Oil For Food Program?

[Galahad]

A Headline in the London Telegraph:

France says report's bribe claims are bid to smear Chirac

I guess as long as there is so much smearing going around, why should we expept out allies in the Security Council?

 

[Tinks]

I'm not holding my hopes up that G.W. will bring this up at debate tonight. He is a stand up guy who won't flame the U.N. and the security council, even though he should.

"Security Council" what a joke!

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Tinks
I'm not holding my hopes up that G.W. will bring this up at debate tonight. He is a stand up guy who won't flame the U.N. and the security council, even though he should.

"Security Council" what a joke!

I agree with you. He will see the Presidency of the United States as something far bigger than himself. I do think he needs to mention it however, even if he doesn't name names or point fingers. I guess 'security council" is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
"Iraq Amnesia"... I like the concept:
Iraq Amnesia
The real "coalition of the bribed" was at the U.N.

I liked this too. . .so, we know that the real coalition of the bribed and coerced was the UN Security Council. But, the left--even knowing this--STILL thinks that we didn't take advantage of all the diplomatic options before "rushing" to war.

Can someone please answer what Kerry's plan is? Since there are still undecided voters out there, don't they need to know Kerry's foreign policy plan before they cast their vote? Shoot, don't the Kerry supporters want to know Kerry's policy before they cast their vote?

France and Germany will still not get involved even if Kerry becomes President.

Kerry has said that he will be able to bring some troops home in 6 months--if he's elected and if his plan is followed--at the same time, weirdly enough, he says that he is going to broaden the coalition.

So, while stating he is going to broaden the coalition, he is ALSO actively campaigning against the pro-American Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, and FOR the opposing candidate, Mark Latham--who has stated that Australia will not be part of a coalition and that they will remove their troops.

So, what countries, do you think, will be part of his new coalition? Not France, not Germany, not Australia (if he's successful, that is). . .who does he have in mind?

He says he has no idea what he will inherit January 20 (ugh. . .AS IF!!!!), that maybe Lebanon will be an issue! He "just doesn't know". . .but, even though he doesn't know, he has a plan. So, what is this "plan" that he has?

Edwards didn't clarify this the other night, either. At first, Edwards said that Kerry will hunt and fight terrorists wherever they are. But, then he asked Cheney if we're supposed to go into all 60** countries with terrorists? And, he also implied that none of us will have an empty chair at our dinner table anymore. As much as I wish all the troops would come home, too, if none of us have an empty chair at our kitchen table, who will be fighting the terrorists? **Richard Miniter's book, Shadow War, says we have captured or killed 3000 al Quaeda operatives in 102 countries!!! Looks like Edwards doesn't even know what's going on in the world.

Hello, anyone out there? Can anyone PLEASE enlighten me to what Kerry's foreign policy plan is? I did hear him at the debate, but he said the 6 month thing, he said the broadening coalition thing, and his sister--as Kerry's representative-was in Australia RIGHT THEN campaigning against the man who wants to remain part of our coalition!!!

So, I truly don't understand what Kerry's plan is! Can someone please tell me?

I'll wager that I won't get an answer that explains away Kerry's hypocrisy. What I'd REALLY like is an answer that makes all of the above issues CLEAR. Can someone help with this?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Kerry, campaigning in 2004: " I have a plan to end the war - but we can't dwell on substantive details until after I'm elected."

Well, I missed this uninsightful quote!! Thank you for sharing it here. Wow. So, how can his supporters--who profess to hold the candle on intellectualisim and thinking out of the box actually support him?

Geesh, how can Kerry actually have supporters?

 

[acepepper]

"Iraq Amnesia"... I like the concept:

Judging from the current Iraq debate, you might think Saddam Hussein didn't use poison gas on the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s.

You might also forget who supplied him with that poisoned gas (and most probably replenished his stocks). You might also forget the countries that continued to sell him WMD and say what a splendid chap he was after he'd gassed the Kurds and Iranians.

Perhaps you should have said, "Selective Iraq Amnesia".

 

[Geoff_M]

You might also forget who supplied him with that poisoned gas (and most probably replenished his stocks). You might also forget the countries that continued to sell him WMD and say what a splendid chap he was after he'd gassed the Kurds and Iranians.

Perhaps you should have said, "Selective Iraq Amnesia".

Can you please give me some information on what CW agents the US government gave to Saddam? And assuming that what you say is true, what does that have to do with the the current debate? We supported Stalin during WWII, should that have invalidated our efforts against the Soviets during the Cold War?

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43
There is no data that supports you contention that the MAJORITY of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction. [/B]

In the latest AP/IPSOS poll, nearly 6 in 10 voters surveyed think the country is on the wrong track. This is true for both likely and registered voters.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Can you please give me some information on what CW agents the US government gave to Saddam? And assuming that what you say is true, what does that have to do with the the current debate? We supported Stalin during WWII, should that have invalidated our efforts against the Soviets during the Cold War?

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
I didn't say it was only the US that supplied him. My own country as well as many others were in it up to their necks. You were the one who liked the concept of Iraq amnesia, I'm just giving you some more of what you like.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by acepepper
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
I didn't say it was only the US that supplied him. My own country as well as many others were in it up to their necks. You were the one who liked the concept of Iraq amnesia, I'm just giving you some more of what you like.

This is an insane argument--one made to change focus on the real issue. . .that's like saying knife manufacturers ought to be responsible rather than the people that use those knives to kill people. Or, to take it a step further. . .who manufactured those boxcutters that the hijackers took on the plane? Maybe we should take this issue up with them?

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by Kendra17
This is an insane argument--one made to change focus on the real issue. . .that's like saying knife manufacturers ought to be responsible rather than the people that use those knives to kill people. Or, to take it a step further. . .who manufactured those boxcutters that the hijackers took on the plane? Maybe we should take this issue up with them?

Selling WMD to a known mass murderer is hardly the same as selling knives and boxcutters.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by acepepper
Selling WMD to a known mass murderer is hardly the same as selling knives and boxcutters.

Of course. But he hadn't used them on his own people and he hadn't invaded Kuwait yet, acepepper. And, we were providing weaponry to support Iraq against Iran. Excuse my lack of nuance here, but your argument is just, well, stupid. It's a grasp at the last straw. It's a NONissue.

We chose the lesser of two evils then, as we should have. If we didn't, what would Iran had done? We can't know that and you can't know that.

Correction made

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Karen, I think you're gonna get piled on but I agree completely. Bush supporters HAVE to spin this so they can keep on keepin on! We've now heard three different reasons why our military was sent to war against Iraq. Wonder what the next reason will be?

Spin???? Where? I don't see it.

There's no spin. Unless you want to believe only certain parts of the report. The report says that he would have likely started his programs again.

Three reasons?

One: He had WMDs. Doesn't seem he did.

Two: He was actively keeping his programs alive and at the same time skirting the UN sanctions by dealing under the table with our "friends". And that he wanted to develope WMDs after the sanctions were lifted and if the inspection had been allowed to continue and no WMDs were found, he would have surely had them (for real) in a few years.

Three: He was a himself a "WMD".

IMO, two out of three is a pretty good reason.

So what you're saying that even though ONE of the reasons we went to war is not true, the other reasons don't count as being reason enough?

 

[peachgirl]

What's stupid and insane is for you to continually say things that aren't true. It only proves the weakness of your arguments.

Edwards did not say:

he asked Cheney if we're supposed to go into all 60** countries with terrorists?

He asked, "How many of those countries are we going to invade?"


If you're so right, why make things up?

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Of course. But he hadn't used them on his own people and he hadn't invaded Kuwait yet, acepepper. And, we were providing weaponry to support Iraq against Iran. Excuse my lack of nuance here, but your argument is just, well, stupid. It's a grasp at the last straw. It's a NONissue.

We chose the lesser of two evils then, as we should have. If we didn't, what would Iran had done? We can't know that and you can't know that.

Correction made

The lesser of two evils? Is that why the US was selling arms to Iran at the same time as it was selling them to Iraq?

The point I'm making is this; over and over again, you hear people, including the Bush administration, bringing up the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds and the Iranians and that in itself is good enough reason to go to war against him. But where was the condemnation when it actually took place? There wasn't any. Not from the US or any other government that provided him with WMD. They all just fell over themselves to restock his supplies. It's just sheer hypocracy.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by acepepper
The lesser of two evils? Is that why the US was selling arms to Iran at the same time as it was selling them to Iraq?

The point I'm making is this; over and over again, you hear people, including the Bush administration, bringing up the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds and the Iranians and that in itself is good enough reason to go to war against him. But where was the condemnation when it actually took place? There wasn't any. Not from the US or any other government that provided him with WMD. They all just fell over themselves to restock his supplies. It's just sheer hypocracy.

I don't really know. Had they both annihilated eachother, the world would be much better off now, though. And, that's probably why. . .keep them busy fighting eachother.

Peachgirl, I really don't know what you mean. Again, you are picking at my phrasing, which isn't so different from what he said exactly. My point was, he has stated that he will fight the terrorists wherever they are. Then, he implied that Bush was too far reaching--i.e., there are 60 countries with terrorists--are we supposed to invade them all? And, then he implied he'd bring the troops home for dinner.

Who'll fight the terrorists he promised he'll find if he sends them all home to fill our empty chairs?

Finally, I stated that I just found out that we've captured or killed 3000 terrorists in 102 countries. So, I was also pointing out that Edwards had his numbers wrong there, too. . .as he did with his financial figures.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I don't really know. Had they both annihilated eachother, the world would be much better off now, though. And, that's probably why. . .keep them busy fighting eachother.

Yep, that's probably it.

 

[Geoff_M]

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

acepepper,

Wow, what a damning article. I see where the US approved the export of components of CW. But the industrial chemicals mentioned are used in any number of industrial applications. Cyanide? Remember the Union Carbide accident at Bophol (SP?), India.... that was cyanide. Were they making CW's too??? As for the biologicals, I seem to recall that they were obtained through academic and research channels. These were some of the same channels that were tightened after 9/11 when people realized how easy it was to get samples of biological agents.

But again, what does any of this matter. Let's say that we did give Saddam canisters of CW in 1982... what does that matter today?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by acepepper
The lesser of two evils? Is that why the US was selling arms to Iran at the same time as it was selling them to Iraq?

The point I'm making is this; over and over again, you hear people, including the Bush administration, bringing up the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds and the Iranians and that in itself is good enough reason to go to war against him. But where was the condemnation when it actually took place? There wasn't any. Not from the US or any other government that provided him with WMD. They all just fell over themselves to restock his supplies. It's just sheer hypocracy.

This is not true. . .there was massive condemnation against Saddam when the word got out that he killed the Kurds. . .killing thousands of innocent people. you must remember that Iran, after the revolution, was our enemy. So, we have two enemies that are at war, it makes PERFECT cynical sense to arm both sides and make profit from the sale of those arms and watch as our two enemies try to destroy eachother. This is after the hostage crisis of 1979. Why on earth wouldn't we want to see Iran destroyed/defeated?

Think about the scenario from a realpolitik perspective. The Iranian enemy is impossible to reason with because the entire society has been transformed by the Khomeini revolution into a reactionary tyranny. Iraq, on the other hand, was a fairly secular society in comparison. Not overrun with fundamentalists and ruled by a dictator and his cronies. The destruction of the dictator and his supporters, thus liberating the oppressed population, is a less difficult matter than changing the hearts, minds, and religious fanatacism of the majority of the Iranian population.

We saw on 9-11 and its aftermath that the youth of Iran want to change. The protests at the Universities in Tehran and the vicious subjugation of those protesters were very much like Tienamen Square in China. Not all of the population of Iran is fanatical. So, in the future, we will look to these brave rationalists to rescue their country from the tyranny of fanatical religious oligarchs.

So, back to the original point: we do not live in a liberal world in which weapons inspectors, UN resolutions, and pleadings from NGO leaders bring about significant, fundamental change during conflicts. That is the job of the U.S. Military. And, in the course of a war in which two states who are both our enemies are trying to destroy one another, it makes perfect but, of course, cynical sense that we should sell arms to both sides as they go about their mutual destruction--hopefully saving us the trouble.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by Kendra17
This is not true. . .there was massive condemnation against Saddam when the word got out that he killed the Kurds. . .killing thousands of innocent people. you must remember that Iran, after the revolution, was our enemy. So, we have two enemies that are at war, it makes PERFECT cynical sense to arm both sides and make profit from the sale of those arms and watch as our two enemies try to destroy eachother. This is after the hostage crisis of 1979. Why on earth wouldn't we want to see Iran destroyed/defeated?

Think about the scenario from a realpolitik perspective. The Iranian enemy is impossible to reason with because the entire society has been transformed by the Khomeini revolution into a reactionary tyranny. Iraq, on the other hand, was a fairly secular society in comparison. Not overrun with fundamentalists and ruled by a dictator and his cronies. The destruction of the dictator and his supporters, thus liberating the oppressed population, is a less difficult matter than changing the hearts, minds, and religious fanatacism of the majority of the Iranian population.

We saw on 9-11 and its aftermath that the youth of Iran want to change. The protests at the Universities in Tehran and the vicious subjugation of those protesters were very much like Tienamen Square in China. Not all of the population of Iran is fanatical. So, in the future, we will look to these brave rationalists to rescue their country from the tyranny of fanatical religious oligarchs.

So, back to the original point: we do not live in a liberal world in which weapons inspectors, UN resolutions, and pleadings from NGO leaders bring about significant, fundamental change during conflicts. That is the job of the U.S. Military. And, in the course of a war in which two states who are both our enemies are trying to destroy one another, it makes perfect but, of course, cynical sense that we should sell arms to both sides as they go about their mutual destruction--hopefully saving us the trouble.

It was a bit more simple than that. They sold arms to Iran to get American hostages released from Lebanon. Otherwise known as doing deals with terrorists.