Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You brought out the oil argument. That's so freaking laughable I can't even continue this post...
Printable View
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You brought out the oil argument. That's so freaking laughable I can't even continue this post...
Well the US seem very keen on starting up the oil-for-food program don't they.
I thougt humanitarian aid was an act of charity.
Why should it be, aid is aid, despite where the money comes from.Quote:
I thougt humanitarian aid was an act of charity.
Asking the people for oil back for food and water is just exploiting them.
Everyone knows they need the food and water - and everyone knows they have a ****load of oil.
Its exploitation.
No,
It's allowing the Iraqi's to use the oil for something that they need.
Without the sanctions Oil would be the main source of income anyway, and would be used to buy the things that the oil-for-food programme will (probably wouldn't under Saddam though).
But the Iraqis shouldn't have to pay for humanitarian aid.
If the country was given back to them, they own the oil, and they can purchase food off whomever they want.
They shouldn't have to trade oil for food.
Food from us for oil from them it is a trade you ****!!!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Its the UN that is so keen to start the food for oil thing again and the US has agreed get your facts straight!!!!
1) no longer relevant the past is the past, 50% where for it the other 50% were against or unsure.Quote:
1) UK has enough troops because they actually know what they're doing. There is 70% support for the ongoing war, but there was about 50% for and against it before it started.
2) Australia loses by being marred with the same brush as the US.
3) The US want to run the place themselves.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/...2279751,00.html
Bush wants next to nothing to do with the UN.
Blair wanted the UN to run the country after this appaling invasion and massacre, but now, mysteriously he doesn't want anything to do with the UN anymore.
Like I said, this is the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.
2)???
3) They have obviosly taken it back because the page doesnt work anymore
The trade occurs within the UN countries not only America so again get your facts straight ;) ;)
1) Don't call me a ****.
2) The oil-for-food programme was setup to allow the Iraqi people to sell their oil after sanctions were imposed on them.
1) Awww but its fun :D :D :D :D *whispers* sorry
2) Oil for food was set up to prevent Saddam getting his hands on the money that would be made on that oil and ensuring that food is provided to his people.
The idea was for people to get food and Saddam to go to hell!!!! :) :) :)
And how was placing sanctions on medical supplies going to help the people ?
****
The point is to ensure that the oil isnt sold for money and then spent by Saddam and to leave his people starving. The oil for food program ensures that the same oil goes to paying for food and medical suplies. Iraq was nowhere near as poor as it is now all because of Saddam loads of people are starving.
Is it not right that the strong should defend the weak??? :( :( :(
Yes the strong should help the weak, but not when there are so many glaring ulterior motives afoot.
Hehe you sound like Sherlock Holmes :)Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Yes the strong should help the weak, but not when there are so many glaring ulterior motives afoot.
X