Next excuse on the Price was Right?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 8 2004, 10:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 8 2004, 10:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Oct 8 2004, 02:00 AM
Best line of the whole article:

This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale.

Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place.[/b][/quote]
That's interesting, I'd never heard that violations of the Oil for Food program were a 'major' reason for the war. Did the administration proclaim this or is it an 'informal' reason?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 8 2004, 10:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 8 2004, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Might not be a legitimate rationale for the war, but it is certainly a major reason why the war happened in the first place.

That's interesting, I'd never heard that violations of the Oil for Food program were a 'major' reason for the war. Did the administration proclaim this or is it an 'informal' reason? [/b][/quote]
Rationale is what you're talking about.

I'm saying it's a reason the war happened....nothing to do with adminstration.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 8 2004, 04:49 PM
That's interesting, I'd never heard that violations of the Oil for Food program were a 'major' reason for the war. Did the administration proclaim this or is it an 'informal' reason?

I'm looking at it from a different point of view.

If the Oil for Food program didn't exist, I doubt that France and Russia (etc) would have stood in the way of the various resolutions. If they agree to tougher wording, tougher consequences, etc, then the US and Britain don't go it alone. (ie: there is no war)

Chances are that if Saddam didn't have those countries interested, he doesn't play as many games.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 8 2004, 11:08 PM
Rationale is what you're talking about.

I'm saying it's a reason the war happened....nothing to do with adminstration.

I suppose. I've just never heard this theory postulated before, it's pretty interesting. What exactly was the negative aspect about corruption in the Oil for Food program that directly resulted in the US invasion? I suppose Saddam was getting rich, but that doesn't seem to be a justification (or informal reason) for war at all.

The idea that violations in the Oil for Food program was a 'major' reason for the war sounds like an attempt to prop up the legitimacy of the war, which is what the Republicans are currently desperately attempting to do.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calculoso+Oct 8 2004, 11:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Oct 8 2004, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Oct 8 2004, 04:49 PM
That's interesting, I'd never heard that violations of the Oil for Food program were a 'major' reason for the war. Did the administration proclaim this or is it an 'informal' reason?

I'm looking at it from a different point of view.

If the Oil for Food program didn't exist, I doubt that France and Russia (etc) would have stood in the way of the various resolutions. If they agree to tougher wording, tougher consequences, etc, then the US and Britain don't go it alone. (ie: there is no war)

Chances are that if Saddam didn't have those countries interested, he doesn't play as many games. [/b][/quote]
Very true. Are we agreeing, or did I misunderstand you?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by calculoso@Oct 8 2004, 11:17 PM
Chances are that if Saddam didn't have those countries interested, he doesn't play as many games.

If Hussein never had those countries interested, the U.S. and Britain would have likely done business with Iraq just like they had in the past - but you're right, the war likely would not have happened.

[Agamemnon]

I suppose. Except that the relationship between Russia, France, and Saddam (whatever they were) served to assist in delaying military action (which the US and UK were looking for). So, if anything, the violations in the Program delayed the war, culminating in a rejection by the UN Security Council to endorse the action. That 'should' have deterred the US. Obviously it didn't. Sort of goes against the idea that the violations were a 'major' cause.

Still, it's an interesting idea.

Edit: Sry, partially misunderstood. I'm not sure how many 'chances' Saddam took as a result of his 'relationship' with France and Russia. Seems like he wasn't doing much other than resisting the weapon's inspectors, which, while bad, technically doesn't result in war. At least, that's the way it had worked up till that point.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 8 2004, 11:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 8 2004, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 8 2004, 11:08 PM
Rationale is what you're talking about.

I'm saying it's a reason the war happened....nothing to do with adminstration.

I suppose. I've just never heard this theory postulated before, it's pretty interesting. What exactly was the negative aspect about corruption in the Oil for Food program that directly resulted in the US invasion? I suppose Saddam was getting rich, but that doesn't seem to be a justification (or informal reason) for war at all.

The idea that violations in the Oil for Food program was a 'major' reason for the war sounds like an attempt to prop up the legitimacy of the war, which is what the Republicans are currently desperately attempting to do. [/b][/quote]
It was in France's best interest, financially, to look the other way when assessing whether Hussein's disregard for 17 UN security council resolutions (Everyone of which France approved) and his violation of the treaty to end the Gulf War were serious enough infractions to warrant use of force. They were more interested in acquiring cheap oil than helping the Iraqi people who were suffering as a direct result of France's abuse of the UN program specifically designed to help the same people.

Once Saddam saw that France was not going to support an invasion, he knew he had the green light to play the game all the way through. (Why he thought this was a good idea, I have no clue).

That's my reasoning.

I'm not trying to prop up anything. My beliefs about the legitimacy of the war haven't changed from day 1. Unfortunately the same can't be said of everyone.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 8 2004, 11:32 PM
Once Saddam saw that France was not going to support an invasion, he knew he had the green light to play the game all the way through. (Why he thought this was a good idea, I have no clue).

Ok, I hear what you're saying. But I'm still having a problem with the same thing, apparently the part where Saddam continues to 'play the game'. If you mean resisting weapon's inspectors, that game was faaaaarrr from new, as they'd be doing it for the past 10 (odd) years. Part of the problem was Saddam was resisting _sometimes_ in _someplaces_. Another part was that there were no WMD's.

The theory rests on the fact that Saddam's relationship with Russia/France resulted in a set of actions performed by him that he wouldn't have undertaken if Russia and France were with the US.

I don't believe this scenario was a 'major' cause, again. His relationship with France/Russia deterred the war, almost successfully. It didn't cause it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 8 2004, 11:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 8 2004, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That's interesting, I'd never heard that violations of the Oil for Food program were a 'major' reason for the war. Did the administration proclaim this or is it an 'informal' reason?

Rationale is what you're talking about.

I'm saying it's a reason the war happened....nothing to do with adminstration. [/b][/quote]
Dis, wake up. The reason the war happened was because Bush and Co. had some undisclosed desire to get into Iraq. If it was to punish those who profitted from the Oil for Food program (everyone in the world including an American company IIRC) then they sure have done well at that. And they sure are showing just how ethical they are as well, raking in profits like bandits during this little sideshow.

I have no idea how you can stand by these scumbags. How many more excuses do you find acceptable? When are you going to be a PROUD American and call these clowns out for what they did and call them what they are? I cannot believe the flock mentality on display by people and saying that to be a good American you have to stand by your President. Sorry, to be a GOOD American, a PROUD American, you have to DO THE RIGHT THING, and what has happened is not the right thing. Come on Dis, I know you have it in you. These guys are crooked as they come. How many more blatant lies is it going to take for you to wake up?

[RougeUnderoos]

I'm not trying to pile on any one person in particular, but I have a serious question for anyone who still supports the war and the reasons for it.

The question is : What more evidence do you need that the reasons for this war (WMD and al-qaeda links) were false?

If you are going to give me some "new reason" that has cropped up in the last day or two (he was scamming the oil-for-food program!) then don't bother answering. We all know that it simply wasn't that. That is at best a diversion.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 8 2004, 04:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 8 2004, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Am I the only one that is a little blown away by that?

I'm not religious in the least, so maybe I'm a tad biased.

But basing your vote solely on the fact that one guy is "obvious"ly religious is mind-blowing to me.

So..........you can invade a country (for little or no reason), killing countless numbers of innocent people (Americans AND Iraqis); but he's religious, so he gets their vote?

Huh?

The poll said "SOME" Americans.

Pretty vague. Why are you blown away by it? [/b][/quote]
I guess I'm blown away that "SOME" people......"won't even consider Kerry since Bush is a man of "obvious" faith and that's the guy they want in office."

Do these people really want the best person running their country, or just the most religious?

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 8 2004, 05:21 PM
Very true. Are we agreeing, or did I misunderstand you?

We're agreeing I guess.

I wasn't sure if what you were saying is the same as what I was saying... so I just said what I said in case it wasn't what you said.

Understand what I"m saying?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 8 2004, 11:53 PM

Dis, wake up. The reason the war happened was because Bush and Co. had some undisclosed desire to get into Iraq. If it was to punish those who profitted from the Oil for Food program (everyone in the world including an American company IIRC) then they sure have done well at that. And they sure are showing just how ethical they are as well, raking in profits like bandits during this little sideshow.

I have no idea how you can stand by these scumbags. How many more excuses do you find acceptable? When are you going to be a PROUD American and call these clowns out for what they did and call them what they are? I cannot believe the flock mentality on display by people and saying that to be a good American you have to stand by your President. Sorry, to be a GOOD American, a PROUD American, you have to DO THE RIGHT THING, and what has happened is not the right thing. Come on Dis, I know you have it in you. These guys are crooked as they come. How many more blatant lies is it going to take for you to wake up?

Man, you aren't even on the same page as me in this thread. Your post has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Sorry.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 8 2004, 05:53 PM
I have no idea how you can stand by these scumbags. How many more excuses do you find acceptable? When are you going to be a PROUD American and call these clowns out for what they did and call them what they are? I cannot believe the flock mentality on display by people and saying that to be a good American you have to stand by your President. Sorry, to be a GOOD American, a PROUD American, you have to DO THE RIGHT THING, and what has happened is not the right thing. Come on Dis, I know you have it in you. These guys are crooked as they come. How many more blatant lies is it going to take for you to wake up?

Y'know Lanny, it comes down to a difference in philosophy.

I, like Dis (I think), supported the war because *I* thought it was something that needed to happen. I don't care about what Bush and his cronies have said, I don't care about what Bush and his cronies are using as reasons. I think Saddam was and is a bad guy and needed to leave Iraq. He wasn't listening to the threats, he was torturing his own people, etc. I wanted him out.

What Bush (etc) use as justification is besides the point to me.

Fact is, for me, Saddam is no longer in power. The world is a MUCH better place because of it.

*I* think Saddam was a threat. He was perceived to be a threat and in a lot of cases perception is reality. Until proven otherwise (like we're starting to see now, that he was just a blowhard, all bark no bite, etc) then the perception IS reality.

You can be against the war all you want... you can call Bush (etc) liars because their justification wasn't real, whatever. That's your perrogative. It also doesn't mean that because someone (like me) was for the war that we were for Bush and his reasons for going in.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 9 2004, 12:22 AM
I'm not trying to pile on any one person in particular, but I have a serious question for anyone who still supports the war and the reasons for it.

The question is : What more evidence do you need that the reasons for this war (WMD and al-qaeda links) were false?

If you are going to give me some "new reason" that has cropped up in the last day or two (he was scamming the oil-for-food program!) then don't bother answering. We all know that it simply wasn't that. That is at best a diversion.

That's my point Roos....my reasons haven't changed.

The facts still remain....

Saddam had in his posession post '91 WMD (I hate the phrase).
He used them prior to that time.
They were documented post Gulf War.
He was mandated by the UN to destory them and to do so in an accountable manner.
He did not.
He ignored/laughed at/disrespected 17 UN resolutions and a cease fire agreement.

He had illegal missiles capable of reaching Israel...those were found early on. No nasty warheads, though.

It was reasonable to assume that he had them still and that they could be used to attack his neighbors or pawned off to terrorists.

Hussein supported terrorism.

He paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

He gave refuge to Abu Nidal.

He gave refuge and medical treatment to Al-Zarqawi, who is associated with Al-Qaeda.

Still going with facts here.....

I have NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and 9-11.
I have NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and Bin-Laden.
I have ONLY said (in this area) that it was not unlikely that sharing a common enemy would unite them at some point in the future in some way.

Do you have a serious problem with any of these facts? If you don't, then it comes down to you and I having different views on what justifies a madman's removal from power. I find the above pretty compelling whether WMD's were found or not.

As for your last paragraph, if you'll read my earlier post you might find that I beat you to that punch.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by KootenayFlamesFan@Oct 9 2004, 12:34 AM


Do these people really want the best person running their country, or just the most religious?

I would say they think the most religious person is the best person. I'm not arguing that they are right.

I'd bet you there are SOME Canadians who have the exact same criterion for their preferred leadership.

Does that blow you away?

I guess I don't get why you are blown away.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 9 2004, 02:23 AM
That's my point Roos....my reasons haven't changed.

The facts still remain....

Saddam had in his posession post '91 WMD (I hate the phrase).
He used them prior to that time.
They were documented post Gulf War.
He was mandated by the UN to destory them and to do so in an accountable manner.
He did not.
He ignored/laughed at/disrespected 17 UN resolutions and a cease fire agreement.

He had illegal missiles capable of reaching Israel...those were found early on. No nasty warheads, though.

It was reasonable to assume that he had them still and that they could be used to attack his neighbors or pawned off to terrorists.

Hussein supported terrorism.

He paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

He gave refuge to Abu Nidal.

He gave refuge and medical treatment to Al-Zarqawi, who is associated with Al-Qaeda.

Still going with facts here.....

I have NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and 9-11.
I have NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and Bin-Laden.
I have ONLY said (in this area) that it was not unlikely that sharing a common enemy would unite them at some point in the future in some way.

Do you have a serious problem with any of these facts? If you don't, then it comes down to you and I having different views on what justifies a madman's removal from power. I find the above pretty compelling whether WMD's were found or not.

As for your last paragraph, if you'll read my earlier post you might find that I beat you to that punch.

Are these justifications for war or proof that Saddam was a bad person? I agree he's a madman, but if the US removed him for the reasons that you've stated... well, that would be fantastic! We could trust the US to remove all the problem-tators all over the world.

The fact is though, "Saddam was a bad guy" rings hollow because there are lots of bad guys. Lots of them. Why doesn't the US remove all of them in the same fashion? Hell, some of them actually have WMD's.

I don't dispute any of your charges Dis, I just think that if it applies to Saddam, it should apply to the Ayatollah, Kim Jung, etc. Shouldn't you be demanding the removal of these guys as well? And if they're not removed, doesn't that mean that there's a greater prevailing reason for this war beyond "Saddam was a bad guy, bottom line"?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 9 2004, 02:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 9 2004, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-KootenayFlamesFan@Oct 9 2004, 12:34 AM


Do these people really want the best person running their country, or just the most religious?

I would say they think the most religious person is the best person. I'm not arguing that they are right.

I'd bet you there are SOME Canadians who have the exact same criterion for their preferred leadership.

Does that blow you away?

I guess I don't get why you are blown away.[/b][/quote]
I'm pretty sure my grandparents would vote for the most religious candidate. Especially if they're Christian.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Where are the 17 UN security council resolutions against Iran and North Korea that have been violated?