Anti-war nations 'took bribes' before war began.

What about the nations who were bribed into war by the Bush administration? Turkey almost joined the coalition of the "willing," but the public outcry was just too intense.

The coalition members weren't nearly as willing as the Bush administration makes it sound. I'd just like to know an exact figure of the total amount paid out to our "friends". That would be interesting.



[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Confirmed information or documentation detailing this ECK....you know, like the one that is confirmed and provided for those who were against the war, within this thread?


regards
seekerof

I am sure that this entire thing was nasty from the get go.

We bribe they bribe all for the agenda and economic security of each nation.

There are quite a few articles on U.S. bribes as well as Saddams.

Well, actually, this is not new. It was known before the war that France, Germany and Russia had under the table dealings with Iraq. Apparently you and Heelstone paid no attention to it then so why would you care about it now?

The importance of it is that some of our allies, Heelstone, such as France, were bought. They were interested in the bribes and under the table dealings and not the security of the friend or the rest of the world. The inportance is that your reasons for not going to war were fabricated, and that you've been duped by other people's anti-war for oil.

But thats just the thing, America and the world are not safer now, far less in fact.

I hear those against us continue to say that, but there is no evidence of that. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary. What we do know is that if the free world, if our allies had stood with us, the enemy would have been even more devastated, would have had less quarter and worse moral. As it is, they are frightened that Iraq will become the mecca of Mideast freedom and democracy, along side Israel, and such a thought sickens them. That is why they will do anything to upset the Iraqi rebuilding. They are the enemy, they are the scourge and the international cancer, and ignoring them does not make them go away.

The U.S., the world is not more safe now? For decades, we have been the target of terrorists. We have not been safe before! The war is on, and now that we are fighting the enemey instead of ignoring them, we are indeed more safe.

The only terrorists you've really had to worry about in the past were US citizens themselves.

Aside from 9-11 you mean

and the other WTC bombing.


[Edited on 21-2-2004 by KrazyJethro]

Exactly, other than that the only people you've had to worry about are yourselves. You also have to seriously question how either of them two actually happened. Beyond them all there has been is US citizens blowing up, shooting e.t.c. other US citizens. I'd say that was much more of a worry.

You guys forgeting a few?.......USS Cole, numerous embassy and club/facility bombings, Lebanon, etc., etc.

How astute and convenient for these to not be added nor mentioned...


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Seekerof]

USS Cole - Aden, Yemen

Embassy bombings - all over

Lebanon - Beirut

How astute of you to realise that none of these took place on US soil.
Regardless of politics and whether these terrorists were right or wrong they were attacking people they didn't want on their land, not exactly attacking the US itself because they don't like their freedoms.

P.S. I think KrazyJethro was actually disagreeing with me, maybe you ought to be more astute and read again, I don't think he would appreciate being lumped in with me as "you guys".

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by John Nada]

Yup. Abu Nidal, for example. He was a fine American. Yup, the other terrorist bunch, TWA (Otherwise called "Travelling With Arabs", because of the numerous hijackings) Who was it that struck the WTC the first time? Where was he from?
The tour, John, the tour. Stay with it. If you need to learn, we'll help you, but making false statements is a lousy way to ask for help, buddy!

In the echoing words of Thomas Crowne:

"The U.S., the world is not more safe now? For decades, we have been the target of terrorists. We have not been safe before! The war is on, and now that we are fighting the enemey instead of ignoring them, we are indeed more safe."





regards
seekerof

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Well when I say "in the past" I mean specifically before the WTC attacks, and I don't mean all but certainly most, but be my guest and look for loop holes and spin. Keep up the fear-mongering.

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by John Nada]

Yeah great reply, I'm impressed.

Nice dodge there, keep 'em coming...

Your question was answered with one word: defined terrorists.

You don't like the answer...oh, well.

The issue of this topic Mr. Nada is "Anti-war nations 'took bribes' before war began."

So, if I may, your point and direction of responses are directed in regards to what relation to the topic? The anti-war folk continuing to defend the tyranny of Saddam? Saddam's UN use of maneuverings to pay off those who supported the non-war/anti-war movement and stance?

"Dodging?"
Far from it...who is "dodging" this off topic?



regards
seekerof

I'm afraid my friend it is you who is still doing the dodging. TC said the US has ALWAYS been under attack from terrorists, and my very valid question was what terrorists are these?

Before the WTC attacks the main terrorist attacks on US soil was by US citizens themselves. You try and dodge it by talking about attacks in other countries, but I am asking right here and now...what threat on US before the WTC attacks?

I also think that for you to label someone who is against this "war on terror"(trade mark) as a defender of the tyranny of Saddam is very shallow minded and quite pathetic.
Why don't you just say "if you ain't with us you're the bad guys"?
Oh dear indeed...

In such John Nada....are you anti-war, in regards to Iraq?

If so..I labeled correctly.


regards
seekerof

That's right, I am anti-war when it's not for the reasons given, as were many people. It wasn't to topple Saddam and you know it. If you put a bow tie on a turd it is still a turd, there's no way of getting around that.

Just look at the way the UK have dealt with the IRA. It has taken time but it was done the right way and they have all but been finished. Why didn't we just fly in and blow the crap out of them? As many innocents would die and they weren't an immediate threat to the future of the country.

Yes I am anti-war, as I was anti-Saddam. It's not a paradox you know, no matter how much you want it to be one.

There were many ways of dealing with him, as there are countless other dictators who strangely do not get dealt with but actually get government (US and UK) sponsored. It's only when they stop serving our governments that they start changing their tune, don't be so ignorant.

P.S. Keep up the fear mongering.
I'm sorry to tell you but it's not going to last.

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by John Nada]

this idea that the anti-war coalition is somehow defending the saddam regime seems somewhat bizarre to me. it was leftwingers who campaigned against the iraqi atrocities such as the gassing of the kurds while rightwing governments across the west were financing said brutalities. the position of the left has never changed. we have never supported saddam. we just
dont believe a progressive foreign policy can consist of flattening an entire country.

the IRA example mentioned is pretty accurate. it may seem abhorrent, but the only way to deal with terrorists is through compromise and negotiation. brute force will only create successive generations of terrorists and the continuation of conflict. examples: ira, eta, palestine, versailles treaty etc.

and it was relatively common knowledge that anti-war governments had oil contracts with saddam worth billions that were to come into effect after the sanctions were lifted. but if your point is that people like chirac and putin arent entirely wholesome characters then im way ahead of you, man. i dont like them either.

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by bolshevik]