Are you totally ignorant of the history of this issue? The US and UK are the only permanent 5 members who have not supported a lifting of sanctions over the past 5 years. If we wanted sanctions lifted tomorrow, we would just tell the SC that tomorrow and France, Russia, and China would happily have a resolution ready 5 minutes later. You seem to be the only person on the planet who does not know this. What a shocker. Maybe that's because I know that the X-Files is fiction, the government doesn't operate the way that conspiracy theorists think it does, and Bush is not quite as evil as some seem to think? How about the friggen US Congress, you dodo??? Ever heard of 'oversight'? US companies are heavily subjected to it, and Congress does *not* allow American companies to just go around the globe stealing whatever they want to steal. They will pay for it. Or is Congress in on it too? What in the hell are you talking about? What, are the defense contractors going to develop Iraq's oilfields? (I can just see the signs around Kirkuk now: 'Property of Lockheed-Martin, Inc. Iraqi tresspassers will be shot. This is our oil now.") The only money to be made for defense contractors will be made rebuilding the Iraqi military. I think we just stepped into the Twilight Zone.
You betcha. We were under a UN mandate to remove the Iraqi army from Kuwait, which we did. If the US attacks Iraq alone, as it looks like we are about to do, there is nothing and no one to stop us.
Again a bunch of hypotheticals but you were able to drop your usual insults. Impressive. I thought you knew the United States and Great Britain are the leading advocates of maintaining the U.N. sanctions on Iraq? But since you thrive on hypotheticals I take it you are opposed to sanctions? Why would you want the U.N., whom levied sanctions, be given the moral obligation to decide what should be done with Iraq again? They failed the first time, correct?
Treeman, obviously things are a little slow on the base. If you want a pissing match, go to the latrine. I'm sure someone will oblige you. I've got work to do. However, a few quotes: "Congress does *not* allow American companies to just go around the globe stealing whatever they want to steal". I'll believe that when I see it! "Maybe that's because I know that the X-Files is fiction, the government doesn't operate the way that conspiracy theorists think it does, and Bush is not quite as evil as some seem to think? " Exactly how do you know Bush is "not quite as evil as some seem to think"? Do you have insider information you aren't sharing? As far as the "defense contractor" line goes, what I was saying is that the only "fat check" the Bush Administration is going to write is to defense contractors, to pay for the ill-advised war they are about to launch. Get it?
The bottom line is this: Osama bin Laden is the #1 threat to the US, not Saddam Hussein. If Bush had spent as much time and effort finding Osama Bin Laden as he has trying to convince the world of the need to attack Iraq... we would have found Osama by now!
Oh, Jesus. The plot thickens... So now we've got the administration, our oil companies, our defense contractors, Congress... Just how big is this conspiracy? Okay, ya got me. I don't know him personally, so I don't "know" that he is as evil as you seem to think. It is just a logical guess, as very few people are as evil as you seem to think Bush is. Hell, I don't even think Clinton is that evil... Government still doesn't operate the way you think it does. That I *do* know, as I work for it. Ever heard of checks and balances? Bureacracies? They simply aren't conducive to massive conspiracies as you seem to think. Ah. I suppose we're supposed to fight this war without any money? Or are we supposed to drop Northrop-Grumman in favor of Hershey's Chocolate? Twilight Zone... Ah. I suppose you would like to send a few armored divisions over to Pakistan to look for Osama? Perhaps we would have caught him by now had we done so? I'm sure the Paks would've loved that... The bottom line is this: searching for Osama and hunting down Al Qaeda requires about 15,000 troops to do. About the number we have currently doing it. Any more would be unnecessary - worse - counterproductive. Not to mention unbelievably stupid. Also, in case you haven't noticed, Al Qaeda is on the ropes and on the run. They are getting their asses kicked. To argue otherwise is simply to convey one's ignorance about the nature of this particular conflict - one that will likely go on for many years to come. The bottom line is this: we can both search for Osama/hunt Al Qaeda *and* deal with Saddam at the same time. The idea that we are diverting from the hunt for Al Qaeda is one of the more ridiculous and baseless accusations opponents of the war have thrown out. Much like the "it's all about oil" argument, absolutely no evidence has (or can) be presented to support this assertion. None.
Why are we so dead set on attacking Iraq? How can you not respect the pleas from Russia and France who fear (as I do) that a conflict where the United States is clearly being the aggressor could escalate tensions all over the world? Why couldn't we step away from the Iraq situation and tell Russia, France, UN, etc. that the United States would hold them accountable if Iraq does any harm to the United States, our "interests (I hope *not* oil RocketmanTex)" or any of our "friends"? Diplomatically it is insane to give North Korea a pass while going all-out on Iraq. You warmongers are gonna love WW3.
The only thing that the Russians and French fear is losing billions of dollars in oil contracts. Oh, and the French don't want anyone to find out the depths of their complicity in Iraq's WMD programs. Ah. So *after* the next 9/11, we can turn to Russia and France and say "Hey! You were supposed to prevent this! I'm mad at you!"??? Are you sure that leaving American national security up to France and Russia to ensure is such a good idea? (treeman quietly moving right hand, fist half-closed, up and down, up and down, over lap)
Consider the source, but I found this report interesting: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm Some excerpts: A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck. The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters.... Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said.... An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said.... France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a "personal friend."
Ah yes. The juvenile personal attacks. How could we get by without those? They do add so much to the dialogue...
You sort of left yourself open for it, treeman. Perhaps you should have been moving your right hand, ahem, a little more quietly!
So the Russian and French's only motive is money and ours couldn't possibly be as well? And the United States had no part in Iraqi WMD programs, even when they were fighting Iran? Riiiiiiight, dream on. Let me get this right....Iraq was responsible for 911? Is that fact, or an excuse? If it is a fact, someone needs to tell our guys in Afghanistan... Hey I didn't know that Iraq was responsible for 911 though we attacked Afghanistan for that. Miscommunication or ignorance? Perhaps both.
That and appearing to challenge the unipolar world order, yes. Oh, and their deep involvement in Iraq's WMD programs... Of course it is, but not in the "it's all about oil" way that many of you seem to believe. We will prevent Saddam's takeover of Gulf oil resources, and thereby prevent Saddam from holding the global economy hostage. Oh, and real security concerns couldn't have anything to do with it either, could they? This has been argued ad naseum, and if you believe the conspiracy theories (as you obviously do), then I won't try to assail you with any facts. They just seem to bounce right off your type... But I will say this: the degree of our complicity is far, far below that of Russia's and France's (and Germany's). It is a fact that we never gave Saddam any actual weapons, nor did we ever actually build any of their WMD production/research facilities. All 3 of those nations did. I personally believe that they had a hand in it, as the only airliner hijacking training facility we know of exists at Salman Pak - inside Iraq, while none have ever been found inside Afghanistan. But that will remain a personal belief until we get more evidence - which should be forthcoming when Saddam is removed from power. What I was intimating was that Iraq - either alone or through surrogates such as Al Qaeda - may be responsible for the next 9/11. Since you somehow see this as impossible or at least unlikely enough to warrant no attention, there really is no point in trying to explain or argue it with you. I might as well be asking the Vancome Lady to bring me another cup of tea... And If Saddam gave you a signed confession stating that the hijackers were trained at Salman Pak, I'm sure you'd accuse him of being a CIA stooge, sent to plant misinformation about himself... BTW, what did that statement have to do with Russia and France? Please, focus. I know that reality is hard to deal with sometimes, but stay with us... The antiwar arguments are getting dumber every day. It's almost amusing... Almost.
What's your source for this? I never noticed it previously, but it appears that many of your arguments are baseless. Is this something new?
So it hasn't happened yet, but you'll believe it when you still don't see us steal another country's oil.
