It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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

If so..I labeled correctly.



regards
seekerof


Wow, it's really great that you are lumping together the "anti war" (who number in the millions across the globe), with "saddam supporters". Completely different. That reflects on how simple minded someone can be, drawing conclusions about people from their beliefs and labelling them like John said...
But then again, you're a Bush supporter, so maybe you go along with the thinking that everyone is either with the United States, or with the "terrorists".




posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Seekerof
You guys forgeting a few....USS Cole, embassy bombings, Lebanon, etc.
How astute and convenient for these to not be added...



regards
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".



Actually, I was agreeing with you in a way. I know of plenty of terrorist actions, but I only included ones on U.S. soil done by outside forces.

So, hence the short list.

But as for being with "you guys" I am in the middle about the war.

There is some good stuff in both camps that warrents consideration.

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
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.


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!


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]


And the majority of what I listed was before the WTC. The first WTC. Keep up the ignorance of the past.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
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.


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!


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]


And the majority of what I listed was before the WTC. The first WTC. Keep up the ignorance of the past.


Maybe you ought to take a closer look TC "and I don't mean all but certainly most". The law of averages is certainly on my side. We can either discuss this like men or not, it's your choice.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik
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]


They are beyond seeing this logically, they must obey their Republican masters rather than see common sense.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
You have to admit though John, that there is a fair share of worship in the Democratic camp as well.

Masters and slaves run in all political parties and groups.

Political Rule #1: Most people are stupid, regardless of race, color, creed, nation origin, religion, sex, or sexual preferece (Phew, did I leave anything out?)



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
You have to admit though John, that there is a fair share of worship in the Democratic camp as well.

Masters and slaves run in all political parties and groups.

Political Rule #1: Most people are stupid, regardless of race, color, creed, nation origin, religion, sex, or sexual preferece (Phew, did I leave anything out?)


Absolutely I couldn't agree more, that's why I don't belong to either camp. I just look at the way I see things through my own two eyes, not the way my political party tells me to.

If the Democrats, Liberals e.t.c. were in government right now and doing the same crap, I'd be saying the exact same things.

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



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Amen, for once we agree totally.

I too am not with any party (although I hold a majority of ideals in common with the true form of the Republican Party) I refuse to be cast in with that lot.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I wonder if that corrupt ex-prime minister of Canada, Chretien took any bribes from the Iraqi's?

Considering the hugh scandal in my country now concerning his past government (paying out hugh bribes to Quebecers), I have to say YES!



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
It's just the begining. Anwyay, thinking that France, Germany, Russia and China were against the liberation of Irak for some humanitarians reasons is a mistake.

Money money money...Oups, I mean " oil oil oil..."


I couldn't find any mentioning of Germany on the first page. That's not only adressed to you but to others as well, please provide specific proof about the German government being bribed.
Take in mind it needed to bribe more than 600 people in our parlament to bribe.

So and as all you guys need to shut up now as you have no proof and only pathetic argumentation I will go on eating my meal. Thanks for the time.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Big deal. If Saddam was trying to buy support for countries NOT TO INVADE him, can you really blame him? He might have been an evil dick, but he probably wasn't stupid.

Did Saddam bribe all those millions of people who marched in protest of this illegal war? A massive mailing campaign maybe?

And the US bribed the BEEJESUS out of the laughable assembly called the "Coalition of the Willing" (Go Pulau! Go Marshall Islands!).

www.atimes.com...

"More than 90 percent of the Egyptian population is against the war. Washington wants from Egypt at least political support - and the use of some air bases. In exchange, Egypt will certainly get more aid beyond its current $2 billion, and is likely to get a free trade deal with the US similar to the one already offered to Jordan. Jordan now has hundreds of US special forces, and collaborates closely with US intelligence. In exchange, Jordan hopes to get an additional $1 billion. ..

..."The pursuit of access to US export markets is a powerful lever for influence over many countries, including Chile and Costa Rica, both of which are close to concluding free trade deals with the United States; African nations that want to maintain US trade preferences; and Mexico, which depends on the US market for about 80 percent of its export sales." Both Chile and Mexico are among the so-called "swinging six" - current non-permanent members of the Security Council whose vote would be decisive in approving a UN second resolution. Mexico can't afford to vote against the US. It would lose aid and trade. If Chile votes against the US, it won't get the same access to the US market as Canada and Mexico. Pakistan is also in a terrible spot. If it votes against the US it follows public opinion, almost 100 percent anti-war. But then it would lose untold hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid and loans it is getting as a frontline state in the war against terrorism. If Angola votes against the US, it won't get future loans to develop its oil industry..."

The study conclusively demonstrates that the coalition of the willing is in fact the coalition of the bribed and the bludgeoned. "Almost all, by our count, join only through coercion, bullying, bribery or the implied threat of US action that would directly damage the interests of the country. This 'coalition of the coerced' stands in direct conflict with democracy. In most nations, including those most closely allied to the United States, over 70 percent of the public opposes US military action against Iraq."


70 percent of every country's population in the C.o.W. was againt the war! That's a lot of cheques to mail out.

Look online for the report called : "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced", by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

TheNeo: "I wonder if that corrupt ex-prime minister of Canada, Chretien took any bribes from the Iraqi's?

Considering the hugh scandal in my country now concerning his past government (paying out hugh bribes to Quebecers), I have to say YES!


Crack is very bad for you. Maybe Chretien didn't join because, oh, the entire country other than a few Alberta farmers were against it? Were you out of Canada for that two month period? Not watching the news or talking to anyone at all?


jako



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Can we blame Saddam? No

Can we blame the countries who took the bribes, allegedly? Yes.

This is called politics and it happens with most issues, strong arming, bribes etc are the way of the world.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
jakomo,

excuse me did you say that I use crack?

I don't think so man.

you are the person that does not live in reality.

Oh btw when is Quebec leaving and taking you with it? I can't wait for the day to come.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
This article is propaganda put out by the RNC or
perhaps the Pentagon.

Even if true, which it isn't, the war in Iraq would still be
wrong, and a crime against innocent Arabs who did
nothing but live under a regime that was formerly supported by America.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
The question is, is why did we back Saddam Darkwrath.

You seem to have a serious problem with the fact that we did.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
TheNeo: "Oh btw when is Quebec leaving and taking you with it? I can't wait for the day to come."

Don't hold your breath. I reflect the average Canadian far more than you do. I'm multilingual, well educated, politically involved, proud of my country and I hold our politicians accountable to the promises they make.

You're, um, none of those as I see it.

Oh and don't bother responding, I've put you on Ignore.

[Edited on 23-2-2004 by Jakomo]



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

This article is propaganda put out by the RNC or
perhaps the Pentagon.


Bing! Bing! Bing!

However, France and Germany, Russia's complacency regarding Iraq, and willingness to do underhanded deals that flew under the radar of the UN, is well known, and easy to see.... They weren't bribed though, they simply didn't want to lose their little gravy train....



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Yeah, I do dislike the holier than thou additude of some countries with respect to the world.

They get so mad when we are doing the same thing they are.

Protecting our economic security. It is in Frances and Germany's best interest to keep Saddam in power so they oil is not sold in US dollars, but rather Euros.

The EU is all about it, and it would definatly affect our economy badly.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
As George Washington so astutely said, "There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Well well well.

I told you so. The anti War Nations are no better than the US.

When people realize there are no such things as "good guys" in the political world, we might start to make progress.

The French, Germans, Russians, ect, are all as filthy and guilty and have blood on thier hands as much as we do. Nothing worse than a holier than thou hippocrite.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join