Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
What's shaky is that you refute clear and concise evidence provided by Seretogis without backing up your own claim. In fact it's almost upsetting that you label it "conspiracy theories" regarding France/Germany/Russia's blatant violation of the oil for food program and arms embargo against Iraq.
Not even that I would disagree with you that this war was largely about oil, just probably not under the pretenses you profess... it's a lot bigger then Bush or the current group power.
|
Here's what I don't get. Some are saying it was ignoble for France to not join the war - presumably in the minds of some because they benefited from the status quo - yet it is either A) OK for America to take over for oil or B) America went in not thinking about oil at all, they went because they thought Saddam was a threat thereby saying that US morality is greater than the rest of the world -and somehow I don't think that's true.
As to refuting point by point, as soon as I saw the first item - that France received 22.5% of oil imports from Iraq under food for oil it was tough to keep a straight face. I think you'll find that number is high (for instance, I know that in 2001 France received 8% and were number 7 or 8 on the list), number one was always the US and US and Britain ran the program with some help from the rest of the security council. Like I said, when point one is blatantly wrong and biased, I had a feeling where the rest of the "Evidence" was heading...
Quite honestly, France was the one country that has always wanted to end the food-for-oil program and made no bones about it. If they were benefiting so much as a nation from food-for-oil, why did they agitate to end sanctions against the Iraqi people?