kallend 2,026 #26 March 14, 2003 All snipped for brevity. So French companies doing business with Iraq don't represent France doing business with Iraq, if we use your criterion. Ditto for German and Russian companies. Therefore all the accusations against France, Germany and Russia about their business interests in Iraq are bogus?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #27 March 14, 2003 >I could spin this and say it was because of Cheney's presence at >Halliburton encouraged them to plead guilty, accept respsonsibility >and pay the fines...but I shan't I think that would be a dangerous thing to do, since if you tried that, one could use the same argument to claim that, under Cheney's leadership, they tried to make a quick buck by selling dangerous goods to a known terrorist country, national security be damned - and that's a bad attitude for a VP. In any case, I think it's a pretty safe bet that neither one is true - Cheney was not CEO during (or immediately after) the sale. I don't have the link for that here though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkF 0 #28 March 14, 2003 Quotewell Mark like i said, the UN has done nothing. We (the US) as the worlds only super power need to do the right thing because they seem both unwilling and unable to do anything about it. The UN has done heaps. So far a raft of resolutions against Iraq have been passed and the UN has sanctioned the use of some degree of force to enforce them. So far the UN has, probably more by accident than by design, managed to stop the more trigger happy states (Aust. attached - we aren't a member of the SC). So far the US is the worlds super power but what if you look at the situation from another point of view. Imagine for a moment that "Communist Mythonia" was in the position that the US in now and that ths US had no means of standing up to 'em. I dunno what the attitude in the US would be, but in Aust. Communist Mythonia would be seen as a sort of ultimate bad guy that must be stopped - somehow - probably unintentionally inviting Communist Mythonia to enact "serious consequences". What I'm saying here is that all sides of the issue should be studied. With that will come the realisation the what the US considers to be "right" may well be considered to be "evil" when looked at from another viewpoint. Equally, what could be considered "evil" by the US may well be considered "right" from another viewpoint. The UN only seems to be impotent because it's doing its job. ie. Trying to prevent armed conflict. The members of the Security Council failed to act when UNSCOMM and IAEA were thrown out of Iraq is where the current mess stems from - with Saddam Husseins help of course. At the time of the inspectors being thrown out any member state could have scratched out a short, simple draft resolution enabling the membership to go and clean Iraq out. Just about everyone on the planet would have supported it and the whole mess wouldn't be here. My concern is that if the US goes into Iraq now without operating under some sort of UN umbrella the UN will be seen as irrelevant and that any state can just go and do what it wishes. Some will, at terrible cost. Ooroo Mark F... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #29 March 14, 2003 > We (the US) as the worlds only super power need to do the right thing . . . So Iraq should obey UN 1441, because it's the right thing to do; they must obey the will of the entire planet as expressed by the UN. But the US should ignore the UN. We have to go after Saddam, because he's a despot that uses force instead of diplomacy to achieve his ends - and therefore we will ignore diplomacy and use force. But when we do it it's the right thing. It's OK because the UN passed a resolution that called for serious consequences, although we have to be sure we don't listen to their decisions. Not sure if that's closer to George Orwell's Big Brother or Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter when it comes to pure inverted logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #30 March 14, 2003 hi, Bill... QuoteI think that would be a dangerous thing to do Which is why I didn't. Said I could, but that I shall not. OTOH, there are folk here who don't bother to look up the facts, and I thought that it would be interesting to see when Cheney was connected to the company, and thus made my post... QuoteIn any case, I think it's a pretty safe bet that neither one is true - Cheney was not CEO during (or immediately after) the sale I would venture to guess the same...seeing as the sale happened some time prior to the vague "early 90's", which is when there was a suit about it. Had there been a claim that it was "mid-90's", then there may be some issue. Just bringing in some clarifying facts...wish you had the link for the sale dates and story. That would be interesting. I can't seem to dig it up. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #31 March 14, 2003 QuotePlaying word games again? I would have thought that beneath you. While I appreciate your concern, I require no patronization. Fact is, you previously agreed with me on this point here. Who's really playing with words if accountability is not properly assigned? My only point of contention is the words you use, and the way you choose to use them. From my perception it is an extremely elitist fashioning of the english language. Your clever link to the Washington Post was also mentioned here, however you are quick to point out then (2/14) that Cheney was not the CEO of the company during that time. Since details do matter, those that pay attention and make the distinction owe it to those that don't to be an example. Quote-bill von (formerly a San Diego jumper, now a jumper unaffiliated with the government of San Diego who lives and jumps in San Diego) Mock all you wish, as I am saying my last words on this subject in this forum. My point was, and is still, that the United States, in its conduct with other countries, is officially represented by the Department of State. I plainly pointed out a comparison here. If I chose to follow your original example or standard I could then surmise that your work posted here is the representative opinion of Qualcomm, Inc.? I will remember that if I seek to expand my portfolio. Perhaps the standard you are upholding then means that the US sold nuclear secrets to China too during the Clinton administration? After all, we know that Chinese front contributed to the campaigns and that Los Alamos security was compromised. Frankly then, the US has gone to Baghdad in direct peacekeeping work, Sean Penn was there, we all saw him. Maybe these are meaningless details to you, but I'll go out on a limb and submit that they are not. Bottom line, it does make a difference. It does matter. Your ambivalence toward it is disappointing.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 March 14, 2003 QuoteAll snipped for brevity. So French companies doing business with Iraq don't represent France doing business with Iraq, if we use your criterion. Ditto for German and Russian companies. Therefore all the accusations against France, Germany and Russia about their business interests in Iraq are bogus? I've not seen too many references to German company sales to Iraq. I don't know the status of Russian companies. France however, is on different footing. Many of the major companies are state owned, See previous info here. That is a significant difference. One example, TotalFinaElf is a state-controlled conpany with all the beefy oil contracts.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
algboy 0 #33 March 14, 2003 "My dear Colette, don't worry," Lantos reportedly told Colette Avital, a member of Israeli Knesset who was visiting Washington with a delegation of the Peace Coalition. "You won't have any problem with Saddam. "We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and good for you." -- U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-California as reported in the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #34 March 14, 2003 It is partly about Saddam's oil; ____________________________________________ When i say its not about Oil. I mean its not about stealing Saddams oil, for our personal use, without any due compasation. If there was no oil Saddam would be a very bad man riding a donkey and using flint lock guns to kill the neighboring tribes. Where Badgad HAD a fantastic culture, many years ago. Oil is what enabled Saddam to build the large regium of terror that he has now amaseed. Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #35 March 14, 2003 >When i say its not about Oil. I mean its not about stealing Saddams > oil, for our personal use, without any due compasation. Well, I'd bet you a keg of Pyramid that Saddam will not be getting any compensation from us for his oil, but I know what you mean. After the invasion/regime change/surrender whatever the US will set up a new government, and that new government will administer the oil fields. No doubt Shell, Amoco, Exxon etc will get some plum contracts out of it, but a lot of the money will go to the Iraqis*. They will benefit by getting the money, the US will benefit by getting another stable supply of oil, and US oil companies will benefit by getting very lucrative contracts. * = I say "a lot" instead of "all" or "most" because there is talk of the US taking the lion's share of that money to pay for the war/rebuilding effort. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. > If there was no oil Saddam would be a very bad man riding a >donkey and using flint lock guns to kill the neighboring tribes. And that, I think, is one of the best reasons we shouldn't be sending trillions to the Middle East to buy oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #36 March 14, 2003 reasons we shouldn't be sending trillions to the Middle East to buy oil. __________________________________________ The best answer is the simplest. GW, while he is meeting with Spain, Britain, ect, all he has to do is say We are only paying $5.00 a barrel. Then no money for WMD's. But, saddam spends the first dollar on militay, and palaces, kind a like N korea. While the Iraqi people are dirt poor. Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #37 March 14, 2003 >all he has to do is say We are only paying $5.00 a barrel. Uh, wouldn't they just sell to other people instead? Let's think about this. The US refuses to pay more than $5.00 a barrel for oil. That means initially no one sells any oil to the US, while oil prices fall precipitously; europe and the rest of the world then use only half the world's oil output. There is a massive oil glut. Several oil companies go bankrupt; a few US oil companies do really well (those with mainly domestic supplies.) In the US, airlines, shipping services, and transportation shut down. The stock market loses 50% of its value as Boeing, Fedex, Ford and Delta fold. Honda and Toyota do well; with gas at $10 a gallon, people can only afford to drive hybrids. Oil prices drop by a factor of four. Now we're at $8 a barrel. Europe is now getting super cheap oil. Their gas prices go down. People drive more, buy larger cars, and travel more. Their economy improves tremendously. They use more gas. Now they're using 70% of the world's output. Most Middle Eastern countries start losing their source of income, and fighting intensifies, but the risk of spread is lessened - they no longer have the money to build those WMD's we fear. Eventually oil prices bottom out at $4.90. We start buying oil again. Our industries gradually start to rebuild, and a few airlines start flying again. After ten years, the stock market gets close to what it was in 2003. That sounds simple, but I think you wouldn't like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #38 March 15, 2003 Most Middle Eastern countries start losing their source of income, and fighting intensifies, but the risk of spread is lessened - they no longer have the money to build those WMD's we fear. _______________________________________________ Except the genie does not go back into the bottle easily. No matter what kind of embargoes, inspections, handshakes or TV interviews are tried. Saddam is still a threat. That is why Saddams & his regime has to be removed from power. As long as he has access to money he will keep arming and be a danger to the world. Not just my opinion, even Bill Clinton reconized this, when he was in office. He just decided to let it be the next Presidents problem. Which only empowered terrorists. Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #39 March 15, 2003 >Saddam is still a threat. That is why Saddams & his regime has to be >removed from power. I agree, although if he wasn't a threat no one would care (i.e. he'd just be another Castro.) >Not just my opinion, even Bill Clinton reconized this, when he was in > office. He just decided to let it be the next Presidents problem. > Which only empowered terrorists. Well, actually, he tried to get a bunch of anti-terrorism legislation passed - but congress turned it down, then passed a watered down version later. Both Clinton and Bush practiced a policy of Iraqi containment until 9/11, when the political climate changed and it became possible to push for a war without getting destroyed politically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #40 March 15, 2003 Bill, you keep mentioning the Omnibus Terrorist Act of 1995. This link intimates that what you have been saying about the terrorism act recently passed {the Patriot Act} was what the ACLU was saying about Clinton's 1995 omnibus action. http://archive.aclu.org/news/n1024952.html The ACLU has another position paper on it whichs ays, in part: "The Clinton Administration, however, has consistently pushed for significant curbs on our ability to use cryptography to protect electronic privacy. It claims that without access to the keys of all encrypted messages, its "ability to fight crime and prevent terrorism" will be "devastated." But in fact, in the past decade, 83 percent of all wiretaps and other forms of government surveillance have been authorized in connection with vice crimes like gambling and drug offenses. The Administration is using scare tactics to acquire vast new powers to spy on all Americans." You can read it in context here: http://archive.aclu.org/issues/cyber/wiretap_brother.html The original bill was submitted to the Senate and passed 91-8 (July 7, 1995). It went over to Conress, and in March, 1996 the modified bill was voted on and passed 229-191 (close indeed) . If anyone wants to read the bill which was passed in March 1996, here is the link. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/s735.htm Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
