Quote:
|
All I'm saying is its a spit in the face when all those fucks forget when we stuck out our necks for their security. If it were up to the French Saddam would still be in power, and would have a nuclear arsenal (tks yu~ Osirirak).
|
It is probably also spit in the face to squander the international support that the us had as a nation post-9/11 on a war that many people, many americans, still feel was unjustified.
Quote:
|
Maybe their lucrative oil contracts where a factor in there staunch opposition. Perhaps it was the fact that they were the biggest hardware supplier to the Iraqi Military.
|
I thought the us was a big supplier of hardware to iraq. Wait, no, that was after he had gassed his own people, but before he reached "evil dictator" status so i guess its fine. Besides, its not like the us would ever let an abusive government or two slide on sticky issues if we didn't want to deal with the consequences... ahem pinochet... ahem saudi arabia... ahem china.
Quote:
|
And as far as the weapons go, you are delusional if you really think Saddam didn't have them.
|
Well, he did have a vial of botulism. As for delusional, well you're right, saddam was obviously only 45 minutes away from launching some kind of devastating bioterror attack on the us or its allies, just like our leaders said he was.
Quote:
|
Fact of the matter the only reason other nations opposed the war was to cock block the U.S.
|
A little over simplified. Maybe they saw that the us was lying to its citizens and the world. Maybe the knew that the idea of iraq as a credible threat to anyone was laughable. Maybe they just believed, like many americans, that this war was a foolish political move for a president having economic problems and trouble reigning in corporate deceptions. Dismissing it as simply a cock block maneuver is silly when there are so many other reasons to not support this war.