crap what the UN thinks?" There's a lefty I can respect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 The same UN that has soldiers look ther other way in the Congo while kids are killed and FRIGGIN EATEN in front of them? The same UN that OK'd France going into the Ivory Coast and forcing a settlement on the two parties that was to no one's liking(well, maybe the rebels lol) The same Un that murdered civilians in a village in support of a dictatorial Marxist regime in..was that also in the Congo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I don't think the UN murdered civillians in a Congan village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Well it did murder civilians somewhere in AFrica, I know that. WHen I say "murder" I don't mean they went door-to-door, but they bombed from the air(don't think it was artillery) a village of civilians. I also know that Kofi Annan and France have particularly filthy and bloody hands when it comes to Rwanda. I remember something about "if you're going to kill people could you at least do it off camera" as something said by a French official to a Hutu. And Annan is definitely involved with that(and this is before he moved up to head of the UN, I believe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black [b...... I got furious and said, "Well, either we should go to war or we shouldn't. Who gives a crap what the UN thinks?" [/b] Exactly, AtB. It's nothing short of common sense. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.