hectic around here.
> > France, Germany and Russia all had a vested interest in keeping Saddam
>
> This is speculation and not very keen - keep in mind 1441 was agreed
> to by all.
After Powell gave them no other option than to do so.
As for the "speculation" that the tie on the Oil-for-Food Farce, even
the Washington Post documented the following:
"The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies
received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996
and 2003."
The article from the Post can be found at:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm
> > During the Persian Gulf War (Desert Storm / Desert Shield) our allies
> > combined (not including hardware and specialized services) provided
>
> But Japan and the Saudis et. al. paid for those troops. This time
> we're footing the entire bill.
> With the exception of the Brits, they were paid to! They were just
> mercenaries.
So you're saying that the soldiers of all of the other nations were
simply paid mercinaries? That the US bought their services like so
many soldiers for hire?
If that's what your saying then not only are you insulting the
intentions of the US but you're also insulting the intentions and
services provided by our allies.
> > Lastly, where is it said that we have failed in our mission?
>
> If our mission was "regime change" then why are we still there? If
> it's a democratic Iraqi gov't, they have it so why are still there?
Refer to my last post:
"Our MTV attention span cannot drive the time frame of a military
action in a counry that has been under the domination of a dictator
longer than some of us (myself included) have been alive."
Change takes time.
Hatton
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
