1
   

Old Story, may have some teeth after all! Check this out!

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Does this re-open this discussion with a more credible source?


It's definitely a more credible story. But what are you trying to say? That the positions of the world were influenced by their private corporations?

I'd like to see ya make a case for that. ;-)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:05 pm
Published: March 29, 2004- Source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:05 pm
Actually, Bill,
a) you forgot to notion the source :wink:
b) it's from NYT's OP-ED
c) from today's issue (so nothing to dig out)

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:11 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Does this re-open this discussion with a more credible source?


It's definitely a more credible story. But what are you trying to say? That the positions of the world were influenced by their private corporations?

I'd like to see ya make a case for that. ;-)
I wouldn't go so far as to jump to that conclusion. IF, however, this proves true; than it is certainly possible that these dealings influenced France and Russia's decision to be adamantly opposed to a UN backed invasion. We'll never know if it would have passed without the threats of VETO from what may be countries with less than admirable motivations.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:16 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
We'll never know if it would have passed without the threats of VETO from what may be countries with less than admirable motivations.


Actually, not only France and Russia vetoed.

So what, do you think, have been the "less than admirable motivations" of the other war opponents?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:18 pm
Actually, as I recall, Russia had stated it would abstain and only France had threatened to veto the resolution.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:26 pm
Quote:
Mr. Ivanov of Russia, on a visit to Beijing, said Moscow would not support any resolution that opened the way for the use of force in Iraq and would use its veto "if necessary, in the interest of international stability."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:35 pm
I could easily be wrong, but I had thought Putin finally stated they wouold abstain...let me do some research and stop relying on memory...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:36 pm
My memory isn't Crystal either; but if memory serves; France and Russia didn't start throwing around the threat of Veto until after it appeared Bush might be able to get the necessary votes. It has always struck me as absurd that they would do so... and this may shed some light on why. It is no more outlandish than suggesting Bush did it for the sole purpose of stealing oil.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:38 pm
Well, I found this but it doesn't exactly clear anything up...
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:40 pm
IMO, these dealings are red herrings. The considerable amount of debt Iraq owed both France and Russia are a better way to try to characterize their position as one based on money.

Thing is, how do you reconcile that with that of their populace.

Do you really think the overwhelming opposition among the peoples of the world (not just governments) was also based on money?

Seriously, I bet this war was opposed to by over 80% of the world's population. The precise figure isn't really important but do you guys agree that:

1) There was significant worldwide opposition among both governments and peoples?

2) That there's no way money could have been a factor in at least the people level of the war's unpopularity?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:42 pm
80% is WAY too high.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:44 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
My memory isn't Crystal either; but if memory serves; France and Russia didn't start throwing around the threat of Veto until after it appeared Bush might be able to get the necessary votes. It has always struck me as absurd that they would do so... and this may shed some light on why. It is no more outlandish than suggesting Bush did it for the sole purpose of stealing oil.


Your memory does not serve you. ;-)

France and Russia maintained, from the very start that any automatic trigger would get an easy veto.

France has not taken this position in many many years.

This was not something about a few million dollars. This was somthing that many people around the world had a very viscera opposition to.

If I were leading Russia, quite frankly I would have told America that a unilateral invasion would result in nuclear war.

Yes, extreme and foolhardy but I would have made that threat. Many many others felt as strongly, I for one have no monetary ties to Iraq. Most of the people who opposed this war did not either.

It's very attractive to paint the opposition as greed, just as it is attractive to paint the war as being about oil.

Wise persons should think long and hard before writing off their opponents so easily.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
80% is WAY too high.


McG, I think it might be a bit too high. Not "way".

You do realize that in America the opposition was about 40%? This is in the nation that started it all.

In many other countries it was nearly unanimous. It basically all comes down to china. I bet they were in high 80s or low 90s.Either way, the figure was not necessary to the point. Billions of people who had no financial ties to Iraq opposed it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:47 pm
I doubt 80% of the world's population could agree on anything, much less a war between the US and Iraq.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:50 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
IMO, these dealings are red herrings. The considerable amount of debt Iraq owed both France and Russia are a better way to try to characterize their position as one based on money.

Thing is, how do you reconcile that with that of their populace.

Do you really think the overwhelming opposition among the peoples of the world (not just governments) was also based on money?

Seriously, I bet this war was opposed to by over 80% of the world's population. The precise figure isn't really important but do you guys agree that:
I concur that 80% is way too high.

Craven de Kere wrote:
1) There was significant worldwide opposition among both governments and peoples?
Of course.

Craven de Kere wrote:
2) That there's no way money could have been a factor in at least the people level of the war's unpopularity?
Absolutely not. People are sheep. The number of people in this country that thought Saddam was behind 9-11 is surely proof of this.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:52 pm
Yeah, 80 is high, but like I said, the percent is irrelevant. The point I was making is that billions opf people opposed the war while having no financial stake in it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 01:55 pm
Bill, seriously, how was money involved in Australian people's opposition? Brazil's? Mexicos? I can go on all night. The overwhelming majority of the nations that opposed it had no financial ties to Iraq worth speaking of.

The US admin has had a very very wise strategy to try to use France as a scapegoat (leaving Russia untouched in comparison) but the bottom line is that the resolution would have failed even without them vetoing iut.

This was much bigger than just France and Russia. They were just the lightning rods of the opposition.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:00 pm
The people weremn't the ones threatening to veto, it was the governments of France and Russia. I think that's the point. It's obvious that governments and the wishes of some of it's populace are not always in synch. I am pretty sure it's planned that way to keep the majority from stomping on the rights of the minority (at least in free democracies).

Does that make sense?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 02:01 pm
They were also the one's with the power to VETO a true vote, and consequently the reason we'll never know if Bush would have been able to secure it. It was certainly an uphill battle but the Financial Giant that is the US can be pretty persuasive.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 07:14:46