Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 15:22:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 15:30:59 GMT -5
Merci
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 17, 2004 17:45:50 GMT -5
Corpwatch, there's an objective perspective. Halliburton's old News. As if you're own perspective is objectitive? Unless you've read a number of articles on their site you have no idea whether they are objective or not. Haliburton may be old news to you, however, they are still in business making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the war in Iraq. Why is their being involved there any less important in this discussion than the issues you brought up regarding France and other countries being biased towards not wanting to be involved in the war against Iraq because of their own oil ties to Iraq?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 18:35:41 GMT -5
It's like all of the Bush failures and scandals--they just expect us to forget.
"Are you STILL talking about that? That's over and done with!"
"WMD? Let's pay attention to today's problems."
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 18:53:54 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1079054818&start=62#4 date=1079563550] As if you're own perspective is objectitive? Unless you've read a number of articles on their site you have no idea whether they are objective or not. Haliburton may be old news to you, however, they are still in business making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the war in Iraq. Why is their being involved there any less important in this discussion than the issues you brought up regarding France and other countries being biased towards not wanting to be involved in the war against Iraq because of their own oil ties to Iraq? Quite Franlky, some of you have made a big issue out of the US acting unilaterally against the Iraqi regime. The facts show the US really didn't have a choice. France, Russia and others had too much to lose by American action against Iraq. The UN had failed to hold Hussein to the terms of the Cease fire the Iraqi's signed to end the Gulf War. For 12 years the UN Security Council created resolution after resolution as the Iraqi leadership thumbed it's nose at them. After 9/11 there was a new sense of urgency for the American leadership. Hussein, who had long been viewed as a threat to the world was given one last chance to come clean UNSCR 1441, The French and others supported the resolution but not it's enforcement. Choosing again to allow the Iraqi's more time. Wasn't 12 years enough time? Well America acted inspite of the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese who had their own reasons to keep Hussien in power. America otoh, didn't invade Iraq for Oil. Any American oil arguments are "after the fact" therefore, less important to the discussion. ;D The Iraqi's had been in violation from the beginning....... www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html. How much more time did the French want to give? As to your first statement. I've never claimed my perspectives were objectitive. I wouldn't think Corpwatch would paint an unbiased picture of the Bush Aministration considering it's mission statement. Our Mission CorpWatch counters corporate-led globalization through education, network-building and activism. We work to foster democratic control over corporations by building grassroots globalization a diverse movement for human rights and dignity, labor rights and environmental justice.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 17, 2004 19:01:27 GMT -5
It's like all of the Bush failures and scandals--they just expect us to forget. "Are you STILL talking about that? That's over and done with!" "WMD? Let's pay attention to today's problems." I thought you were done? I'm done here, and before I walk off this thread let me add........ I'm right!
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 17, 2004 20:49:56 GMT -5
Quite Franlky, some of you have made a big issue out of the US acting unilaterally against the Iraqi regime. The facts show the US really didn't have a choice. France, Russia and others had too much to lose by American action against Iraq. The UN had failed to hold Hussein to the terms of the Cease fire the Iraqi's signed to end the Gulf War. For 12 years the UN Security Council created resolution after resolution as the Iraqi leadership thumbed it's nose at them. After 9/11 there was a new sense of urgency for the American leadership. Hussein, who had long been viewed as a threat to the world was given one last chance to come clean UNSCR 1441, The French and others supported the resolution but not it's enforcement. Choosing again to allow the Iraqi's more time. Wasn't 12 years enough time? Well America acted inspite of the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese who had their own reasons to keep Hussien in power. America otoh, didn't invade Iraq for Oil. Any American oil arguments are "after the fact" therefore, less important to the discussion. ;D The Iraqi's had been in violation from the beginning....... www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html. How much more time did the French want to give? As to your first statement. I've never claimed my perspectives were objectitive. I wouldn't think Corpwatch would paint an unbiased picture of the Bush Aministration considering it's mission statement. Our Mission CorpWatch counters corporate-led globalization through education, network-building and activism. We work to foster democratic control over corporations by building grassroots globalization a diverse movement for human rights and dignity, labor rights and environmental justice. Gotta love how everything you say is "fact" but anything anyone says that disagrees with you is unfounded. Oy..
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Mar 17, 2004 23:16:41 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1079054818&start=45#3 date=1079544274] 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? I guess I got your attention. I was not suggesting that you personally are proping up murderous dictators. But I do think you take the side of the Europeans more than than the U.S. BiK raises some very good points about the financial relationship between Iraq and many European countries. I would like to see stats on how much oil the U.S. actually gets from the Middle East. I suspect it is less than 30%. I think you are starting to figure out that I like to make strong statements to stir the pot. Please don't take it personally. If I cross the line feel free to IM me and tell me so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2004 23:46:35 GMT -5
I thought you were done? I'm done here, and before I walk off this thread let me add........ I'm right! Is that what I said? Damned French. OK.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Mar 18, 2004 21:51:40 GMT -5
I guess I got your attention. I was not suggesting that you personally are proping up murderous dictators. But I do think you take the side of the Europeans more than than the U.S. BiK raises some very good points about the financial relationship between Iraq and many European countries. I would like to see stats on how much oil the U.S. actually gets from the Middle East. I suspect it is less than 30%. Its about 15%.
|
|