Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hippocampus
So these countries had oil contractors in Iraq which means their position in the final hour was solely based on greed? I find that to be a bit simplistic especially in light of the recommendations of the UN inspection teams. IMO, I don't think these articles prove anything in that regard and some of them are so biased that they cannot be taken seriously. This one is especially rich:
In a broader sense, the United States has a chance to show a doubting world how little money and oil mattered in our decision to invade Iraq. By refusing to regard Iraq's oil as patronage to be passed out to American companies and, equally, declining to honor Saddam's corrupt contracts, we can demonstrate a degree of selflessness which will stand in sharp contrast to the corrupt diplomacy of France and her friends.
That's propaganda for you. The righteous liberators are selling out the war to the public and dismissing the opposition as greedy nations with no morals. We know how it all turned out in the end... no WMDs, the liberation is a joke and the coalition is now in full control of the oil wells.
|
Whatever you want to believe you go right on ahead. But, you cannot negate the fact that SH sold oil at a discounted price to these people. I suppose he was doing that becuase he was a nice guy. You go right on ahead and think that if you want. I, of course, will never believe that
BTW - if we went there solely for oil, why did we give, not loan, Iraq billions of dollars. Hmm France and Russia loaned them the money. I mean I get that we should not have been so quick to go to Iraq. Time would have been our unbiased ally. But, to say W got on his horse and went into Iraq on a whim is just flat out and unequivocably wrong. Again, the WORLD thought he had WMD and that he was a threat.