You're getting waaay of track here. I'm responding to a post questioning the US's reasoning for acting unilaterally with Iraq. We should always consult our allies in foreign affairs, but if an extreme bias is evident, then their opinion is worthless and should be taken with a grain of salt.I'm not saying it would have been harmful to consult France...just pointless.
that is not the logical conclusion to my arguement. The logical conclusion would be that we should not consult others who are profiting from the dictator with whom we intend to oust, thus avoiding the inherent bias against our intended actions.
I didn't say there was no logical conclustion, I said YOUR conclusin wasn't logical. Come on.If someone in the current administration was currently profitting from Iraq, then I would have to say that yes, they should have no say in any attacks against the regime of Iraq.
If he did indeed benefit frrem a relationship with Iraq, then I think there would have been a serious conflict of interest and he should not have intervened...or had someone else take charge in the attack.What evidence is there showing this? I seriously would love to know. (not being sarcastic)