France, Russia, and China have all traded blood for oil. They took the money intended to feed the Iraqi people and put it in their own pockets. The same with Saddam. The UN is crooked and corrupt. Why should we deal with people who are supporting the terrorists.
You want France to get a pass for having ILLEGAL business dealings with Iraq which went AGAINST the numerous resolutions France HELPED DRAFT? France deserves whatever she's now facing. Loss of one seat on the EU. Loss of face. Loss of credibility. Looks like they're just one of the 'little' guys, now. Their 'power' to 'influence' the EU is beginning to wane.
And yes, I have thought about IT. France is out for France, Saddam's victims be damned. Who cares about the insignificant Iraqis when their bottom line is all about lining their pockets ILLEGALLY?
Question: Why are you eager to give France special treatment knowing they broke agreements established withing those resolutions? Are some countries above the law within the resolutions they help create? Again we see those pesky double standards in action being applied to a liberals!
I thought Colin Powell raised questions about their statements that there were WMD? He didn't even want to make the statement. We knew before going in that we wouldn't find them, but I guess they felt they could continue to spin it until after the elections. Even though they continue to try to spin it, WMD doesn't seem to affect voters much.
Sigh. Of COURSE they deserve to pay for their illegal activities. However, they are not the "enemy" in the same way that the terrorists are the enemy. You just don't blow off the third largest military in the world and in effect, force them to side with the terrorists. You can't just forget that France has made the largest contribution in Afghanistan as well as the largest in the first Gulf War. On a per capita basis, France contrubutes more in humanitarian aid globally than does the US.
The war on Terror is much bigger than Iraq. In fact there are many that argue that the war in Iraq was a huge diversion from the larger war on Terror in which France was a significant player.
<>
The same could have been said about the US back in the 80s when they were big friends with Saddam. Nothing is entirely black and white.
OI'm only trying to look at the bigger picture. Iraq is only a small piece in the larger war on Terror.
<>
There are also millions of American weapons found worldwide in the hands of unsavoury groups sold privately in underground illegal deals. Has it been established that it was the French Government sold those weapons or greedy businessmen?
How soon people forget that after America, France contributed the most to both the War in Afghanistan AND to the first Gulf War.
Think about it....with the proper handling, France might have been made to come around. >
I wouldn't call them "enemies of our Republic", what I would call them is "willing to compromise global security for their own financial self-interest".
Your second assertion is true because your first assertion is FALSE. We didn't know before going in that we wouldn't find them, investigation after investigation has proven that, the reason it's not affecting voters is because despite the oft-repeated lefty slogan that "Bush lied", a majority of the voters see no evidence of that claim.
Pages
<>
You will find a great many allies would be very reluctant the get out of the UN. With Britain leading the pack.
I freely admit that there is corruption as well as a lot of bureaucratic red tape in the UN. This only points to a need for reforms.
You want France to get a pass for having ILLEGAL business dealings with Iraq which went AGAINST the numerous resolutions France HELPED DRAFT? France deserves whatever she's now facing. Loss of one seat on the EU. Loss of face. Loss of credibility. Looks like they're just one of the 'little' guys, now. Their 'power' to 'influence' the EU is beginning to wane.
And yes, I have thought about IT. France is out for France, Saddam's victims be damned. Who cares about the insignificant Iraqis when their bottom line is all about lining their pockets ILLEGALLY?
Question: Why are you eager to give France special treatment knowing they broke agreements established withing those resolutions? Are some countries above the law within the resolutions they help create? Again we see those pesky double standards in action being applied to a liberals!
Didn't they have billion dollar oil deals with Saddam that they were NOT supposed to?
Ditto Germany, Russia...
How about the weaponry found in Iraq manufactured in FRANCE since the resolutions banning such exchanges came into effect?
No, I really don't think any amount of "proper handling" (sheesh) would change their minds.
Sigh. Of COURSE they deserve to pay for their illegal activities. However, they are not the "enemy" in the same way that the terrorists are the enemy. You just don't blow off the third largest military in the world and in effect, force them to side with the terrorists. You can't just forget that France has made the largest contribution in Afghanistan as well as the largest in the first Gulf War. On a per capita basis, France contrubutes more in humanitarian aid globally than does the US.
The war on Terror is much bigger than Iraq. In fact there are many that argue that the war in Iraq was a huge diversion from the larger war on Terror in which France was a significant player.
<>
The same could have been said about the US back in the 80s when they were big friends with Saddam. Nothing is entirely black and white.
<>
There are also millions of American weapons found worldwide in the hands of unsavoury groups sold privately in underground illegal deals. Has it been established that it was the French Government sold those weapons or greedy businessmen?
Even more baffling than the assumption that they would be willing to do so is the assumption that they would be ABLE to do so.
How soon people forget that after America, France contributed the most to both the War in Afghanistan AND to the first Gulf War.
Think about it....with the proper handling, France might have been made to come around. >
I wouldn't call them "enemies of our Republic", what I would call them is "willing to compromise global security for their own financial self-interest".
Your second assertion is true because your first assertion is FALSE. We didn't know before going in that we wouldn't find them, investigation after investigation has proven that, the reason it's not affecting voters is because despite the oft-repeated lefty slogan that "Bush lied", a majority of the voters see no evidence of that claim.
Pages