The Iraq Thread

[hovmand 0]

Earlier today a peaceactivist from global roots threw a bucket of red paint at the Danish Prime minister while screaming "You have blood on your hands".

Anders Fogh was on his way to a press conference to announce that Denmark will help US in the war against Saddam.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=197497

I know i shouldnt but......Way to go unknown activist!!!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ Mar. 18 2003,20:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Earlier today a peaceactivist from global roots threw a bucket of red paint at the Danish Prime minister while screaming "You have blood on your hands".

Anders Fogh was on his way to a press conference to announce that Denmark will help US in the war against Saddam.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=197497

I know i shouldnt but......Way to go unknown activist!!! <span id='postcolor'>

hehe...sometimes you just have to love activists like that.

Your PM is perhaps similar to the leader of "Fremskrittspartiet" in Norway I believe. He has had his fair share of rotten eggs thrown at him over the years too

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ Mar. 18 2003,21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know i shouldnt but......Way to go unknown activist!!! <span id='postcolor'>

Have you thought about the negative environmental effect of the PM's additional dry cleaning!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ Mar. 17 2003,21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Earlier today a peaceactivist from global roots threw a bucket of red paint at the Danish Prime minister while screaming "You have blood on your hands".

Anders Fogh was on his way to a press conference to announce that Denmark will help US in the war against Saddam.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=197497

I know i shouldnt but......Way to go unknown activist!!! <span id='postcolor'>

What i find most horrible is that the 'big guys' decide wether their country wants to participate or not. While the normal ppl don't get to vote for it, in Spain, 75% of the ppl don't want a war, but still, their government supports a war.

How the fuck can this be possible...

[brgnorway 0]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 18 2003,209)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ Mar. 18 2003,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know i shouldnt but......Way to go unknown activist!!! <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Have you thought about the negative environmental effect of the PM's additional dry cleaning! <span id='postcolor'>

..........never mind the amount of ozon-destroying hairspray he has to use afterwards  

Edit: ah, here it is:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article.jhtml?articleID=511379

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 17 2003,21:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 18 2003,20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ Mar. 18 2003,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know i shouldnt but......Way to go unknown activist!!! <!--emo&<!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Have you thought about the negative environmental effect of the PM's additional dry cleaning! <span id='postcolor'>

..........never mind the amount of ozon-destroying hairspray he has to use afterwards  

Edit: ah, here it is:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article.jhtml?articleID=511379<span id='postcolor'>

i love it when they do stuff like that...

Just look at his sad face!!! Bwahahaaaaaaah!

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MP Studio @ Mar. 18 2003,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if during the war biological and/or chemical weapons are detected i am very exited on the reaction of our government (germany)...  <span id='postcolor'>

They will find everything they want to find

[KingBeast 0]

Very true Darklight, its quite amusing that a lot of us sit secure in our houses, a TV in each room, fridge full of goodies while letting everyone know that we are free and and good. But when it comes to decisions that effect our future, we dont really have as much say as we would like to think. Perfect example really is of course as you say, the Spanish people opposing said war.

Same with us British, the only people I know that support the war are old people.

They are still thankful for the American help in WW2 (not all of them though, theres always the stubborn brigadier like fellow that likes to say "Bloody yanks, we didnt need their help. And they were late anyway! *grumble grumble*"

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Mar. 18 2003,20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very true Darklight, its quite amusing that a lot of us sit secure in our houses, a TV in each room, fridge full of goodies while letting everyone know that we are free and and good. But when it comes to decisions that effect our future, we dont really have as much say as we would like to think. Perfect example really is of course as you say, the Spanish people opposing said war.<span id='postcolor'>

Not always - what about the Italians as Denoir pointed out a few pages back.

(By the way: I'm so disappointed with you Kingbeast - I thought my joke about the garden gnome was rather good and creative if I dare say so (brgnorway mumbles something about promising never to tell any jokes again ).

[KingBeast 0]

lol brgnorway it was a good joke, just didnt reply to it until now He is a rather funny looking man but to be honest I myself never really thought of him as being a leader type. Probably just ignorance on my part though.

What about the Italians? How can we know when a government is acting on the interests of its people or on its own interests. Maybe they secretly want to go to war, but want to continue ruling aswell, so its the popular option that means the most

Oh and interestingly, dont know if this has been mentioned before but theres a documentary on english TV called Holidays in the axis of evil, some guy and his producer went on holiday to Iraq back in October last year and secretly filmed life in Iraq.

Whats amusing is that the tour guide said that they are not allowed to mention Saddams name because so many places are bugged. Instead if they want to talk about him, they have to refer to him as Ted

[DarkLight 0]

Thought this was pretty funny, if it offends someone, please feel free to remove this post.

Remember ppl, it's all just a joke...

http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html

[DarkLight 0]

I'm talking to a friend with MSN right now and all of a sudden i realized that i told him that Bush will fight a lot of wars. I said that early July! Talk about being able to predict the future!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Mar. 18 2003,20:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol brgnorway it was a good joke, just didnt reply to it until now He is a rather funny looking man but to be honest I myself never really thought of him as being a leader type. Probably just ignorance on my part though.

<span id='postcolor'>

I feel so much better now thank you!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about the Italians? How can we know when a government is acting on the interests of its people or on its own interests. Maybe they secretly want to go to war, but want to continue ruling aswell, so its the popular option that means the most

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, there is no doubt that Berlusconi would like to join the "coalition of the willing" . Good thing that popular pressure works - even though it's not an everyday experience.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh and interestingly, dont know if this has been mentioned before but theres a documentary on english TV called Holidays in the axis of evil, some guy and his producer went on holiday to Iraq back in October last year and secretly filmed life in Iraq.

Whats amusing is that the tour guide said that they are not allowed to mention Saddams name because so many places are bugged. Instead if they want to talk about him, they have to refer to him as Ted <span id='postcolor'>

Haha - that's hilarious! "Uncle Tim" sounds weird.

[KingBeast 0]

Holidays in the Axis of Evil

Not sure if the show will be aired in many other countries, but its incredibly interesting.

Heres an extract from the link above:

"In Iraq I had to go with an archaeological group that's been going there for years. The few Iraqis I did speak to were relieved to see Western tourists - they felt that if we were there, there wouldn't be any bombings.

The region is packed with archaeological wonders

Iraq should be popular as Egypt as a tourist destination; it's got the Garden of Eden, the first ever city, the Hanging Gardens, yet hardly anyone visits.

Saddam Hussein has rebuilt Babylon and every 100th brick has got his name stamped on it, and there's a billboard with him alongside King Nebuchadnezzar. He really thinks he's going to go down in history alongside these great civilisations. "

Actually seeing this guy filming this stuff is amazing. I know Saddams a nut that loves himself, but rebuilding babylon with every 100th brick with his name on? Complete Fruit Cake!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-"What is the situation in Britain now? As I understand it the parliament will vote on British participation today. Is there any chance of it being turned down or is the Tory supprort for Tony enough?

As I understand Blair is in a bit of a tight spot right now with two cabinet members resigning."

Those who are totally against the war will probably be sad to learn that as CosmicCastaway reported the government will likely win the vote even if it has to rely on the opposition. Most analysts see the possibility of defeat as very low. But this large scale debate in public nonetheless is useful. Tony Blair gave a very good speech at the beginning. Nothing really new to convince someone who is fully against war but a forceful and rousing restating of the arguments even so.

The cabinet member(and former foreign secretary)Robin Cook who resigned from his post gave a very different but powerful and detailed speech against war the previous day saying

"We cannot attack on the basis that Saddam is weak and justify it on the ground that he is a threat"

He stated that Iraq does not pose a 'weapons of mass destruction' threat to the UK in the commonly understood meaning of the word in that Iraq does not have delivery systems capable of reaching the UK or US. He is also not convinced that proof of any link to Al-quaida exists at all or sufficient for war.This is significant as he is a foreign secretary (so had all the inteligence information) who previously authorised bombing of Iraq in the past.

Blair is still in a tight spot but my feeling is that he will survive politically (barring new disaster)

Kingbeast- actually the latest polls show increasing support for the government position (ie- war in this situation) with one showing for the first time a majority supporting war. This undoubtedly has something to do with the inevitability of war now (rallying behind the armed forces etc)

but yes though only one cabinet minister has, a number of junior minsters have resigned and more may follow.  

Hovmand- Fogh looked fairly pissed off on TV after walking away from the incident , but the paint looked more orange to me.... (yes it looks more orange in the picture too)

Seeing as Denmark are (far as i know) contributing not much militarily its stretching it to say he has blood on his hands(+most of the orange stuff was down his neck).

I may comment on the Euro/Dollar essay (not the only or most convincing of such as Avon made clear) if i get time..

[edit] Yes that (his name in the bricks) was something that stuck in my mind Kingbeast, as well as passers by polishing pictures of saddam as soon as they got any dirt on them-

actually also the little discussed archeological risks of massive bombing of Iraq came across quite well(with ancient monuments surrounded by the Iraqi military-destined for bombing[edit]

[Jinef 2]

I think casulaties will be kept to a minimum on the british front, we are good at doing the task without excessive force being used. But i'm sure there will be casualties and as Denoir says that is what soldiers are for.

[hovmand 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 18 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hovmand- Fogh looked fairly pissed off on TV after walking away from the incident , but the paint looked more orange to me.... (yes it looks more orange in the picture too)

Seeing as Denmark are (far as i know) contributing not much militarily its stretching it to say he has blood on his hands(+most of the orange stuff was down his neck).<span id='postcolor'>

Denmark is sending one submarine "The seal" (uhuuhu be afraid) and a Corvette "Olfert fischer" so its mostly symbolic. there where talks of sending our special forces, who might actually be able to do something usefull, but that was later dropped as Fogh and his dudes thought that would piss off the opposition even more.

Oh and Fogh always looks like that

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 18 2003,21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think casulaties will be kept to a minimum on the british front, we are good at doing the task without excessive force being used. But i'm sure there will be casualties and as Denoir says that is what soldiers are for.<span id='postcolor'>

how come they took up the TA here and the reserves in the US and then sent them over to iraq ??

[KingBeast 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 18 2003,20:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 18 2003,210)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think casulaties will be kept to a minimum on the british front, we are good at doing the task without excessive force being used. But i'm sure there will be casualties and as Denoir says that is what soldiers are for.<span id='postcolor'>

how come they took up the TA here and the reserves in the US and then sent them over to iraq ??<span id='postcolor'>

I think that you will agree, reserves with no combat or 'battlefield' (not necessarily fighting) experience are not very useful at all, so when war does break out I suppose its an essential time to train those who dont see as much action as conventional troops.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it turns out to a real, actual war where the US gets casualties. How much damage do you think they are willing to take before they pull out?

<span id='postcolor'>

The U.S. is going to be willing to put up with a lot of casualties. I think you really misunderstand America's resolve in this situation. Just because we had an easy war in 1991 doesn't mean that is all we are willing to put up with. Remember it took over ten years for the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam and that was by far a less popular war than this is going to be. Americans have a proud fighting spirit, look at World War II, we lost 248,000 men in that war, and we fought valiantly and hard. Just wait and see how we will fight in this war. Besides, after 9-11, Americans are willing to go as far as is necessary to eliminate any percieved threats to our security (this may be right, it may be wrong, but it is how we feel).

Also, those of you who accuse Tony Blair of being a "lap dog" are missing an important point. Blair is practically committing political suicide by entering this war. How useful is being a "lap dog" to Bush going to be, if he loses his job? I think Blair's motives are purer than simply sucking up to the U.S., hes risking almost everything personally, so his committment must run deepr than personal gain. Either that or he's one hell of a risk taker.

Another thing. Those of you who think the U.S. are going to "find" chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction no matter what, are purely conspiracy theorist crackpots. I'd like to have some of the drugs you're smoking. Do you really think the U.S. is going to drag along chemical weapons with its troops and then plant them and point at them and say, "see, we were right all along!" How long do you think it will be before some private with a "fuck the army" attitude exercises his right to free speech and points out that the weapons were a plant? You guys are fucking nuts. The U.S. doesn't work that way, and even if it tried, it couldn't get away with it. Americans would blow the whistle. That just a bunch of conspiracy theorist irrational paranoid bullshit, and anyone with half an education and a rationally working mind is laughing at you right now.

[The Ferret 0]

For Bernadette or whatever:

You said "Resolution 687, the nearest I can find to any mention of consequences is this:

Quote  

[The UN] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

You wouldn't just be makin' up all that stuff about military action, would ya?"

Well first of all, I cited UN 687 after hearing the discussion on a radio talk show, what I said is precisely what the experts said. UN 687 lays out the terms of the Cease Fire, which includes the afore mentioned WMD issue. The way I read that is : "Iraq, X, Y, and Z are what you must do to uphold your end of the cease fire." What is the implication then if Iraq fails to comply? If they are the conditions of a CEASE-FIRE, and they are not met, doesn't it stand to reason that the fire will resume?

Take that back to UN Resolution 678 which says that "all necessary means to uphold and implement" UN 660, which demanded Iraq to withdrawl from Kuwait and establish "peace and security in the area." So, I agree with those that say that this is a continuation of unfinished business. That the world agrees that it is unfinished business is made clear in UN 1441.

You said: ["My dictionary has a word for what you are calling illegal in a sense of morality:  Immoral

Even though English is not denoir's first language, I suspect he would have used immoral if that's what he'd meant.  Now take it from a native speaker of English:  The US/UK bombing is illegal.  It was launched to defend militants in the north and south as they attempted to overthrow Saddam Hussein and it has nothing to do with resolution 687."]

Yea well, the word of the use "immoral" did not fit with the way I wanted the sentance to flow, and I retain literary license over my own written word.

The US/UK strikes are, in my and others opinions, legal under UN 678 and 688. I looked for documentation about any UN Resolutions against the US for conducting the strikes and haven't found any mention. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Until then, the original question remains. Have the US/UK strikes been illegal or immoral (there happy?) Countless world experts argue the legality, so let's just agree to disagree. If you say it's immoral why?

Is it immoral to provide Kurds and Shiite a safe sky against Saddam? Does the world enjoy Saddam so much, that they want to see him crush those within his own country who would oppose him? Is it immoral for pilots who are flying a UN enforcement mission to attack radar stations or missle sites that light them up? Personally, I think MOST of thes strikes everyone makes such big deals about are simply pilots being lit up by radar and releasing a anti-radiation missle in response.

Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 15 2003,18:53)

Going back to the days when they sold them the nuclear reactor, didn't that business deal go down while Iraq was engaged in the Iraq/Iran war?

You said : "No.

Iraq established its nuclear program in the late 1960s when it acquired its first nuclear facilites. Later, in the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France's nuclear weapons program. In addition to the reactor, Iraq also wanted to purchase the reporcessing plant needed to recover the plutonium produced in the reactor. Even through these requests were denied, France agreed to build a research reactor along with associated laboratories.

...

In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. "

Found this interesting...the Iran/Iraq war began in the spring of 1980 and the Israeli attack in the summer of 1981. So yes,  they were at war, and no it didn't stop France from continuing in assisting Iraq in the construction of that plant.

My point was, that if France were really so interested in the cause of peace, they would have broke their ties and applied pressure to stop  that war. They didn't, and after the attack even agreed in principal to rebuild the Osiraq reactor, though yes, they ended up not doing that.

Why did Iraq want assistance in developing systems to recover nuclear material, and what does that about Saddam's nuclear ambitions? I know, many of you will say "It's not because he wants the bomb, he just likes things that glow!"

I'm listening to the news as I write this. Hans Blix has just said again that Iraq never gave it's full co-operation, and yes he wish he had had more time. That's 12 years after UN 687, and 5 months after UN 1441. Also, of interest. France says that if we are attacked with WMD's they may join our forces. I would think that having gone on a world crusade to front and embarass us, France would have be so certain that Iraq was complying as to preclude any such statements.

I'll finish my diatribe with this for all you who say we just want the oil:

1. We have already said that the administration of Iraqi oil will be handled by the UN. France: "OOOH OOOH me me, I wanna help with that!!!"

2. President Bush told them not to destroy the wells, because it's their source of wealth, and vital to rebuilding their country and keeping our expenses down.

3. The US gets less that 20% of its oil from all middle-eastern countries combined, it's been that way for a long while, and our gas prices have been reasonable.

4. Again, if this were just about oil, we could have led the UN in lifting sanctions, and probably struck deals that would have us swimming in it.

Sorry...messed up the quote boxes.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Earlier today a peaceactivist from global roots threw a bucket of red paint at the Danish Prime minister while screaming "You have blood on your hands".<span id='postcolor'>

Man I wish I could throw a moron like that in prison for assault.

[Longinius 1]

"Also, those of you who accuse Tony Blair of being a "lap dog" are missing an important point. Blair is practically committing political suicide by entering this war."

If / when the US and its allies win they get to write history. Then Blair will be home free. He is only in trouble if something goes wrong (heavy casualties for example).

"How long do you think it will be before some private with a "fuck the army" attitude exercises his right to free speech and points out that the weapons were a plant?"

Why would he do that? First of, he would be discredited in no time. If they go so far as to plant evidence they wont think twice about making up lies about a two bit private. Secondly, he would be put up on charges of treason. Third, his life would be ruined. I doubt he would do that.

"You guys are fucking nuts. The U.S. doesn't work that way, and even if it tried, it couldn't get away with it. Americans would blow the whistle. That just a bunch of conspiracy theorist irrational paranoid bullshit, and anyone with half an education and a rationally working mind is laughing at you right now."

Uhm, what about the evidence that have proven to be falcified all ready? What about the made up report of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during GW1?

The US government has decivied and lied to the public many times before, why shouldnt they be able to do so now if need be?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 18 2003,13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">News:

A senior American general in Washington recently remarked that the war in Iraq would include "a lot of surprises" by American forces. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein and his sons were given until 8 PM, March 19th (4 AM, March 20th, Iraq time) to leave Iraq, or US troops will enter Iraqi and remove Saddam and his government. Iraq commanders were warned not to destroy Iraqi infrastructure or use chemical weapons. Those who did would be punished. The Iraqi people were promised freedom and prompt humanitarian aid. Most nations continued to support keeping Saddam in power and going along with the arms inspection program that has been in place since 1991.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the Americans want the fun of doing that themselves.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 18 2003,22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take that back to UN Resolution 678 which says that "all necessary means to uphold and implement" UN 660, which demanded Iraq to withdrawl from Kuwait and establish "peace and security in the area." So, I agree with those that say that this is a continuation of unfinished business. That the world agrees that it is unfinished business is made clear in UN 1441.

The US/UK strikes are, in my and others opinions, legal under UN 678 and 688. I looked for documentation about any UN Resolutions against the US for conducting the strikes and haven't found any mention. If I'm wrong, let me know.<span id='postcolor'>

You should read the text of the resolution instead of making your assumptions of what you heard on the radio. You misquoted the resolution entirely. (Full text)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Demands that Iraq and Kuwait respect the inviolability of the   international boundary and the allocation of islands set out in the "Agreed   Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the   Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", signed by   them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 and   registered with the United Nations and published by the United Nations in   document 7063, United Nations, Treaty Series, 1964;

3.   Calls upon the Secretary-General to lend his assistance to make   arrangements with Iraq and Kuwait to demarcate the boundary between Iraq and   Kuwait, drawing on appropriate material, including the map transmitted by   Security Council document S/22412 and to report back to the Security Council   within one month;

      4.   Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned   international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to   that end in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

<span id='postcolor'>

And yes, there have been countless attempts of bringing this to the UN agenda but they have been blocked by USA and Britain from ever being raised in the SC.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point was, that if France were really so interested in the cause of peace, they would have broke their ties and applied pressure to stop  that war. They didn't, and after the attack even agreed in principal to rebuild the Osiraq reactor, though yes, they ended up not doing that.

Why did Iraq want assistance in developing systems to recover nuclear material, and what does that about Saddam's nuclear ambitions? I know, many of you will say "It's not because he wants the bomb, he just likes things that glow!"

<span id='postcolor'>

In the same fashion as you gave him biological and chemical weapons. "Anthrax? Biological weapons? No! He just likes to study the little buggers"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. We have already said that the administration of Iraqi oil will be handled by the UN. France: "OOOH OOOH me me, I wanna help with that!!!"<span id='postcolor'>

Which will be traded in $ not €. The sad part is that we'll end up paying for the bloody mess that you make and still reap very few benifits. And while it certainly would be the rigth thing to do we can't tell you to fuck off and clean up your own mess since it would mostly hurt the Iraqi population. It's the same old story, you drop the bombs and we (Europe & Japan) pay for rebuilding it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. The US gets less that 20% of its oil from all middle-eastern countries combined, it's been that way for a long while, and our gas prices have been reasonable.<span id='postcolor'>

It's a long term investment. The $/€ theory makes perfect sense. You do have an inflated dollar value due to the fact that the oil price is fixed to the dollar. That makes it necessary for countries to have large dollar reserves and gives you the freedom to continuously inflate the value of the currency. USA has by far the largest debt in the world both in absolute terms and per capita. These debts are mostly not set in dollars but in price relative the gold index. A growing dollar is the only way you can keep ahead of paying the interest. Iraq had switched to euros and if others were to follow it would have been a disaster for USA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. Again, if this were just about oil, we could have led the UN in lifting sanctions, and probably struck deals that would have us swimming in it.<span id='postcolor'>

No you couldn't. The current sanctions were not your idea, they were Russias. The other point is that we were already swimming in Iraqi oil through the food-for-oil program. Again, this is a long term investment. As long as Saddam is in power we all get cheap oil. The problem is what happens after Saddam. Should Iraq develop democratically all by itself we would have no choice but to lift the sanctions. That would be a disaster! So as an investment for the future an invasion is necessary to protect Americas economic interests in the region.