|
Post by Gorf on Mar 17, 2004 12:24:34 GMT -5
Wow! It amazes me how quickly you and R will attack the US for proping up and supporting murderous dictators, but if the Europeans do it then its okay. It amazes me even more how well you read things into statements that weren't even remotely included in those statements. Where in the *bleep* do you see ANYWHERE in my comment that I supported a murderous dictator? My comment was that if Hussein has as much lack of control as was stated earlier (by you or BiK) and was very unpredictable in his actions why in the world would the countries (that BiK is slamming for not supporting the US in their decision to go to war in Iraq because of their "insider interests") WANT to keep Hussein in place when removing him would probably give them a government that was more in control and more predictable to negotiate with for their "insider interests"? BiK failed to also mention the US oil companies that would love to regain their rights to do business in Iraq. Rights that were revoked by UN sanctions prior to the war. Could it be that its the US oil companies want to just control the oil production of Iraq rather than just try to strike some sort of deal with Iraq? "The Bush administration has close ties to the oil industry: both President Bush and Vice President Cheney worked in the oil business. Forty-one senior Bush administration officials were former oil companies executives or have substantial stock holdings or other financial ties to the industry" Perhaps a bit of conflict of interest by the president? www.presentdanger.org/pdf/gac/0209oil.pdfwww.corpwatch.org/bulletins/PBD.jsp?articleid=7648truthout.org/docs_03/080803C.shtmlThe Bush Administration Heads for WarThe new Bush administration came into office in January 2001 at this critical juncture. Revelations by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill inform us that the new administration started planning for an invasion of Iraq almost immediately. According to O’Neill, Iraq was “Topic A” at the very first meeting of the Bush National Security Council, just ten days after the inauguration. “It was about finding a way to do it,” reports O’Neill, “That was the tone of the President, saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” Just a few weeks later, the hastily-organized National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, studied the challenge posed by French, Russian and other companies. One of the documents produced by the Cheney group, made public after a long court case, is a map of Iraq showing its major oil fields and a two-page list of “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The list showed more than 40 companies from 30 countries with projects agreed or under discussion, but not a single US or UK deal.50 The list included agreements or discussions with companies from Germany, India, Italy, Canada, Indonesia, Japan and other nations, along with the well-known French, Russian and Chinese deals. The Cheney Group’s report, released in May, warned ominously of US oil shortfalls that might “undermine our economy, our standard of living, our national security.” After the events of September 11, 2001 and the US war on Afghanistan, the Bush administration was ready to move on Iraq. Oil industry publications like Platts and Oil and Gas Journal reflected the growing sense of urgency within the industry that the time for action had arrived. Early in 2002, more than a year before the conflict, Bush and Blair reportedly decided to go ahead with war plans and parallel efforts to prepare the public. As war talk increased in Washington and at the UN, oil issues came into the open. The influential Heritage Foundation published in September a report on “The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq” which called for the privatization of Iraq’s national company and warned that competitor companies would lose their Saddam-era contracts. The companies, the Bush administration and the Iraqi opposition held many meetings over post-war oil. The Washington Post reported in September that the big companies were “maneuvering for a stake” in postwar Iraq and that the war could cause major “reshuffling” of world petroleum markets. Former CIA Director James Woolsey told the Post that the US would use access to post-war oil as a bargaining chip to win French and Russian support for the war.51 Also at this time, Iraqi exile leaders said publicly that a post-Saddam government would “review” all the foreign oil agreements. Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, US favorite as heir to the Iraqi leadership, was quoted as saying: “American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.”<br> www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 12:49:21 GMT -5
BiK, I'm confused. Why are all my statements subjective and yours gospel? Never mind. I know. ;D I'll answer anyway. I've never stated my statements are Gospel. I've stated some of your statements were subjective because quite simply it is. Who is right and who is wrong depends primarily on the person making that particular judgement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 12:54:24 GMT -5
I'll answer anyway. I've never stated my statements are Gospel. I've stated some of your statements were subjective because quite simply it is. Who is right and who is wrong depends primarily on the person making that particular judgement. No. It depends on WHO IS RIGHT. We could both be wrong for that matter, but there IS truth out there. Just because I state an opinion does not mean I am not speaking the truth. You, on the other hand... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 17, 2004 12:55:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 13:00:54 GMT -5
Gorf, I can't keep up with the reading material!
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 13:13:24 GMT -5
When have I supported a country who props up a murderous regime? All I'm saying is that BiK wants it both ways: he denies that's why the US acts the way they do, but claims that was France's and Russia's motivation. And I totally disagree with his assertion that France would have withheld support for action against Iraq under ANY circumstances. ++ You can disagree with me all you want. I don't have the faith in the French that you do. Their actions prior to the American operation in Iraq spoke volumes about their character. They were concerened about their own personal interests, Tell the truth. No amount of information would have swayed the French. I disagree with your assumption that America invaded Iraq for oil. Perhaps your Beret needs to be loosened a tad.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 13:17:36 GMT -5
No. It depends on WHO IS RIGHT. We could both be wrong for that matter, but there IS truth out there. Just because I state an opinion does not mean I am not speaking the truth. You, on the other hand... ;D Just beacuse I state an opinion does not mean I am not speaking the truth either.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 13:25:41 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1079054818&start=45#3 date=1079544274] My comment was that if Hussein has as much lack of control as was stated earlier (by you or BiK) and was very unpredictable in his actions why in the world would the countries (that BiK is slamming for not supporting the US in their decision to go to war in Iraq because of their "insider interests") WANT to keep Hussein in place when removing him would probably give them a government that was more in control and more predictable to negotiate with for their "insider interests"? BiK failed to also mention the US oil companies that would love to regain their rights to do business in Iraq. Rights that were revoked by UN sanctions prior to the war. Could it be that its the US oil companies want to just control the oil production of Iraq rather than just try to strike some sort of deal with Iraq? Nowhere did I mention Hussein lacked Control of Iraq. He ruled that Country with an Iron Fist with the possible exception of the Kurdish North. The deals were negotiated with Hussein's regime. Failed to mention? Despite what James A Paul, you or (R)uffda may think, Oil wasn't the primary issue. Security was.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 13:31:10 GMT -5
Corpwatch, there's an objective perspective. Halliburton's old News.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 14:37:15 GMT -5
Just beacuse I state an opinion does not mean I am not speaking the truth either. No, but you've proven yourself to be remarkably unreliable. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 14:40:51 GMT -5
++ I don't have the faith in the French that you do. Their actions prior to the American operation in Iraq spoke volumes about their character. They were concerened about their own personal interests. And Bush and cronies actions spoke volumes about THEIR character. I did not assert they invaded Iraq for oil. I said all the articles you post give one reason to believe that was the reason--just AS MUCH as they give one reason to believe the insults you heap upon the French. Oui?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 15:11:51 GMT -5
No, but you've proven yourself to be remarkably unreliable. ;D ;D ;D Well than you and I are in the same boat. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 15:19:25 GMT -5
And Bush and cronies actions spoke volumes about THEIR character. I did not assert they invaded Iraq for oil. I said all the articles you post give one reason to believe that was the reason--just AS MUCH as they give one reason to believe the insults you heap upon the French. Oui? Mais enfin, arrêtez!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 15:19:38 GMT -5
Well than you and I are in the same boat. ;D Fine. I'll bring the Cheez Whiz.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 15:21:23 GMT -5
Fine. I'll bring the Cheez Whiz. Nah you bring the wHine instead.
|
|