Hidden Agenda in Iraq?

[ted]

Seems like lost memo's and emails seem to be the new rage in discussing implications in the war on terror.

Here's one that backs up what I have been saying all along, that the UN had it's hands dirtied by the oil for food program and therefore, had a stake in opposing the invasion.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...14/151513.shtml

I don't expect much outrage, though.

t.

[Guest charlie]

It doesn't surprise me at all. I get the impression that there were a whole lot of dirty hands in that deal.

Are you saying the U.N. should have joined with us in the invasion; that they would have given their support if it weren't for this?

I still don't see the need for the war in Iraq with or without this oil for food thing.

[Guest charlie]

Ted, did you by chance see this:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst061305.htm

I just put the link not the article; didn't want to cause this thread to stray but you put the U.N. on my mind.

[Peace_Maker]

The UN vote against war with Iraq was shot down by the French and Germans and had nothing to do with Kofi Annan. France and Germany both knew from their own intelligence services that the Anglo-U.S. accusations against Iraq were nonsense and Saddam was no threat to anyone except his own people.

That is why they refused to join the war in spite of U.S. threats and tempting offers of oil concessions in postwar Iraq.

The U.S. ordered its intelligence services to shut their eyes, toe the White House party line and accept as genuine patently false reports about the Mideast from known self-serving sources that wanted to see Iraq destroyed. The US House Intelligence Committee

Edited June 15, 2005 by Peace_Maker

[ted]

Charlie, I guess I am saying that the UN should have kept it's end of it's own resolutions. For ten years or more, it was it's own resolutions that were being enforced there in Iraq.

Something changed right before the invasion, but I'm not really clear as to what it was. All of a sudden, the UN saw no reason to go in, and this after so many years of claiming frustration with the Iraqi Government's actions in blocking the inspectors time after time.

Personally, I think it was all a plan to skim money for the UN the whole time, all of this oil for food/ search for WMD's stuff. The UN didn't really oppose any kind of tough words, but balked when we showed that we were serious about going in.

Why?

Why would certain countries that supported the UN resolutions all of a sudden switch gears when we decided to go in?

Personally, I think they were worried about what paper trail we would discover, rather than any WMD's.

The UN was fine with the inspectors, because the inspectors would only be allowed to search what Saddam and the UN would let them. They would, of course, never get to inspect bank records and memo's during their investigations.

All was well for ten years, other than a few minor irritations. Now, suddenly, the UN swtiches gears and is opposed to enforcing their own resolutions?

I better stop now. I'll be getting into the realm of conspiracy because I have no direct proof, as of yet. Just a gut feeling based on some screwy history events from the past 12 years or so.

But, I think we will see more "proof" show up in the coming years.

Thanks,

t.

[Guest yod]

I don't think the agenda has ever been hidden. The purpose is to wipe out armies of state sponsored terrorism as a political and military tool.

The goal (agenda) was stated very clearly. The ultimate method is a matter of disclosure.

I've always thought that Iraq was a cog in the bigger picture. A big cog to be sure...but not the goal.

Saddam gave us legal grounds to go into Iraq with OR without WMDs. That is a fact whether you agree with the war or not.

But there is no one on these boards who knows the ultimate scope of a war on terrorist sponsoring states (of which Iraq was only one) and therefore nobody is really capable of judging the strategy.

[Guest charlie]

Saddam gave us legal grounds to go into Iraq with OR without WMDs.

And we gave Saddam chemical weapons to use on the Kurds and the Iranians; evidently many Muslim terrorists view that, among other things as a reason to wage war against us.

A lot of this whole "terror" thing goes right back to our govt. and the Shaw of Iran; a brutal dictator in that region of the world. Our support of this man had a lot to do with the rise of extreme Islamic fundamentalism and terrorists. -- Al Quaida wasn't in Iraq when we invaded...but they're certainly there now.

You bring up some interesting points Ted; don't forget to check out the business dealings Dick Cheney had going on with Iraq during the sanctions. Looks like there's a lot of people who were "making a buck"....still, there was no reason for us to invade that country and get 1700 more Americans killed, 15,000 Americans wounded...1500 of those very severe, missing limbs, blindness etc. And let's not forget the 100,000 to 110,000 INNOCENT Iraqis who've died. And it's not over yet.

Perhaps the UN balked not because of "dirty fingers in the pie" but because they know a war in the middle east can never be won by the west.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Dr. Luke

[Guest charlie]

Anyone who has C-Span2 should go watch it now!

[followerofjesus]

We will never have peace or national sovereignty as long as we're associated w/ the U.N. -IMO

[Eadora]

Yoh! Ted

You make points on this one!

Finding Cockroaches under every rug can be rather disconcerting, can

Edited June 18, 2005 by Eadora