bodypilot90 0 #1 March 12, 2003 http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=200892003 good read Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sinkster 0 #2 March 13, 2003 thx for posting that. it was an interesting read Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #3 March 13, 2003 He makes some good points, but one could make the same statement about the US - "In pushing for a war, the US wants to make money from an immoral attack." We're already talking about how to use the oil in Iraq to pay for the war. I think the US will stand to profit from this war; France and Germany will profit from a continued peace. That in an of itself makes neither the US nor Europe evil. You claim we want war to "save" the Iraqis, at least the ones we won't kill, and that our use of their oil afterwards is not immoral. Might it be possible that France and Germany want to prevent the killing because they think that war is wrong, and their use of Iraqi oil is no worse than our desire for it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #4 March 13, 2003 Bill, that doesn't make sence. If we infacted wanted IRAQ's oil, we would have lifted sanctions a while back. Also, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, Oil companies do not want iraq's oil either, nor do investors. Adding more oil will drive down prices and profits for companies. Oil companies would much rather have a stable market with reasonable prices. A war would not make for a stable market. Opec would controll the extra oil anyway. Even if we had access to more oil, it doesn't mean we will have the ability to export the amount we want from iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #5 March 13, 2003 QuoteBill, that doesn't make sence. If we infacted wanted IRAQ's oil, we would have lifted sanctions a while back. Also, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, Oil companies do not want iraq's oil either, nor do investors. Adding more oil will drive down prices and profits for companies. Oil companies would much rather have a stable market with reasonable prices. A war would not make for a stable market. Opec would controll the extra oil anyway. Even if we had access to more oil, it doesn't mean we will have the ability to export the amount we want from iraq. Ever heard of Petrodollars? How about PetroEuros?... 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
bodypilot90 0 #6 March 13, 2003 QuoteWe're already talking about how to use the oil in Iraq to pay for the war. I think it's a great idea, we will have costs in rebuilding Iraq asking them to help pay is only fair. Do you have a problem with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #7 March 13, 2003 I think the US will stand to profit from this war; Bill i copied you parts of the article you must have skipped over. This is not about Saddams oil. It is amazing to me that people against the removal of Saddam can gloss over the stories of Iraqi refuguees and the total lack of cooperation from Saddam. And just reply: "Oh GW justs wants Iraqi oil." Last June, the Indian government uncovered that Saddam was buying atomised aluminium powder and titanium engine parts made to such a high quality that New Delhi concluded they could only have been for chemical warfare and ballistic missile production. . All this while the people of Iraq starve and the children die of malnutrition and lack of basic medical care. _________________________________________________ Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #8 March 13, 2003 QuoteI think the US will stand to profit from this war; It is amazing to me that people against the removal of Saddam ___________________________________ I don't know anyone who has written against the removal of Saddam. A lot of people prefer that it is done right, and not unilaterally.... 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
harryskydives 0 #9 March 13, 2003 I don't know anyone who has written against the removal of Saddam. A lot of people prefer that it is done right, and not unilaterally. ------------------ Semantics: The French say they are against any Severe consequences. Resolution 1441 was signed by all. IF Immediate does not mean now: the next time you ditter flatlines try debating for another 12 seconds (years) before making any actions. What is this "done right" ?? Even the inspectors aggree that Saddam is not Doing Right. All of the exiles said they knew people who had been killed or tortured by Saddam's Baath Party regime. Is allowing Saddam all the time he wants "Doing Right"?? Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #10 March 13, 2003 Quote I don't know anyone who has written against the removal of Saddam. A lot of people prefer that it is done right, and not unilaterally. ------------------ Semantics: The French say they are against any Severe consequences. Resolution 1441 was signed by all. IF Immediate does not mean now: the next time you ditter flatlines try debating for another 12 seconds (years) before making any actions. What is this "done right" ?? Even the inspectors aggree that Saddam is not Doing Right. All of the exiles said they knew people who had been killed or tortured by Saddam's Baath Party regime. Is allowing Saddam all the time he wants "Doing Right"?? Is it "right" that the US should be the world's self-appointed judge, jury and executioner? 1441 does not give that authority to the US.... 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
Slink2 0 #11 March 13, 2003 Right on brother! I was going to buy a Honda Hybrid but decided not to due to gasoline selling for 30 cents a gallon soon! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #12 March 13, 2003 QuoteIs it "right" that the US should be the world's self-appointed judge, jury and executioner? 1441 does not give that authority to the US. The world has already judged Him, the world has convicted him, even you agree with that. He has had 12 years to comply and has not. The UN by it's inaction on it's own resolutions lost it's respect and relevance. Time to push it to the side like the league of nations and take care of things. Never ever send a boy (the french) to do a mans job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #13 March 13, 2003 >I think it's a great idea, we will have costs in rebuilding Iraq asking > them to help pay is only fair. Do you have a problem with that? Not at all. Just remember that we have a financial interest in this war, just as France and Russia have a financial interest in peace. It doesn't make either country wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #14 March 13, 2003 >If we infacted wanted IRAQ's oil, we would have lifted sanctions a while back. We want Hussein gone more than we want his oil. >Adding more oil will drive down prices and profits for companies. Not if those same oil companies now owned the wellheads in Iraq. >Oil companies would much rather have a stable market with > reasonable prices. A war would not make for a stable market. That is exactly right. A war will destabilize the market; after the war, though, the market will become much more stable as the US gains control of the second largest oil reserves in the world. Oil companies are not that stupid; they've figured this out too. >Even if we had access to more oil, it doesn't mean we will have the > ability to export the amount we want from iraq. All it takes is money to finance pipelines and ports, and we will have all that oil to sell to get that money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #15 March 13, 2003 Quote1441 does not give that authority to the US. Apparently it does.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #16 March 13, 2003 > This is not about Saddams oil. It is partly about Saddam's oil; anyone who think that oil plays no role at all in our Middle Eastern policy hasn't read much history over the last 30 years. It is not "all about the oil;" there is far more to it than that. >Last June, the Indian government uncovered that >Saddam was buying atomised aluminium powder and titanium > engine parts made to such a high quality that New Delhi concluded > they could only have been for chemical warfare and ballistic missile > production. Is this like the aluminum tubes that could "only be used to enrich uranium" that turned out to be for rocket motor casings? In any case he's bought anthrax, west nile and botulinim cultures, as well as nuclear trigger devices and helicopters, from the US. (Actually we just gave him the helicopters.) Many countries buy parts for their militaries from us and from the rest of the world. >All this while the people of Iraq starve and the children die of > malnutrition and lack of basic medical care. He's a bad man. He also has oil; he controls the planet's second largest reserves of the stuff. Our government knows both these things, believe it or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #17 March 13, 2003 see my 9-11 post, Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #18 March 13, 2003 QuoteIs this like the aluminum tubes that could "only be used to enrich uranium" that turned out to be for rocket motor casings? Is this also like the bio-agent that "could only be used to develop biological weapons"? Quote... as well as nuclear trigger devices ...from the US. Let's set the record straight Bill.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
billvon 3,116 #19 March 13, 2003 >Is this also like the bio-agent that "could only be used to develop >biological weapons"? Oh, there is plenty of evidence that Hussein _does_ have chemical and biological weapons. That's still a poor excuse for Powell to exaggerate the state of their nuclear program. Scare tactics have a way of backfiring; afterwards people tend not to believe you even when you're right (which Powell is, 90% of the time.) >>... as well as nuclear trigger devices ...from the US. >Let's set the record straight Bill. From the Washington Post: "Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #20 March 13, 2003 Quote>Let's set the record straight Bill. From the Washington Post: "Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties. " This is something we talked about, i.e. actions of private enterprises not representing the actions of a nation. Haliburton's actions do not dictate that the US sold those components. This is back to the play on words which we also discussed here. By you stating the US sold drilling equipment which could also be used to detonate a nuclear device, you are stating the United States and its representatives (DoS, DoD, etc) took this action. In fact, a private enterprise do so, circumventing the offical policy. You statement is thus false and your spin to encompass it as "conduct of a nation" is insulting.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
PhillyKev 0 #21 March 13, 2003 Well, they came under fire in the early 90's, meaning they sold the stuff before that. Who was president then? Bush Sr., right? Hmmm....and Bush Jr. had all the declassified records from his administration locked away....hmmm...and Bush Sr. was part of the administration that DID sell weapons to Iran through 3rd party independent companies. All of the above is pure speculation...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #22 March 13, 2003 >This is something we talked about, i.e. actions of private enterprises > not representing the actions of a nation. Haliburton's actions do not > dictate that the US sold those components. Playing word games again? I would have thought that beneath you. Halliburton is a company in the US, formerly controlled by our VP. A division of that company sold those triggers. 99.9% of the people in the world would therefore conclude that Iraq and Libya bought the nuclear triggers from the US. They even understand that the label "product of the USA" on a bottle of wine does not mean that the government makes wine, just that it was made by a US company. But for that .1% who think the US government does make all our wine, let me clarify: Iraq and Libya bought those triggers from a US company, in the US, once run by the vice president of the US, and they were sent from the US to their destinations (they went through Italy first.) -bill von (formerly a San Diego jumper, now a jumper unaffiliated with the government of San Diego who lives and jumps in San Diego) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkF 0 #23 March 14, 2003 QuoteQuote1441 does not give that authority to the US. Apparently it does.. Hmmm in Resolution 1441 (2002) I see references to "Member States" and "the Council" but I see no reference to the US. I also see reference to "serious consequences" but nothing authorizing the US to be "judge, jury and executioner" (Kallend). I suggest you have a read of the resolution. It can be found at http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement Ooroo Mark F... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #24 March 14, 2003 well 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #25 March 14, 2003 Quote"Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties. " Cheney was at Halliburton from '95 to 2000. http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020909/55123.html 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. A company which employs 85,000 people and has offices in something like 100 countries is far too large to move that quickly. BTW, I couldn't find anything giving a date as to the sale of the euipment. Do you have a link to that? 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
