On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:18:55 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If you think that french opposition to the war came from the Oil for food
money, you must also think that all US reasons for the war was to get that
money in corrupt hands.

No, I don't have to think that at all.



So, why do you think France opposition to the war was caused by the Oil for
food scandal?


The cases have the same values

No, we don't have a president here who avoided jail only by becoming
president.

France opposed the war against Iraq. Some corrupt frenchmen got a lot of
illegal money from Iraq. You see an immediate and direct causal
relationship.

USA went to war against Iraq. Some corrupt americans got a huge amount of
illegal money out of this.

What "illegal money" is that?

You see absolutely no relationship.

I see that absent 911, we would not have gone into Iraq, or attempted
nation building (which George Bush opposed on September 10th).

The guilty are no nearer to the centers of decision in either case.

I disagree.

I think your are applying double standard.

I disagree.