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
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".
