An Iraqi newspaper has published an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein’s regime and were given oil contracts as a result.
These are the people the US was to wait for a permission slip from? They said that Bush was in it for the oil…for the special interests in Halliburton and their contracts — that Big Oil was pushing the war on Iraq.
See how easily these appeasers are able to look the other way in the face of human atrocities of the Saddam kind? When they are given gifts of money and big oil contracts – - it’s amazing how the cost of human life, at the hands of that brutal dictator and his men, can seem so paltry.
Among those names are:
Russia
The Companies of the Russian Communist Party
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet
The Russian Orthodox ChurchFrance
Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman
Ibex
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club
France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.Syria
Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria’s defense ministerTurkey
Zeynel Abidin Erdem
Lotfy DoghanIndonesia
President Megawati SukarnoputriSpain
Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalistYugoslavia
The Socialist Party
Kostunica’s PartyCanada
Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of OilexcoItaly
Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz
Roberto FrimigoniUnited States
Samir VincentUnited Kingdom
George Galloway, member of Parliament
Mujaheddin KhalqSouth Africa
Tokyo SaxwaleJordan
Shaker bin Zaid
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy
Fawaz Zureikat
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of ParliamentLebanon
The son of President LahoudEgypt
Khaled Abdel Nasser
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament memberPalestinian Territories
The Palestinian Liberation Organization
Abu Al AbbasQatar
Hamad bin Ali Al ThanyLibya
Prime Minister Shukri GhanemChad
Foreign Minister of ChadBrazil
The October 8th MovementMyanmar (Burma)
The Minister of the Forests of MyanmarUkraine
The Social Democratic Party
The Communist Party
The Socialist Party
The FTD Oil Co.
How much oil does appeasement cost? How many women and children? How much fear? Interests within Russia and France top this list – - two of the top three countries strongly opposed to the loss of their lucrative oil contracts war in Iraq.
I’m just sayin . . .
You’ll have to excuse me, but I don’t get your point. You are saying that some ‘big names’ in the world have accepted an oil contract for supporting Iraq – and you give us a list of names (published by an Iraqi paper, so who knows what is true of it). But on the list are none of the Hollywood people you are boycotting.
In fact, there is one American (Samir Vincent) on it, a person I have never heard of before, so his Hollywood career must be somewhat shakey…
So what’s your point? I’m not being sarcastic, I’d seriously would like to know.
European, there are different ways of damaging a country and her people and her allies. Sometimes words and support of a tyrannical dictator are enough to fan the flame. Maybe the Hollywood-types have not accepted any oil contracts, but their words and deeds have emboldened the terrorists and those who back them.
I can sum up the point in one big thought-provoking statement: just who was in it for the oil?
When I think back on all those war protests, all those countries screaming about no war for oil, possibly standing on their own private oil wells courtesy of Saddam…well, it does put the whole situation in an interesting new light.
Now what do they in effect say? “No war for oil, because we’ll lose ours”?
One more thing: I would personally consider the source on this particular issue to be far more reliable than the likes of, say, Al-Jazeera or CNN.
Ditto, American Girl.
Oh, PLEASE…Let’s not forget about the support the USA has provided Saddam and his regime. Reagan, anyone? 1980s? We gave Saddam money, money, and more money…and weapons…and started his chemical weapons program. (he was every bit the bloody dictator then, and we knew it, as the whole world knew it) And that is EXACTLY the reason we did nothing when he gassed some 5000 Kurds. The US administration went: OOPS! He was supposed to use
that on IRAN, not the KURDS. Bad Saddam, bad Saddam.
The fact remains: if you want to end terrorism, cut off the funds that keep it alive. Of the 1.2 trillion dollars that get laundered in the USA every year, 400 billion goes to fund the world-wide network of terrorist organizations, like fundamentalist Islam. Problem is, we can not afford to pull the plug on it, or else our economy goes into recession.
Food for thought: out way of life, our bread and butter is partly supported by terrorism. Until corporate America is willing to live without their money, this whole “war on terrorism” is an elaborate, choreographed attempt for geo-political supremacy of the USA!
SO: USA funds terrorism, has WMDs, chemical weapons program…should we bomb ourselves?
I hope you can sleep at night knowing we are developing the new-age biological weapons that can target specific genotypes…research that, AMerican Girl!
Hey Denalirock, you sound angry.
Okay lets just pull everyone out of Iraq, and anywhere else we have Military and see what happens. You blame GWB for all this. I think you need to watch some thing else besides liberal TV. Don’t forget that Clinton was warned about the attacks of 9/11 and did nothing. Not a Damn thing. And as for the oil crap, we only get 4% of it from Iraq. Our majority comes from Canada. As for WMD, well duh they are no longer there because Saddam used it on his own people, and hid the rest. More likly in Syria.
Just what exactly is ”Liberal TV”? Everything that isn’t FOXNews? (Fair and Balanced? That’s a good one.)
Is that where you heard that Clinton was warned about 9/11?
The truth is, members of Clinton’s NSC met with Condoleeza Rice and other Bush NSC. Rice was warned of al Qaeda, Usam bin Laiden, and the Taliban in Affghanistan.
Bush completely ignored the warnings. In fact, Condoleeza Rice denied meeting with Clinton’s NSC even though she commented about what an informative transition took place about national security issues AND she made a remark that the Clinton’s were ”obsessed” with terrorism and Usama bin Laiden.
As time goes on, it will become harder and harder for Bush supporters to cover the lies upon lies.
Now Bush’s lies about WMD in Iraq have put Bush supporters in a precarious position:
The French, Germans and Russians will have much more credibilty than the US the next time we cry wolf.
I hope you’re proud of youselves.
Why would I be angry? It is only my life and that of my loved ones we are talking about here…warmongering and murder, destruction of humankind, no big deal?!
We do agree on one thing though: bringing all troops home from all over the world. Of course that will never happen, this real-life game of Risk is too exciting to relevant officials.
Another thing: I do not care for Clinton, he is also a scumbag. I think it is laughable how repugs revert to Clinton-bashing the minute GWB is in trouble. How do Clinton’s mistakes, dirty deals help GWB’s case? One is a scumbag, and so is the other. Finger-pointing does not work in court, or real life.
We agree on another thing: this was not about oil. Well, not only oil. The oil comes in handy, but the picture is much-much bigger than that. Having the Gulf-Coast under US controll is worth way beyond the oil that is there. Power comes from geological-political influence of the ENTIRE region. We are working on it, keep watching…you’ll see. The appointed, US controlled puppet government Iraq is about to have reminds me of the Soviets in WWII:
“liberate” Eastern Europe from the Nazis, then never leave, and establish Soviet ideology and controll of the region. How very noble…
The only thing I regret is you missing the point I made about the economics of terrorism. Because that is where we start fighting it.
Lastly: the over-confident, extremist-patriotic, “we are God’s gift to the world” attitude towards global politics is very damaging…did not work for Nazi Germany under Hitler, and it will not work for us, either. Disrespecting the world, banging our chests will only make us loook like fools.
Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said
NewsMax Wires
Monday, June 25, 2001
UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) — Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.
During last year’s presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq.
“Iraq’s different,” the Post quoted him as saying.
Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.
If he “was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, ‘No,’ ” Mary Matalin, Cheney’s counselor, said.
“In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts,” Matalin told the Post. “The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them.”
The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.
The Post said U.N. records showed that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Cheney had acknowledged, however.
According to the report, the Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold material to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales lasted from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August.
“Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws,” said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump’s business in the Middle East, including Iraq.
Cheney’s spokeswoman, Juleanna Glover Weiss, referred the Post’s calls to Halliburton, which in turn, directed them back to Cheney’s office.
In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV’s “This Week,” Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.
Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.
The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton’s 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.
Cheney has long criticized of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya.
–
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
DG, I sincerely hope that there are those as willing to spread the news of the truth of Saddam’s dealings and bribery as you seem to be spreading whatever news you seem to be spreading.
I don’t suppose you can either confirm or deny the news that has been presented here rather than distracting with news of your own. Did Saddam bribe all of these countries, including France, or didn’t he? I’m not talking about what Cheney did, what Bush did, blah blah blah — what did Saddam do? What can you tell me about his part in all this, and what can you tell me about all of these people sleeping with the enemy for the sake of oil?
I know you’re good at finding whatever information seems to edify your purpose. I should think you’d be up for the purpose of digging up some real truth, whether or not it meets your purpose.
I wish you the best of luck.
DG wrote:
“The truth is, members of Clinton’s NSC met with Condoleeza Rice and other Bush NSC. Rice was warned of al Qaeda, Usam bin Laiden, and the Taliban in Affghanistan.
Bush completely ignored the warnings. In fact, Condoleeza Rice denied meeting with Clinton’s NSC even though she commented about what an informative transition took place about national security issues AND she made a remark that the Clinton’s were ”obsessed” with terrorism and Usama bin Laiden.
As time goes on, it will become harder and harder for Bush supporters to cover the lies upon lies.
Now Bush’s lies about WMD in Iraq have put Bush supporters in a precarious position:
The French, Germans and Russians will have much more credibilty than the US the next time we cry wolf. ”
And this excuses the idea of Saddam taking bribes from these countries how? Somehow to you, there is indeed validity in these actions, despite the fact that we now know where the oil was going.
If you can’t accept this radical new idea, why on earth must we even bother trying to read yours? All I see is shallow defense on your part, and a desperate effort of distraction.
Of course, you are more than welcome to prove me wrong by posting more balanced and less biased information.
The French , Germans and Russians will have more credibility with who? And who cares?
Do the Germans want us out of that region?
NEWSFLASH: WE ARE PULLING 12,000 TROOPS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD!!!!!
Perhaps if France, Russia and Germany have so much credibility, people who feel this way should seriously consider moving out of America and into these countries, where they can freely partake of Saddam’s bribery oil. JMO, of course…
I still don’t see what Hollywood stars opposing to the attack on Iraq have to do with some scumbags who accepted oil contracts in the past.
I understand that there are people who are against the war with questionable reasons, but this doesn’t discredit everyone who is against it.
I for one think that your president is in Iraq for reasons that disgust me. Power, economic reasons in the US itself, maybe even oil.
The existence of this site proves to me that any country gets the president it deserves. Unfortunately, in the case of the US, the whole world suffers. I see the effects of his policies in my own city every day. It makes me truly sad.
One more thing I’d like to say before I go back to doing happier things: this and many other places make it sound like freedom, democracy, et cetera, are typically American values. Think again: they are Western, not American values. They have not been invented – or defended particularly well – by the US. You have a president who has not been elected, for heaven’s sake. In any other country, he wouldn’t have lasted two weeks. The political events of the last couple of years have made the US the laughing stock of the western world. So yes, the US have lost credibility in the international community. You will notice in the future.
I know that was beside the point, but it really is the real problem here, I think. Your president is waving with a flag and calling it patriottic to support him no matter what, and it seems like half the country is following him blindly. That’s not democracy to me.
Sites like this are not respecting other people’s values. Why is it so evil that some people would have liked to not have gone to war? They have their reasons, pretty good ones actually. There are good reasons to attack Iraq, too, but you are not respecting them.
American Girl
It is ironic that you refer to Saddam’s bribes. That is ALL Saddam has ever done is cheat, lie, bribe, kill, etc.
You, however, disregard any connection with Bush administration officials who have not only done business with Saddam, but have profited off Saddam’s rule in Iraq.
The fact is, Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s former company, was profiting off oil from Iraq as late as 1999 while Cheney was still CEO and he was calling for relaxed sanctions against Iraq.
What’s more, the profits made by French companies also include French subsidiaries of Halliburton.
So, Cheney used French subsidiaries to profit off Iraqi oil and now he (and you) complain about Frances dealings.
You can say what you want on this board, but you know in your heart that US corporations were interested in profits over security and terrorism.
DG, all you’re doing is continuing to change the subject. Frankly, you seem to have only one agenda on this board, and I can’t see why I’m continuing to bother to pay attention to you in the first place.
From now on, I intend to give your anti-Bush agenda the lack of attention it deserves, and I would advise others to do the same.
I suppose if I were to pitch to you all the suggestion that it is not by accident, but by design that Israel’s regional enemy (Iraq) became USA’s “greatest danger”, you would shake your heads in disbelief. (Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz , anyone?)
Believe it or not, pre-9/11 the US aministration, going back to CLinton-era, and continuing with GWB’s cabinet, was under mounting pressure from two sides:
1) the US oil industry quietly but intensely lobbying FOR the lifting of sanctions in IRAQ, Iran and Lybia(an idea supported by Vice-President Richard B. Cheney, who found sanctions ineffective)
2) pro-Israel lobby,( a much more influential force in Washington) preventing re-establishment of economic relations with Tel Aviv’s enemies
We all know who won the debate: total “regime change” in Iraq follows.
Now…as to the claim made by unknown sources in Iraq (under US censorship, by the way, desperately struggling for improved PR in this war) about foreign countries taking bribes from Saddam:
starting with Russia.
Russia benefited from the sanctions on Iraq…one reason they did not want the regime change, or lifting of sanctions is this:
sanctions on Iraq drove international oil prices up.
Crude oil EXPORTS (that means they HAVE oil, by the way) are a key source of income for Russia, as revenues from exports provide approximately 25% of the Russian government’s income. Sanctions lifted in Iraq, oil prices dropping , would be disastrous for the Russian economy.
Analysts estimate that for each $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil, Russian GDP rises or falls 0.35%. A $6 per barrel fall in the price of oil would halve Russia’s GDP growth
SO TO SUGGEST, THAT RUSSIA WOULD WANT / NEED OIL FROM IRAQ DURING SANCTIONS IS RIDICULOUS. Saddam did not need to bribe Putin to be against US invasion, Russia’s economy ALREADY DEPENDED on the war NOT happening.
Russia’s recent growth–9% in 2000, 5% in 2001, and 4% in 2002–was largely due to energy exports and high global energy prices thanks partly to the sanctions on Iraq.
While I agree that this war was not solely about oil,( but a political, world-wide control, global domination that goes WAY beyond the oil in the ground,) oil is a part of it, whether you are a nation who opposes the war (like China, France, Russia)or you are FOR the war, oil inevitably becomes a part of the debate.
Anyhow…I think the US is in line with every country in this world who has done shady business deals with Saddam. WE have supported him, along with many brutal dictators (some of the bloodiest South AmericaN THUGS we have put in power are still enjoying our support)
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush’s younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says “while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”. It refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership”. It describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN”. It says “even should Saddam pass from the scene”, US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently… as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has”. It spotlights China for “regime change”, saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia”.
I strongly recommend to all of you to read as much as you can about the PNAC…it is time to put party-pride aside, this is not a football game after all. It does not matter what “team” is in the White House, Republican or Democrat…no one should get away with the destruction of humankind.
Oh, I wouldn’t doubt that America would go to bat for Israel, which I personally am very much in favor of. I have had doubts about the Roadmap to Peace, and I sincerely admire Arial Sharon for the stand he has taken. A stand I personally hope he will never weaken on.
BTW, Dena, would you say it’s a safe bet that most sources out there on this PNAC are of a strictly neutral nature rather than that of the propoganda “enlightenment crowd”? Before I consider whether or not there is any truth to these sources, which I can indeed understand your passion behind, I like to question and verify the root of all of my sources, such as the “Misleader” MoveOn.org campaign among others.
I’m not saying that what you’re saying isn’t true — it probably is. But I need a bit more information — I don’t want to do any fruitless research and find myself brainwashed needlessly.
I’m sure you understand my concern, and why I have yet to fully trust you. I think you’re pushing this a bit too hard for my liking, and while I do indeed applaud you for trying a new tact, I’m not sure whether or not this is it. Perhaps you could try fewer attempts at pushing people, merely pointing them in a certain direction and saying something to the effect of “Here is such-and-such for what it’s worth”?
I have to be honest — what you are saying here sounds too much like so many college students protesting the war last year, having no idea that what they were in effect supporting was Saddam and his campaign of bribery.
You seem to have a lot of facts. But before I take them to heart, I need to make sure they’re from the right side. I’m sure you understand — I don’t want to be a blindly gullible person by any means.
I can appreciate caution…
Not to push you or anyone else too hard, but let me direct you to an Israeli site, created by Israeli soldiers who have served Israel for years. I hope you will not discount their thoughts on the war between Israel and Palestine.
I believe that those who have walked the walk, who have witnessed events of the past 5-10 years have a lot of credibility on this issue. More than I do, or anyone else in this forum, or anyone in Washington, be it Pres.Clinton, Pres. Bush or whoever. Please visit their site: (again, this is an Israeli source, I am not trying to “corrupt” you with
Arab propaganda)
http://www.seruv.org/defaulteng.asp
Please take the time, and read some of their accounts, essays. These are Israeli people who have Israel’s best interest at heart. Personally I think Sharon could learn from them.
I know you mean well, and I’m sure these people mean well also. But if the ultimate point to all of this is that Israel should essentially surrendur to Palestine in order to stop terrorism, I’m afraid I can’t see that as the answer.
As many on this board can tell you, I’ve personally never been a big fan of compromise. And who’s to say it would work?
If these happen to be the soldiers who have rebelled against Sharon, I think I would have an even bigger problem with these interviews. Besides, I do happen to know someone currently in Israel who has to deal with the horror day in and day out, so I can assure you that I am hardly in the dark about the situation in question.
Whether or not anyone else is interested is, of course, entirely up to them. This is jmo, and I could of course change my mind at my convenience. Where reading this article is, that is. But I do thank you for your flexibility and understanding.
One thing is for sure–and you ain’t gonna like it–the entire 8 years of Bill Clinton saw more advances toward peace–with a whole lot less violence in Israel–than Reagan and two Bush’s COMBINED!
Isn’t that weird?
And a whole lot of compromise and weakening of our military, which no doubt didn’t help us once 9/11 hit…to say nothing of eight years of wasted opportunities of ridding America of any future terroristic attacks.
That’s what’s weird.
In other words, here’s somethinhg you won’t like — if Bill Clinton was so wonderful, 9/11 never would have happened, period, because neither Osama nor Saddam would have been dealt with properly and not have been a threat in the first place. You know what they say about prevention, cure and costliness, after all…
Prevention?
I have to repeat it because you just don’t get it:
Reagan, Bush, Cheney have been profiting from Iraqi oil, Iraq’s war with Iran and with weapons sold to Iran.
How you blame Clinton for Saddam Hussein is one hell of a leap…
If Bush would have finished the job in ’91, Junior wouldn’t be in the pickle he is in.
No WMD, No ties to al Qaeda. Nothing Bush said to justify this war has played out. NOTHING!
Repeat it all you want, and delude yourself into thinking that you’re doing any goodn whatsoever in brainwashing and scolding me into your way of thinking. I guess if you don’t think you’re wasting your time, that’s you’re business.
However, I know better. I could say that I’m wrong and you’re right, if that would make you feel better, but I would be untrue to myself if I were to do so. Because I am going to stand by my decision, and I have to live with that, not you.
So have I succeeded in relieving some of the pressure you seem to feel now? And wouldn’t it be awfully boring on this board if suddenly everyone here agreed with you?
One more thing…
No one has put a gun to my head or anyone else’s head and told us that we have to listen to you. You seem to believe that your ability to quote vast articles of information, which I have personally translated into “I’m right because blah blah blah and Bush is evil because yadda yadda yadda” makes you the only one not only on this board but on the entire planet worth listening to.
And I apologize in advance if this is a personal attack, but it is truly how I feel: these are the types of people who are downright dangerous. This is the type of man Hitler was — he wanted people to listen to him, he wanted Germany to be a socialist nation, he wanted everything his way or else.
Now I’m sure you’re a very young, idealistic person who has his or her ideas on how an ideal country should be run — I can understand that. But to put it bluntly, I can’t honestly say that I feel that your ideas are the best for solving absolutely every single problem in this nation. And you know, I don’t really think every idealistic person who buys into every fresh new idea is intentionally evil — I mean, heck, communism and socialism sounded really good to Jews living under the oppression of Tzarist Russia. Well, I don’t imagine becoming the victims of the National Socialists Party of Germany in the Nazi death camps was anything they counted on!
Here’s the long and the short of it: you have been told to always question authority, which you have done with (at least imo) almost nauseating thoroughness. Well, in doing so, I would strongly advise you to consider your own sources, and the possible outcome of the path you’re being led down. When you chant “No war for oil!” make sure that the people you are supporting have a clean slate, and are not passing money under the table the way Saddam did with so many countries.
Otherwise, if you don’t consider the sources of the path you are following, why should we bother to check our own? If you don’t, then perhaps we would both be better off following our own “paths to doom,” if you will…
Here’s a simple question for you (answer simply ”MORE” or ”LESS”).
Does it upset you more or less when US companies profit off Iraqi oil than the French, Germans, Russians?
There is no simple answer to that one, dg. France and Russia were given money and oil contracts to oppose the war in the UN. To take all possible steps to stop it from happening.
Halliburton would’ve gotten those oil rig contracts either way – - either after the war, or after Saddam was out of power. One way or the other, because Halliburton is the first and formost leading expert in the world…for what they do.
”Halliburton is the first and foremost leading expert in the world… for what they do.”
Do you know what they do?
Did you know Dick Cheney wanted Iraqi sanctions lifted in 1999 while he was CEO of Halliburton?
Did you know Halliburton was using subsidiaries of France and other countries to hide their dealings with Iraq?
And you are right–Halliburton was going to get those Iraqi contracts either way. Most of the corporate officers at Halliburton are former Republican politicians and high ranking military brass.
And by the way, France, Germany and Russia opposed the war because of their economies. The fact that NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE has ever been shown about WMD, al Qaeda and Iraqi collaboration had nothing to do with their position on the war?
Now Bush blames the intelligence community. Yet, when the CIA told Bush that the information he had about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa was bogus, Bush used it in the State of the Union Address ANYWAY!!!!
And they say the intelligence was bad…
WHAT INTELLIGENCE? There is NO evidence.
None. Nadda. Zip!
You know what, DG? I don’t have to answer any question you ask me from now on, because you have refused blatantly to answer mine…which, btw, I am counting as a yes until such a time as you actually decide to actually answer it rather than avoiding it for your own purpose.
The more you talk, the less I realize you truly have to tell me, and the less I realize you have to offer me other than hatred for conservatives, conservative values, and the current White House administration, to say nothing of the ideals on which our country was founded. There’s really nothing more to say…
So Saddam was bribing individuals and organizations to obtain support for his regime. Is anyone really surprised by this “revelation”? Special Interest Groups do this sort of thing all the time in the US from the Teacher’s Union to large corporations. To discover that Saddam was buying influence should come as no surprize at all.
As far as the comment about Fance, Russia and Germany having credibility, were these not the countries holding a ton of Iraq’s foreign debt before the latest gulf war? Asking them to codone, much less support, the removal of Saddam is like asking a bank to agree to cancel debt to one of their customers. Rather than be honest about their motivation, they sold their populations on the idea that they oppose war on their high minded ideals of giving peace a chance. Yeah, they’re just paragons of righteousness whose every word will drip with credibility.
Now let me just say that I don’t disagree with their decision to oppose the war. I think it was very rational for all three countries to do so. But let’s not hold that decision up as some example of goodness and light. It was motivated by the same ugly political realities that drive most decisions of democratic governments.
Lest everyone forget, it’s been the position of the US Government, for more than the last 3 years, that regime change was necessary in Iraq. This wasn’t just the idea of one US President, this was voted on by the US Congress and passed. You may disagree with the methods employed by the current adiminstration or the previous administration, but the end result is something that US Government has wanted to take place for a few years now. Arguing that the current administration is making all kinds of money on this, a claim I have yet to see supported by facts, is purely political sniping aimed at election year advantage. As I recall, Mr. Cheney was hounded by the media right after the election because he owned a lot of Haliburton stock (not surprising since he was their CEO). Bowing to this pressure, he sold off all of his Haliburton stock only to be accused of insider trading when the stock later went south along with the rest of the market. In light of these prior hysterics regarding the current administration and their ties to Big Oil, I think any more claims have to be supported by more than “Moveon.org said so” or it’s equivalent.
‘Cmon, American Girl. Your just frustrated that a dumb-ass liberal is hammering a hole in your misrepresented Republican world.
I never said I hated anybody.
I argue politics with my father-in-law and uncles all the time. (All though, their opinions of Bush are sliding).
What question of yours have I blatantly refused to answer? The one about Reagan? I did answer. It was NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
You can’t even read an opposing post when it consist of one word!
If you don’t hate anybody, then why expound all of this energy into posting all the information you can think of to post that you personally think could damage Bush? And why do you all but lead the witness, trying to coerce people who obviously don’t agree with you into agreeing with you?
I’m sorry, but in this case, your overly aggressive attitude betrays your statement, and methinks thou dost protest too much.
And you are right about one thing. At that point, I had not had the opportunity to read that post, mistakenly thinking that I was on the thread where I had posed that question. I did make an honest mistake, and for that, I fully apologize.
So far, that’s the only thing I apologize for. I’ve hinted several times that your approach is entirely overbearing, and you’ve ignored every single one of those hints, so I feel fully entitled to ignore whatever I feel entitled to ignore of your posts — usually rather laborious and lengthy sets of articles that may or may not be true.
Keep in mind that you are trying this sledgehammer approach on someone who has taken to flipping the channel at the likes of Dan Rather (usually so I won’t find myself flipping something else at Rather, lol) on a regular basis and muting the television set if I hear the slightest hint of a story I am not interested in. I can, and do, do that to certain posts I don’t agree with.
Now I can respectfully disagree with you at any time. But so far, I have seen no respect in your posts, so I don’t see the point in displaying respect that I don’t think can be returned.
As for my “frustration” over your seemingly superior intelligence, don’t flatter yourself. I’ve had a bit of practice in the past in handling your overly aggressive approach, and have attempted to tone down my own approach in that handling. However, when you intentionally make that difficult for me and refuse to respect my POV, then what can I do?
Dick Cheney lied when he said Halliburton had a strict policy about not doing busines with Iraq.
When it was discovered that Halliburton made $73 million while working with Iraq, Cheney said he didn’t know.
Wasn’t ”pre-emption” to get Saddam’s WMD?
Without WMD, what were we ”pre-empting”?
Wihout WMD, why are 500+ American soldiers dead in Iraq?
Bush has a lot to answer for. Now he wants an ”investigation” to see why the intelligence was wrong.
That brings me to this question:
WHAT INTELLIGENCE IS BUSH TALKING ABOUT?
I haven’t seen it. They say it’s classified. So were U2 photos of missles in Cuba. But they showed them to the UN as proof and to justify military action (a blockade). If anyone has evidence show it to me. Hell, better show it to Bush because he don’t have any!!!
That’s where Bush has a problem.
Okay, I read what you had to say, and your questions and opinions are interesting.
Translation: your point has officially been made. Now I hope you will respect whatever decision I choose to make regarding it.
Fair enough?
American Girl:
Instead of wondering rather my posts may or may not be true try this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
or this:
http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/themahablog/id16.html
And you can always do a google search on ”Halliburton-Iraq” .
The truth is out there. Just climb out of your Bush box and see the light.
DG –
I’m sorry, but phrases like “Bush box” are not what I would consider respectful. I am not at all won over by your superior attitude.
I read what you said, and asked you to respect whatever decision I made. Can’t you be content with that without brainwashing me into a liberal? Can’t you tolerate my differing POVs so I can in turn tolerate yours? Can’t you content yourself with that?
In other words, don’t you know when to quit? My guard is already up about you, and all you are doing with such condescending phrases is repelling me farther and farther into what you so sweetly refer to as my “Bush box.”
You know what they say: you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Perhaps you should give that a try sometime. Try it in small increments such as, say, posting the links sans editorial comments. It’s a start, wouldn’t you say?
dg, there were those who said in 1940 that Hitler would do nothing worse than he already had, I guess swallowing Czechoslovakia was not telling enouh. “Mein Kampf” had been written and there were still countries that said, “We don’t have enought evidence” Well, millions are dead because of those miscalutations. If you mock Bush, than I guess you would have mocked Winston Churchill. If a pre emptive strike had of been in 1937 , the world would have been different.
“I strongly recommend to all of you to read as much as you can about the PNAC…it is time to put party-pride aside, this is not a football game after all. It does not matter what “team” is in the White House, Republican or Democrat…no one should get away with the destruction of humankind.” -denalirock.
Quite simply “denalirock”??
YOU ROCK!
dg??
I suspect one woman’s notion of “overbearing” is another man’s idea of thoughtful contradiction..
Again: “All in who’s doing it”
A word to the wise? It’s pointless. I’ve worn your shoes.
Your posts are thoughtful and respectful as are those of “denalirock”. I’ve read with unqualified interest.
Thanks.
Sandy: “dg, there were those who said in 1940 that Hitler would do nothing worse than he already had, I guess swallowing Czechoslovakia was not telling enouh. “Mein Kampf” had been written and there were still countries that said, “We don’t have enought evidence” Well, millions are dead because of those miscalutations. If you mock Bush, than I guess you would have mocked Winston Churchill. If a pre emptive strike had of been in 1937 , the world would have been different.”
******
Well said indeed, Sandy! I don’t know if there is anything I can think of to add to that; it seems to speak for itself.
Well, I gotta give it to dg, he is keeping me on my toes