Quote:
Originally posted by CaramonLS@Oct 11 2004, 04:50 AM
Actually dis your wording must be somewhat off because there are a ton of people who really don't get what you are saying.
Should your Quote read something like this? (I'm not taking shots at you, just want to clarify your position).
"Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason The administration made the war happened in the first place - which is something I do not agree with."
|
No, that's not at all what I was trying to say. Maybe my thought wasn't worded in the best way, but I honestly can't think of another way to say it in one sentence.
My position is this....
1. The oil for food program is not a legitmate rationale for going to war. If the administration is using it as one now, I think it's pathetic. In the case that they knew about the abuses at the time it would seem to me that the people to go after would be the violating governments, not Iraq (and I'm not suggesting military action against France and Russia).
2. I believe that Saddam believed one of two things in relation to the circumvention of the OFF Program.
a. His relationship with the government officials involved in both countries would keep him out of harms way if he continued to defy the council.
b. Those relationship would keep the US from forming a united international front against him involving use of force and the US would be looked down upoin for any military action.