Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/18/03 10:41 AM, FRIMA wrote:

At 12/17/03 11:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/17/03 10:54 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Actually, France gave Iraq more weapons, so did Russia. In fact, the US was one of the least (out of the world superpowers) contributors to Iraq since saddam came into power. I don't know why you just said what you did, but quite obviously Frances ties are much much worse.

What does it matter ? It doesn't make the US less evil ; ties are ties.

I'm going to assume the problem here is that you don't actually know how to read, not that you just ignored the fact that there was a debate going on, and it had absolutely nothing to do with what you just posted.

By the way I don't believe you .

Good for you, but I could care less. If I actually thought you would bother coming back to this forum to check I would dig up the old link to prove it, but I don't, and anybody who is worth debating with already knows this so me digging it up to prove a point to a person who will never see that only wastes my time.

France, Germany, and Russia didn't go to war because they had economic interests in Iraq and they didn't want to risk losing some support from the people in thier country.

If the US also had economic interests in Iraq they wouldn't have attacked. Example : Saudi Arabia , it is SA who funds all the terrorist groups (think of 9/11 , Osama bin Laden) but the US doesn't attack .

So? Do you have a point or were you just trying to make America look evil.

Once Wolfowicz told cnn that "one" of the reasons that they invaded Iraq is because the US is too dependent of Saudi , once they'll have Iraq they'll be less dependent of Saudi's oil so they won't have to stay there so much to please the terrorists who are fed up with americans being in their country .

http://www.meaus.com/iraq-$2800-billion-bonanza.htm

Derr, America doesn't, nor will ever have control over Iraq's oil, the only way we can benefit is by having an ally that will sell us oil for less than OPEC prices. Again, your lack of a point is a real big flaw in your last post.

At 12/18/03 07:29 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm going to assume the problem here is that you don't actually know how to read, not that you just ignored the fact that there was a debate going on, and it had absolutely nothing to do with what you just posted.

He does have a point. It doesnt matter if Tuvalu gave Iraq more weapons, the US still gave them/helped them with their WMD program and gave them money/arms. If man A gives a 7 year old a loaded gun and man B gives the same boy a loaded assault rifle and a couple of hand grenades, does that make man A a bad person (or atleast have bad judgement).

So? Do you have a point or were you just trying to make America look evil.

If a country refuses to invade a country because they have economic interests how is that a bad thing? ISnt this the basis of capitalism? Make as much money as you can anyway you can?

Derr, America doesn't, nor will ever have control over Iraq's oil, the only way we can benefit is by having an ally that will sell us oil for less than OPEC prices. Again, your lack of a point is a real big flaw in your last post.

Im not sure but doesnt the civil admin put in power by the US control the oil program? Plus you dont need to have physical control over the oil to be controlling it. You can A install a puppet who you can manipulate into giving you the oil cheap or make that country dependent on you for buying that oil so that they will bend over backwards to sell it to you as to not lose their best customer. Just like a big-box store chain. The more they buy the cheaper it gets for them.

At 12/18/03 08:40 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

At 12/18/03 07:29 PM, Jimsween wrote:

If a country refuses to invade a country because they have economic interests how is that a bad thing? ISnt this the basis of capitalism? Make as much money as you can anyway you can?

That, my friend, is politics of the finest vein.

Actually, France gave Iraq more weapons, so did Russia. In fact, the US was one of the least (out of the world superpowers) contributors to Iraq since saddam came into power. I don't know why you just said what you did, but quite obviously Frances ties are much much worse.

http://hnn.us/articles/1283.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_7-eng

France seems to have been in a smaller role.....and the US in a bigger one.

None of those things make the invasion of Iraq illegal, what you just said was a lie. France, Germany, and Russia didn't go to war because they had economic interests in Iraq and they didn't want to risk losing some support from the people in thier country.

Any proof on that claim? I suppose all the other ountries in the world that didn't join the "coalition of the willing" had "economic interests".

If I broke into your house and smashed it up, should I fix it up crapy, or get the best person to restore it, whether its my friend or my in-laws.

This has already been gone over again and again, giving contracts to French companies isn't going to help the Iraqi people any more than giving them to American companies, this argument is completely baseless.

If the french companies offer to do it cheaper and are better at doing it then it has a base. This is the basic notion of capitalism.....competition. Here they are not allowing competition.

France and Russia have been extracting illegal trade concessions from Iraq for over twenty years, these largely involve weapons, including those putting Saddam in material breach of UN resolutions.