|
strange famous,
well put, you stated your case very well i thought. but, i think that you're limiting the allegations against haliburton and like companies to a minority of what has actually been charged through the years. if the allegations were limited to the ones presented in your post i would see the distinction more clearly.
just look above at opie's post. his charge isn't that the administration was involved illegally, it's that the business was done at all. in addition, i don't see the matter as being purely associated with the "Country A"-->UN-->"Country B" conduit. if arms were sold to a country that had a major war with the US and its allies 10 years earlier and was still attacking aircraft policing it's imposed neutral zones... then the situation takes on new shape. if arms were dealt by the french to the iraqis, then we must allow for the possibility of US soldiers being killed by weapons bought from US allies in a very narrow span of time. a totally different animal politically and diplomatically.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|