Chirac and Putin - was their loyalty to Saddam bought and paid for by oil?

[apechild]

New evidence suggests that several of Saddam's strongest supporters in the months leading up to the war were bribed with lucrative oil contracts under the UN's so-called "oil-for-food" program.

The credibility of some of the world's most powerful and outspoken leaders has been dealt a serious blow. Never again will Chirac or Putin be able to take the moral high ground. For them, it seems, this whole thing really was all about oil.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040129-1.html

Saddam’s Gifts
Document: Saddam Supporters Received Lucrative Oil Contracts

By Brian Ross

Jan. 29 — ABCNEWS has obtained an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result.

All of the contracts were awarded from late 1997 until the U.S.-led war in March 2003. They were conducted under the aegis of the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods.

The document was discovered several weeks ago in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

According to a copy obtained by ABCNEWS, some 270 prominent individuals, political parties or corporations in 47 countries were on a list of those given Iraq oil contracts instantly worth millions of dollars.

Today, the U.S.Treasury Department said that any American citizens found to be illegally involved could face prosecution.

"You are looking at a political slush fund that was buying political support for the regime of Saddam Hussein for the last six or seven years," said financial investigator John Fawcett.

Investigators say none of the people involved would have actually taken possession of oil, but rather just the right to buy the oil at a discounted price, which could be resold to a legitimate broker or oil company, at an average profit of about 50 cents a barrel.

List Includes Prominent Names

Among those named: Indonesia President Megawati Sukarnoputri, an outspoken opponent of U.S.-Iraq policy, who received a contract for 10 million barrels of oil — about a $5 million profit.

The son of the Syrian defense minister received 6 million barrels, according to the document, worth about $3 million.

George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, was also on the list to receive 19 million barrels of oil, a $90.5 million profit. A vocal critic of the Iraq war, Galloway denied any involvement to ABCNEWS earlier this year.

"I've never seen a bottle of oil, owned one or bought one," Galloway said in a previous interview with ABCNEWS.

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

Maugein, individually and through companies connected to him, received contracts for some 36 million barrels. Chirac's office said it was unaware of Maugein's deals, which Maugein told ABCNEWS are perfectly legal.

The single biggest set of contracts were given to the Russian government and Russian political figures, more than 1.3 billion barrels in all — including 92 million barrels to individual officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin.

Another 1 million barrels were contracted to the Russian ambassador to Baghdad, 137 million barrels of oil were given to the Russian Communist Party, and 5 million barrels were contracted to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Also on the list are the names of prominent journalists, two Iraqi-Americans, and a French priest who organized a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister...

"No blood for oil! No blood for oil!"

[onetime2]

Not really surprising. Iraq knew they needed to influence UN/world opinion, the only resource they had to do so was oil. They used it. The politicians who accepted these contracts should be voted out of office or, in the case of appointed positions, fired.

[apechild]

Accepting bribes is a serious crime.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by apechild
Accepting bribes is a serious crime.

Absolutely but I am sure it can't be traced back to the leaders of each country and I'm sure they will come up with another explanation for the "payments". Perhaps consulting fees or some such bs.

[filtherton]

I'm not surpised i guess. Although you can hardly claim that the massive demonstrations by people all over the world were the result of oil contracts.
Besides, looking out for your country's percieved best interests is what any good leader does.
I don't see how this is any different from our not so recent ties to saddam. Maybe its comparable to our current ties to uzbekistan. In any case "the moral high ground" is something you have to forsake as the price of entry into having any kind of voice in the world. The us lost its moral high ground abilities a long time ago.

[apechild]

Well I, for one, am thoroughly outraged.

I can not and will not dismiss it so easily as Filtherton has.

This is serious corruption at the highest levels of government. The people these leaders represent have been betrayed, and the twenty milllion Iraqis that lived under the violent, murderous tyranny of a brutal dictator were left to suffer because a few political leaders obstructed the US liberation for no reason other than to line their own pockets.

Where is the righteous indignation of the left now?

No blood for oil...

[Lebell]

Originally posted by apechild

Where is the righteous indignation of the left now?

No blood for oil...

Your point was made in your first post.

If you are just going to repeat yourself with baiting, I'll close this thread as a troll.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by filtherton
I'm not surpised i guess. Although you can hardly claim that the massive demonstrations by people all over the world were the result of oil contracts.
Besides, looking out for your country's percieved best interests is what any good leader does.
I don't see how this is any different from our not so recent ties to saddam. Maybe its comparable to our current ties to uzbekistan. In any case "the moral high ground" is something you have to forsake as the price of entry into having any kind of voice in the world. The us lost its moral high ground abilities a long time ago.

Sorry, but this had nothing to do with "looking out for your country's best interests", this was influence peddling plain and simple. Having governmental ties to regimes like Iraq out of necessity is far different than personally held oil contracts for those in positions to make/influence decisions. If there was no UN/French/Russian opposition to an Iraq invasion do you think the protests would have been as popular? I doubt it.

[Liquor Dealer]

"Where is the righteous indignation of the left now?"

That's the part I'd like to hear!

"This is serious corruption at the highest levels of government. The people these leaders represent have been betrayed, and the twenty milllion Iraqis that lived under the violent, murderous tyranny of a brutal dictator were left to suffer because a few political leaders obstructed the US liberation for no reason other than to line their own pockets."

C'mon you three - you preached this from the highest hill for weeks - have you nothing at all to say about this side of it?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer

C'mon you three - you preached this from the highest hill for weeks - have you nothing at all to say about this side of it?

This isn't really surprising, it was pretty clear that some people seemed to be a little too friendly to Iraq and there was talk of bribes. The left knew this too, they just ignored it then, and they will ignore it now.

[Nad Adam]

Or could the reason they didn't want to go to war be that they knew there was no weapons of mass destruction and didn't feel like spending billions and billions chasing a ghost inside the mind of the US president?

I honestly don't care very much if thewar was about 'blood for oil' as long as they don't lie about it.

[Liquor Dealer]

Originally posted by Nad Adam
Or could the reason they didn't want to go to war be that they knew there was no weapons of mass destruction and didn't feel like spending billions and billions chasing a ghost inside the mind of the US president?

I honestly don't care very much if thewar was about 'blood for oil' as long as they don't lie about it.

This is sorta' one of those "I don't go to the movies to watch the film - they have the greatest popcorn..."

[Sparhawk]

Yes, if 270 people out of the 20 million who protested against it hadn't shown up, it would have made a big difference.

As for the bribery of high-level officials by a foreign government, a crime is a crime, and they should be prosecuted to the utmost extent of the law.

[filtherton]

I guess i'm all righteous indignated out. You're right that they weren't looking out for the interests of their countries, just a few wealthy individuals. I read it wrong. At this point all this news does is put chirac and putin a little closer to bush on my own personal "bought and paid for politicians" continuum.

I wonder if it may be possible to be against this war, and yet, not have lucrative and questionable oil contracts with the former iraqi leader? I didn't hear any mention of any canadians on that list. I was against that war and i'm just a poor student with a small income.


no blood for oil isn't accurate, and i doubt you could find a place on the tfp where i said such a thing. If i did, i'm sorry. I'm also sorry to inform you that you can't make me, or sparhawk or any one single person answer for the actions and opinions of the liberal archetype in your head. By that logic i could say imminent threat... imminent threat... where's your conservative righteous indignation?

Originally posted by Ustwo
This isn't really surprising, it was pretty clear that some people seemed to be a little too friendly to Iraq and there was talk of bribes. The left knew this too, they just ignored it then, and they will ignore it now.

You say this as if there was no other reason to be antiwar in this instance. I wasn't aware of bribes and neither were you. That article is dated Jan. 29th.
Of course there were ulterior motives in france and russia's decision not to support a war. There are always ulterior motives. Notice our stated purpose for war(wmd's and liberation) and our probable actual purpose for war(sending a message to rogue nations). You can't claim that "the left" was aware of them any more than "the right" was. What were the ulterior motives of germany and canada? Who was greasing their wheels?

Originally posted by onetime2
If there was no UN/French/Russian opposition to an Iraq invasion do you think the protests would have been as popular? I doubt it.

Well, we can speculate all we want. Tony blair was pretty gung ho about invading, yet brits turned out by the thousands to voice their lack of support. As did many americans.

[Nad Adam]

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
This is sorta' one of those "I don't go to the movies to watch the film - they have the greatest popcorn..."

I dont get it, maybe Im slow.

What's wrong with feeling that the people who pays for a war (soldiers and civilians) should be told the right reason why they are doing it and how does that have to do with your post?

[james t kirk]

Big deal.

Let me see if i understand the article.

People continued to do business with Saddam even though they knew he was a murderous bastard. In other words, "it's just business"

Wow, shocking stuff eh.

Now, the US has never done anything like that have they? No, Americans are far too moral to EVER do business with a bad guy like Saddam Hussein. No, they would never do that!!! We have self righteous indignation.

"What's that?"

"How do i explain all the business that the US did with Saddam prior to 1991?"

"Well of course, that was BEFORE Saddam became an evil dictator. Up until 1991 he was a good despot, so the USA did business with him. After 1991 he was a bad despot."

"Same goes for all those other evil dictators in the world who we do business with today!" They are good dictators!

Trust America to differentiate between good and bad dictators.

[Phaenx]

In a related story, duh.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by filtherton

Well, we can speculate all we want. Tony blair was pretty gung ho about invading, yet brits turned out by the thousands to voice their lack of support. As did many americans.

The Brits saw Tony Blair as cow towing to the US and they were especially incensed that the French and Germans were standing up to us for moral/humanitarian reasons.

Had France, Germany, and Russia not opposed the action so vehemently the protests would never have been as large. The opposition of France and Germany was especially incendiary because of the mistaken belief that we're all "allies".

Many Americans also protested the first Gulf War, yet France and Germany approved of that. There will always be a group of people who believe war is unnecessary and groups of people who believe the US is a big evil monster bent on world domination.

[HunterDevourer]

Sorry if this raises no relevant points...
But I find the article amusing when it says PUTIN lost his moral high ground. Since when did he have a moral high ground, he is definately not the most saintly leader in the world.
And corruption in the Russian government probably goes without saying :P

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by onetime2
Many Americans also protested the first Gulf War, yet France and Germany approved of that. There will always be a group of people who believe war is unnecessary and groups of people who believe the US is a big evil monster bent on world domination.

Lenin called such people 'useful idiots'.

[filtherton]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Lenin called such people 'useful idiots'.

I don't think he was refering to just the antiwar crowd. He was probably refering to anybody who would blindly follow the leader, in which case america is full of your man lenin's useful idiots.

[apechild]

Originally posted by james t kirk
Big deal.

Let me see if i understand the article.

People continued to do business with Saddam even though they knew he was a murderous bastard. In other words, "it's just business"

Wow, shocking stuff eh.

With all due respect, Captain, I do believe you missed one rather crucial point.

That point being, of course, that the above named political leaders were given valuable oil contracts not in exchange for any good or service, but expressly to influence their views and conduct.

That's called bribery.

When one acknowledges the distinction between bribery and business, one begins to see the point.

[filtherton]

So what is it called when certain industrialists give presidential candidates bootyloads of money, and the president in turn puts said industrialists on comittees that shape policy for their particular industry?


It's called politics as usual.

[Bookman]

This is funny.
Maybe it has something to do with the Euro

Energy

Cóilín Nunan: Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq

This document is also available in Word and PDF formats.

It will not come as news to anyone that the US dominates the world economically and militarily. But the exact mechanisms by which American hegemony has been established and maintained are perhaps less well understood than they might be. One tool used to great effect has been the dollar, but its efficacy has recently been under threat since Europe introduced the euro.

The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.

But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.

Since so many foreign-owned dollars are not spent on American goods and services, the US is able to run a huge trade deficit year after year without apparently any major economic consequences. The most recently published figures, for example, show that in November of last year US imports were worth 48% more than US exports1. No other country can run such a large trade deficit with impunity. The financial media tell us the US is acting as the 'consumer of last resort' and the implication is that we should be thankful, but a more enlightening description of this state of affairs would be to say that it is getting a massive interest-free loan from the rest of the world.

While the US' position may seem inviolable, one should remember that the more you have, the more you have to lose. And recently there have been signs of how, for the first time in a long time, the US may be beginning to lose.

One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get something for nothing.

This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them, the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as it is currently openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised economies. If you don't have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars - the US.

If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidiser of the US because it holds so many dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.

The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily endebted to the rest of the world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East's main trading partner. And nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros - apart, of course, from oil. Furthermore, if OPEC were to convert their dollar assets to euro assets and then require payment for oil in Euros, their assets would immediately increase in value, since oil importing countries would be forced to also convert part of their assets, driving the prices up. For OPEC, backing the euro would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. They could then at some later date move to some other currency, perhaps back to the dollar, and again make huge profits.

But of course it is not a purely economic decision.

So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 2002,3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.

One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush's 'axis of evil'.

A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered to the OPEC heads of state the report of the 'International Seminar on the Future of Energy', a conference called by Chavez earlier that year to examine the future supplies of both fossil and renewable energies. One of the two key recommendations of the report was that 'OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers'5, i.e. OPEC should avoid using both the dollar and the euro for many transactions.

And last April, a senior OPEC representative gave a public speech in Spain during Spain's presidency of the EU during which he made clear that though OPEC had as yet no plans to make oil available for euros, it was an option that was being considered and which could well be of economic benefit to many OPEC countries, particularly those of the Middle East6.

As oil production is now in decline in most oil producing countries, the importance of the remaining large oil producers, particularly those of the Middle East, is going to grow and grow in years to come7.

Iraq, whose oil production has been severely curtailed by sanctions, is one of a very small number of countries which can help ease this looming oil shortage. Europe, like most of the rest of the world, wishes to see a peaceful resolution of the current US-Iraqi tensions and a gradual lifting of the sanctions - this would certainly serve its interests best. But as Iraqi oil is denominated in euros, allowing it to become more widely available at present could loosen the dollar stranglehold and possibly do more damage than good to US economic health.

All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force.

[onetime2]

"The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free."

Possibly the dumbest statement I've ever heard in terms of monetary economics. If this were true, the solution to all economic woes would be "Print more money."

[onetime2]

Originally posted by filtherton
So what is it called when certain industrialists give presidential candidates bootyloads of money, and the president in turn puts said industrialists on comittees that shape policy for their particular industry?


It's called politics as usual.

So then it's ok, nevermind then.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by onetime2
"The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free."

Possibly the dumbest statement I've ever heard in terms of monetary economics. If this were true, the solution to all economic woes would be "Print more money."

Actually you may be right because the US does not produce money..the Federal Reserve Bank makes it.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Bookman
Actually you may be right because the US does not produce money..the Federal Reserve Bank makes it.

There are consequences to increasing the money supply. Basically, the more available something is, the lower its value. Having too great a money supply can also undermine the faith people have in the currency.

Further, the Federal Reserve uses monetary policy (changes in the money supply/cost of money) to regulate the economy. Easing monetary policy (making more money available or making it less expensive) increases employment and nominal economic activity but can lead to inflation. Restricting the money supply slows the economy, increases interest rates, lowers employment, etc. but can be an effective tool to decrease inflation. The last thing the Federal Reserve wants is to have to play catch up to the economy. Once the economy starts heading in one direction or another it's difficult to slow the momentum. Small cuts (or increases) in interest rates or reserve requirements for banks help to minimize the momentum. If the money supply gets too big, it's more difficult for the Fed to influence the economy.

[Lebell]

I will admit that it is distressing to me that so many here are dismissing political bribery simply because it agrees with their political views against this war.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Lebell
I will admit that it is distressing to me that so many here are dismissing political bribery simply because it agrees with their political views against this war.

You cant really use that argument until you bring to light all the 'Political Bribery' eminating here at home which may or not have influence on our decisions and incentives surrounding the war.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Bookman
You cant really use that argument until you bring to light all the 'Political Bribery' eminating here at home which may or not have influence on our decisions and incentives surrounding the war.

I'm sorry?

Are you arguing that since bribes happen here that they are ok elsewhere?

Or are you arguing that campaign contributions (on public record) are equivalent to under the table bribes made by foriegn leaders?

Regardless, I feel the comment I made is very appropo.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Lebell
I'm sorry?

Are you arguing that since bribes happen here that they are ok elsewhere?

Or are you arguing that campaign contributions (on public record) are equivalent to under the table bribes made by foriegn leaders?

Regardless, I feel the comment I made is very appropo.

I am arguing that France & Russia are not the only ones involved in these practices. I am saying that for the US to make these claims is truly a mistake. How can we even make this an issue when the two countries under the scope were against the war..a war which we tried to convince others to join...with claims of WMD...some didnt join us...we changed the name of "French Fries" behind it....AND WE STILL HAVE YET TO SUPPORT OUR CLAIMS.

Kinda embarrassing.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Bookman
I am arguing that France & Russia are not the only ones involved in these practices. I am saying that for the US to make these claims is truly a mistake. How can we even make this an issue when the two countries under the scope were against the war..a war which we tried to convince others to join...with claims of WMD...some didnt join us...we changed the name of "French Fries" behind it....AND WE STILL HAVE YET TO SUPPORT OUR CLAIMS.

Kinda embarrassing.

This is called a straw man argument.

In otherwords, do not address the issue at hand, but bring up other issues and say, "Well, what about those???"

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Lebell
This is called a straw man argument.

In otherwords, do not address the issue at hand, but bring up other issues and say, "Well, what about those???"

Wait...
Are you saying that this has nothing to do with France & Germany's reluctance to join the war?

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Bookman
Wait...
Are you saying that this has nothing to do with France & Germany's reluctance to join the war?

I was referring to this post:

I am arguing that France & Russia are not the only ones involved in these practices. I am saying that for the US to make these claims is truly a mistake. How can we even make this an issue when the two countries under the scope were against the war..a war which we tried to convince others to join...with claims of WMD...some didnt join us...we changed the name of "French Fries" behind it....AND WE STILL HAVE YET TO SUPPORT OUR CLAIMS.

Namely, that claims of WMD, French/Freedom fries, and "SUPPORT OUR CLAIMS" are all straw man arguments and have nothing to do with this thread.

Certainly, I think that Saddam's bribing of high officials in Russia and France are very relevent, and really, the whole point.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Lebell
This is called a straw man argument.

In otherwords, do not address the issue at hand, but bring up other issues and say, "Well, what about those???"

It's called a red herring

A straw man is when one builds a weak caricature of the opponents argument and argues against that instead of the stronger point the opponent actually made.

Anyway, I doubt the "anti-war crowd" is excusing political bribery, even if the motivation fits in with their bias against invasion. It appears they are using similar arguments conservatives have been leveling at their position throughout the duration of this fiasco.

Interestingly, most anti-war folks I know were against all interested parties--not just the US. Of course they are going to align themselves with an entity with enough clout to actually stand up against the US and UK, I don't see what is distressing you about that so much.

Aligning oneself with a group with enough power to support one's cause doesn't imply agreement with all acts of the entity, right? After all, that has been the rationale from the conservative side for some time.

[Bookman]

I cant spell it out for you any more man so I will try to sign off.
My parting words...What is it a straw argument?? OR you agree by saying that the bribes "CERTAINLY" have something to do with the thread?

I repeat...trying to claim that Russia and France were involved in bribes which resulted in them not supporting the war is open-ended. OK, maybe they rec'd the contracts but what does that have to do with the lack of supporting evidence to convince them to join the war? Maybe you and the article should just come out and say that Russia & France are in bed with Iraq.

anyways..over & out.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by smooth
It's called a red herring

A straw man is when one builds a weak caricature of the opponents argument and argues against that instead of the stronger point the opponent actually made.

Anyway, I doubt the "anti-war crowd" is excusing political bribery, even if the motivation fits in with their bias against invasion. It appears they are using similar arguments conservatives have been leveling at their position throughout the duration of this fiasco.

Interestingly, most anti-war folks I know were against all interested parties--not just the US. Of course they are going to align themselves with an entity with enough clout to actually stand up against the US and UK, I don't see what is distressing you about that so much.

Aligning oneself with a group with enough power to support one's cause doesn't imply agreement with all acts of the entity, right? After all, that has been the rationale from the conservative side for some time.

You are right about the argument being a red herring and not a straw man.

My appologies.

As to the rest, it seems you are making the same argument: because conservatives do it, it must be ok for liberals.

I'll remember that.

I'll also remember what you've said about aligning yourself without necessarily agreeing with everything that entity espouses.


My own view is simplistic and perhaps even quaint to the modern, forward thinking, 21st century intellectual: Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Bookman
Maybe you and the article should just come out and say that Russia & France are in bed with Iraq.

anyways..over & out.

I've consistently said that (Actually in bed with Saddam).

I'm sorry, didn't I make that clear?

[smooth]

Originally posted by Lebell
You are right about the argument being a red herring and not a straw man.

My appologies.

As to the rest, it seems you are making the same argument: because conservatives do it, it must be ok for liberals.

I'll remember that.

I'll also remember what you've said about aligning yourself without necessarily agreeing with everything that entity espouses.


My own view is simplistic and perhaps even quaint to the modern, forward thinking, 21st century intellectual: Two wrongs don't make a right.

LOL, please reread my post--there isn't any mention of "myself" in there.

I was merely pointing out that people may be posting tongue-in-cheek. Even if they aren't, I don't understand why you are "distressed" when one political group acts in such a way in response to a different political group declaring such actions fair game.