The Man wrote:

To what extent?

I don't know yet, the news item I read said that the Americans involved were not named, due to privacy laws.

Quote:

All I keep hearing is evidence of French involvement with the "scheme" and in a way, it makes sense -- they were one of the staunchest opponents against, after all, going into Iraq.

Isn't that just supposition at this point?

I think the French had a number of reasons for opposing the invasion of Iraq. So I think only time and further investigation, as Xavio said, will tell to what extent Saddam's bribery schemes contributed.

vibius wrote:

Isn't that just supposition at this point?

Right, right, it's new. But, this is something like I never heard before -- not only government officials might be involved, but businessmen, journalists, maybe others? More material to help the situation get mega revealed, methinks. Might get disproved, but, does it look like it's headed in that direction?

The Man wrote:

Right, right, it's new. But, this is something like I never heard before -- not only government officials might be involved, but businessmen, journalists, maybe others? More material to help the situation get mega revealed, methinks.

It could get quite scandalous, involving many people, and many countries, officials, businessmen and arms dealers.

But I don't think it's that new. I remember hearing allegations that Saddam was getting around the sanctions years ago. The UN has been investigating its involvement in the oil-for-food scandal at least since April when Paul Volcker as assigned to investigate.

Anyway, to me, it isn't very relevant to the elections. I know Cheney has said it justifies the invasion, but I don't see how. I still think we made a big mistake going into Iraq when and how we did.

Quote:

THE MAN - But, we don't know what was illegal yet; if no one man can dictate what is illegal with the intent of completely and utterly punish another, expecting the law to be behind him. People deserve a defense where law is recognized and respected. It seems that the law might state it, but law needs to be interpreted before someone pay for a crime (or should we just allow police to make the sole decision? There goes the jobs of millions of lawyers and judges if that's the case). Plato, Republic, book X: "one and the same object appears to vary in size depending on whether we're looking at it from up close or far away." The law represents. Yes, yes, thetenken, law profs ALL over the country probably state the same thing that you do; but, I bet there are those who don't. One of my first questions -- I'm not a law student, remember this; and, yes, I understand that to a certain extent, not being a law student doesn't matter, because as U.S. citizens, we cannot cite ignorance of the law as an excuse -- was "name names," because I know these guys deserve their day to defend themselves if in fact this is the case. And then, lemme ask this: are there any law profs (and others in the legal profession) who saying the invasion WASN'T illegal, and can cite black letter law in doing so? Here's my point: charges can be filed, the court of popular opinion (I've gone through that, yes?), and a whole lot of other things -- even law students and law professors and the legal profession -- can call the invasion of Iraq as illegal. They can only CALL it that. Whoever's responsible (I'm still asking for a name here) still deserves to be heard. Deserves a defense, if we're talking about interjecting the discipline of law into this matter. Let's look at a popular legal case NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY ANYTHING to help us illustrate. When the, well, let's call it the "199_s O.J. Simpson situation" was going on, a lot of folks (let's keep bare bones here) stamped his "purported offense" as illegal. But, the law eventually said he is innocent. I'm first in line, glad living in this country -- a country based on laws, yes? -- to say that a civilized society, like ours, cannot live without laws. Everything seemed to point to O.J.'s guilt. But, the law said O.J. is innocent; so, he is, in the eyes of criminal law. He will not spend a day in jail. He has not committed any offense -- the law, the ruling says so.

There's a difference between O.J. and the present case. O.J. was never proven, never admitted, and never confessed to being the killer. There was no documented paper trail where O.J. announced his intentions to off his wife, nor were there numerous meetings held in public forums showing that intention.

In this case, the Bush administration submitted its plan to attack Iraq in 2002, then planned, argued, and ultimately gave up on the U.N. to legitimize its war for the reasons they wanted. This is in plain view of every nation and in every record of the U.N. at the time. Sure, maybe the Cato Institute felt that the legal arguments set forth by the administration was right, but the Cato Institute doesn't determine whether or not something is illegal. The U.N. Security Council does.

Sure, we can say "we'll never know unless there was a trial" except for the fact that just about everybody knows. We can't look at all the facts and all the records and say, "Look, no court of law found this" and just shrug it off. That would be irresponsible and encourage more litigation in our already litigious society (not that I'm complaining, more future work for me ).

Anyway, no one is filing charges ostensibly for the reasons I had stated before. So no one is being "punished" for doing whatever. Just because someone is not prosecuted doesn't mean they haven't done something illegal. If I speed on the road and everyone sees me do it, but no cops come arrest me, does that mean what I did was NOT illegal?

Quote:

XAVIO - Ok so, Bush or Kerry are going to be president. Fighting with millions of dollars. One keeps is idea, on one side what is good, on the other the bad things. In uSA you have to learn to know the difference between politic and religions, we know how the problem is big in arabic countries. For him terrorists AL Caida, ben Laden, all can be errase by attacking Irak. ( not for oil of course ) 120 billion dollars for that planned in few years, but most of this money has already been spend... It's true that he helps america to improve his economy, but how does he do it : He boycott other country, and if countries doesn't want to make what he says, he stopes helping this countries. You are going to tell me.. What the problem ? The problem is that what he does he's not democratic. He makes other country protec americans living in this country and force the other to do it, spying Europe is a good way to win contracts Airbus vs boeing. To win money he does everything he can. Richest are going to be more and more rich, and poorest more and more poor. Boycott then, what is wrong ? American don't give a shit of they kill environment and the earth. It's true that if they try to respect a little bit and sign the Kyoto ( contract ? ), they would loose some money. But ok, killing environment is better than losing money. Drive with your car spending 10 liters a mile to have more oil in the world. I can't say Kerry is better than bush. But how can he be worse ? Look at what Clinton did for America, and compare to watch Bush did ? I 'd like to be more argumentative, and what is say is bullshit, it's a speach of Moore, It's a french speak and so on... but try to mind, mind 5 minutes, days, or years, travel in the world to have another point of view and then maybe you'll keep you're idea that bush is a great man for maerica. That's ok, everyboy has his own idea, i have mine.

I'm not sure what you're really saying here, so I'm sorry if I misinterpret you. As I follow your Bush arguments in international policy, you're saying he's being anti-democratic by doing what he believes is in the United States interests (or at least his interest)? Unfortunately world and international politics as currently stated are NOT democratic. No one ever said they were. The U.N. is the biggest mess of compromises. Five nations out of over 150+ can decide to veto just about anything but a unanimous vote out of the General Assembly. One of the five nations can stymie the Security Council and cause absolutely nothing to be done. Even in the General Assembly, why does one nation get one vote? Does that mean that Tuvalu's population of just over 10,000 should be equal to China's 1.3+ billion? How is that democratic?

My point is, there is nothing democratic about world politics right now. That's just the fact. As for travelling around the world, I've done that. I never said Bush was a great man (maybe you confused me with someone else).


As for the oil for food scandal...I'm too tired to address it, and it's still a bit early in the investigation process....
_________________

"...but it was my integrity that was important. Is that so selfish? It sells for so little, but it's all we have left in this place. It is the very last inch of us...but within that inch we are free." - V for Vendetta

As far as the argument of LEGALITY that's been discussed in this thread...here is an article that gives several plausible arguments to why it was NOT illegal. One of the main arguments is that Sadam consistently fired at our planes in the "no fly zone" thus violating a truce from 1991. Now...it's clearly not the reasons given for the war (so please don't tell me that - I already know) but there's no law that states one must give the legal reasons for going to war before doing so...I'll let the reader decide on his/her own whether the legal arguments have merit or not...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135101,00.html

Look at this WEBSITE, you would be surprised :


Then try to think why nobody would vote for bush :


www.betavote.com


94% for kerry in france

Xavio wrote:

Look at this WEBSITE, you would be surprised : Then try to think why nobody would vote for bush : www.betavote.com 94% for kerry in france

Umm...just so you know internet "go here and vote" polls are not "scientifically" accurate. That measn it doesn't necessarily reflect the true opinions and or voting preferences of a population.

Having said that...even if the results were accurate. Who cares? No one cares who the World says should lead the U.S. If we wanted to know what the world thought who should represent us...then he wouldn't represent the US he'd represent the WORLD. Does France want to elect the next French president based on how the WORLD views French politics? I think not...

gregsan wrote:

Umm...just so you know internet "go here and vote" polls are not "scientifically" accurate. That measn it doesn't necessarily reflect the true opinions and or voting preferences of a population. Having said that...even if the results were accurate. Who cares? No one cares who the World says should lead the U.S. If we wanted to know what the world thought who should represent us...then he wouldn't represent the US he'd represent the WORLD. Does France want to elect the next French president based on how the WORLD views French politics? I think not...

I think it has a meaning. For the last election, Clinton would have more vote. It means that 1 man is killing the world, and people in the world want to see this men going in Hawai and take holidays for all his life.
No one cares who the world says lead the us, but you should care of this world ruled and killed by a man named bush.

Xavio wrote:

I think it has a meaning. For the last election, Clinton would have more vote. It means that 1 man is killing the world, and people in the world want to see this men going in Hawai and take holidays for all his life. No one cares who the world says lead the us, but you should care of this world ruled and killed by a man named bush.

No. I actually DON'T care what people in FRANCE, or most other countries, think about who should be the next US president. They're NOT looking out for my best interests as an American...they're looking out for their best interests...

But it can change the world.

You don't care, because you are in your own world, your life is beautifull, you go to work, win money, sleep and....
You don't imagine that your country ruling the world is ruining other countries. Bush want to fight terrorism, but if he wants to fight terrorism he has to fight him first.
Do you think it's your interest to fight Irak ? Do you think it's your interest to boycott every countries ? Do you ... ?

We don't give a shit to bush too, if he wants to kill america, he can do it, because he was elected by americans, but if he wants to kill the world, here it's a problem.

gregsan wrote:

No. I actually DON'T care what people in FRANCE, or most other countries, think about who should be the next US president. They're NOT looking out for my best interests as an American...they're looking out for their best interests...

I have to agree in part with this statement. The decision to elect a President must be based on the best interests of the American People in this case. But I also agree that how the world perceives the President/Nominee should also be taken into account. For a President to be affective in his policies he needs world support. Don't forget the U.S. economy strongly depends on the World economy. Sour relations with the world can lead to all sorts of problems. I think a balanced approach is best. Surely a President can look out for the people and be respected by the world. Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it. It only seems to Bush Jr. who can't achieve it.
_________________

From the Simpsons
Mr. Burns: I could crush him like an ant. But it would be too easy. No, revenge is a dish best served cold. I'll bide my time until ... Oh, what the hell. I'll just crush him like an ant.

gregsan wrote:

No. I actually DON'T care what people in FRANCE, or most other countries, think about who should be the next US president. They're NOT looking out for my best interests as an American...they're looking out for their best interests...

Agreed!
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

Agreed!

Who can't agree to this ?

You have to enlarge your sight though.

xavio, i understand what are you trying to say, and you DO have a point, but...

altho the people in france may want kerry to be prez, they are probably not looking out for the interest of the american people. the only way americans can look out for their interest is thru our votes. For instance, i'm sure you can care less about who americans want to be the next french prime minister, right?
_________________

Xavio wrote:

Who can't agree to this ?

You, for one.

Xavio wrote:

You have to enlarge your sight though.

Like you have?!
_________________

Doramafan113 wrote:

But I also agree that how the world perceives the President/Nominee should also be taken into account. For a President to be affective in his policies he needs world support. Don't forget the U.S. economy strongly depends on the World economy. Sour relations with the world can lead to all sorts of problems. I think a balanced approach is best. Surely a President can look out for the people and be respected by the world. Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it. It only seems to Bush Jr. who can't achieve it.

I was going to say something like this too.

I think it should bother Americans that Bush's foreign policy has been such a disaster. When I travel to foreign countries, I want to be proud of where I'm from.

Right now, I feel like a target.

vibius wrote:

When I travel to foreign countries, I want to be proud of where I'm from. Right now, I feel like a target.

i thought americans are loved in blagistan! LOL!
_________________

Here's my Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/kwan1?ref=profile

Whoops!

ahochaude wrote:

Like you have?!

No I agree aho, you have to care about your interest first, it's normal.

I think by saying this, you show that you don't want to debate, bad for you.

@Niko2x It's true that i care less about the prime minister, but I care !
The whole government is responsible of what USA do.



Then I can understanf rich people who vote for bush, because it's true that he had found many ( unfair) way to find money for his country, and it's good for the rich americans. Economy starts to be fine again, and it's good for them.
But I'm not part of the kind of people who vote for this kind of men.

thetenken wrote:

Just because someone is not prosecuted doesn't mean they haven't done something illegal. If I speed on the road and everyone sees me do it, but no cops come arrest me, does that mean what I did was NOT illegal?

I think a better question is if no one saw you, would you turn yourself in? I mean (in this hypothetical situation, thetenken) you're only saying you did something illegal, right? [hold on, now . . .]

If it is discovered that in the course of your breaking of the speed limit (and, I suppose that in this hypothetical situation, we haven't gone into whether, if in the course of turning yourself in, the police -- or other legal body -- might be able to help determine whether you, in fact, broke the speed limit or not, or was just a matter of you going fast but within the speed limit) you actually ended up saving somebody's life, I dunno if I can automatically assume that (if you, in fact, broke the speed limit) no one in the legal field wouldn't be able to state that your speeding wasn't illegal by only being able to preface the argument with, "his speeding was illegal, but . . ."

And this is because . . .

thetenken wrote:

Sure, maybe the Cato Institute felt that the legal arguments set forth by the administration was right, but the Cato Institute doesn't determine whether or not something is illegal. The U.N. Security Council does.

. . . there is apparently room for argument (in the very least) as to whether something is legal or illegal.

It is being said the reasons that the Bush Administration cited for invading Iraq was illegal? I just can't help but wonder if that's something that needs to be determined; I can't believe some of the top legal minds in the country cannot prove the the invasion was legal.

When you consider Saddam's blatant "try-it-on-my-own-people-first" chemical weapons testing, if something came out of Iraq and hit the U.S. (very possible; Iraq has the capability to make weapons of mass destruction), best believe that the Bush Administration not doing anything about Iraq might be deemed as "illegal" as well.

thetenken wrote:

There's a difference between O.J. and the present case. O.J. was never proven, never admitted, and never confessed to being the killer. There was no documented paper trail where O.J. announced his intentions to off his wife, nor were there numerous meetings held in public forums showing that intention.

I was just going into the idea of "legal defense" here . . . mostly wondering if the O.J. Simpson situation and subsequent trial represented how the law worked most of the time or 100% of the time.

I had:

3 strips bacon
3 Jimmy Dean sausages
2 eggs
white rice
Guava juice
toast
hashbrowns

this morning.

Can you give it up for me, for having a decent breakfast this time?