Bill
Jake Maxwell
politically you scare me. ;)
Jake
Bill Bessette
news:ykVea.14037$pK4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> All I have to say is that it's a good thing we agree on the Hawks,
> because politically you scare me. ;)
Boo.
Bill
wolfbane
"Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns934632E52BF89d...@216.168.3.30...
Well Bill doesn't scare ME! Infact, he turns me on!
wolfbane
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Bill Bessette
news:3e7c6...@news.uncensored-news.com:
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns934632E52BF89d...@216.168.3.30...
>> "Jake Maxwell" <jakem...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:ykVea.14037$pK4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > All I have to say is that it's a good thing we agree on the Hawks,
>> > because politically you scare me. ;)
>>
>> Boo.
>
> Well Bill doesn't scare ME! Infact, he turns me on!
/me licks fingertip and rubs nipple.
Bill
DOTIS31
>
>/me licks fingertip and rubs nipple.
Boys, Boys, Boys, /me shaking my head.................. and not up and down,
either.....
Jeff in Selah
Robin Henderson
Now he is scaring me too!
Robin
Scott B. Husted
It finally happened, I agreed with Robin! ;)
--
Scott B. Husted
"PA-Scott"
ICQ# 4395450
http://www.Husted.cc
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5i4vg$aql$1...@216.39.144.87...
Robin Henderson
I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the Iraqi
troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
weapons?
So what will you have to say if it all wraps up and we find no WMD's, which
BTW would even surprise me a bit...
"Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director for operations on the U.S.
military's Joint Staff, also told a briefing that none of the missiles fired
by Iraq so far in the war had been a Scud."
Robin
M. Zaiem Beg
->Hey Bill,
->
->I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the Iraqi
->troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
->weapons?
We'll have to see what happens. If Iraq has any WMDs, they'd start using
them right about now. They'd have nothing to lose by doing so at this
point.
--
M. Zaiem Beg zb...@iglou.com
The oh so very proud sponsor of the Pete Rose page at
baseball-reference.com
Robin Henderson
"M. Zaiem Beg" <zb...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0303222109290.16820-100000@shell1...
> On 23 Mar 2003, Robin Henderson wrote:
>
> ->Hey Bill,
> ->
> ->I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the
Iraqi
> ->troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
> ->weapons?
>
> We'll have to see what happens. If Iraq has any WMDs, they'd start using
> them right about now. They'd have nothing to lose by doing so at this
> point.
>
I'll ask you the same thing Zaiem, what if we do not find any WMD's? The
even bigger question is what will our military and government do if the
don't find any WMD's. It would be a pretty big public relations disaster if
they are unable to provide the smoking gun... Would the ends justify the
means one more time? Would they fake it rather than face the accusations of
an unjust war from the rest of the world? Does anyone think they would face
the music and admit they were wrong?
Robin
santolina
>
> "M. Zaiem Beg" <zb...@iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0303222109290.16820-100000@shell1...
> > On 23 Mar 2003, Robin Henderson wrote:
> >
> > ->Hey Bill,
> > ->
> > ->I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the
> Iraqi
> > ->troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
> > ->weapons?
> >
> > We'll have to see what happens. If Iraq has any WMDs, they'd start using
> > them right about now. They'd have nothing to lose by doing so at this
> > point.
> >
>
> I'll ask you the same thing Zaiem, what if we do not find any WMD's? The
> even bigger question is what will our military and government do if the
> don't find any WMD's.
It doesn't matter, *something* will be found, just as "links" to al Qaeda
more tenuous than the plot of an Adam Sandler movie were found. They will
be trumpeted, the mass media will dutifully report, and twenty years from
now the ridiculous farce will be "exposed", replete with hand-wringing about
how "mistakes were made".
What will never be brought up are a few very simple questions:
1. Why are these alleged WMDs such a concern now, when Iraq had literally
hundreds or thousands of times more of them a dozen years ago, and they were
of no interest five minutes prior to the invasion of Kuwait?
2. Why are the same individuals who provided Iraq (in part) with these
WMDs, and are now leading the war against that country, being trusted?
3. Why is Iraq being invaded if the outcome is so certain (the fraudulent
answer, which the mass media dutifully report, is that they might, maybe,
perhaps, give WMDs to "terrorists". Of course, so might, maybe, perhaps
every other country on earth that possesses WMDs.)?
> It would be a pretty big public relations disaster if
> they are unable to provide the smoking gun...
It would be a PR disaster with the 1/4-1/3 of the population that already
are smart enough not to trust a damned word these inveterate liars utter,
the problem is with the 2/3-3/4 who are not used to thinking outside the
tiny black box of their childhood verities. As long as a simple majority
are fat and warm the Bush Reich have nothing to worry about, although it is
heartening that a sizeable minority are ungovernable even now, after one of
the more intense propaganda campaigns in the history of civilization (Iraq a
threat to the U.S.? Doesn't even rise to the level of laughable).
Bill Bessette
> I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles???
That's what the on-air guys wearing the gas-masks were
reporting, some of them as late as today. If they're
wrong, we'll eventually know.
> And I thought the Iraqi troops along the Kuwaiti border
> had been supplied with banned chemical weapons?
That's what the "leaked intel" was saying. Perhaps
they didn't exist, perhaps they weren't deployed
that far south, or perhaps they're in a smashed
bunker somewhere and it'll take a while for a mop-up
team to find them.
> So what will you have to say if it all wraps up and we
> find no WMD's, which BTW would even surprise me a bit...
I will say - "Good, I'm surprised but happy."
I still think they'll find a bunch of stuff, but
that won't stop cynics from claiming that it was all
planted.
Bill
Two Cents Worth
Oh, yeah, the only smart ones are the ones that agree with you. Ain't
that a ko ink ee dink. What a towering intellect you must be.
Verity: Something, such as a statement, principle, or belief, that is
true, especially an enduring truth: “The mind once suddenly aware of a
verity for the first time immediately invents it again” (Agnes Sligh
Turnbull).
Middle English verite, truth, from Old French, from Latin vrits, from
vrus, true. See wr-o- in Indo-European Roots.
So enduring truths have led them to irrational thought, in your
opinion. They are obligated to "think(ing) outside the
tiny [?] black box [?] in order to find your position viable? Whew,
you sure don't make it easy, do you?
>As long as a simple majority
>are fat and warm the Bush Reich have nothing to worry about, although it is
>heartening that a sizeable minority are ungovernable even now, after one of
>the more intense propaganda campaigns in the history of civilization (Iraq a
>threat to the U.S.? Doesn't even rise to the level of laughable).
>
I suppose you said the same about Al Queda, didn't you?
>
>
You are heartened by an ungovernable minority? Man, that's sad.
Dos
DanMatz
missile itself, on TV, with the lettering on the side, and Kuwati military, not
US military, describing it as a banned long range missile.
Dan
DrGruesome
> I still think they'll find a bunch of stuff, but
> that won't stop cynics from claiming that it was all
> planted.
>
> Bill
And what's wrong with that?
We're making claims that all the WMDs are "hidden" (although we have no
proof that they are as yet) and apparently it's good enough to go to war
over. Why should anyone need to prove anything was planted?
We're in the world where burden of proof falls to the accused (as was the
case in the witch trials of the 1600's), not the accuser (as in our current
domestic legal system). And the odd thing to me is that many citizens of
the United States have no problem with promoting freedom through means
contrary to our own laws.
Michael Johnson
tadperry
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0303222109290.16820-100000@shell1...
>
> ->Hey Bill,
> ->
> ->I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the
Iraqi
> ->troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
> ->weapons?
>
> We'll have to see what happens. If Iraq has any WMDs, they'd start using
> them right about now. They'd have nothing to lose by doing so at this
> point.
How about my favorite idea?
Iraq has nothing (or next to nothing).
US intelligence has convinced itself that Iraq has plenty (mostly due to
"filling in the blanks" incorrectly--calling seed fertilization vans "mobile
weapons facilities" and so on) and so the US itself is somewhat surprised
when these WMD never seem to materialize.
tvp
Bill Bessette
news:hndfa.81377$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9346ED4363E04d...@216.168.3.30...
>> I still think they'll find a bunch of stuff, but
>> that won't stop cynics from claiming that it was all
>> planted.
>
> And what's wrong with that?
Nothing, I suppose. Just an observation that for
some people no amount of evidence will ever
be enough.
Bill
Robin Henderson
You are right Bill. NO evidence is not enough to justify war....
Robin
santolina
Two Cents Worth <boo...@hicksville.org> wrote in message
news:ufeq7vcgb7skn9dsm...@4ax.com...
No, the smart ones are those that don't reflexively believe what their
leaders tell them. I thought I made that clear.
> Verity: Something, such as a statement, principle, or belief, that is
> true, especially an enduring truth: "The mind once suddenly aware of a
> verity for the first time immediately invents it again" (Agnes Sligh
> Turnbull).
>
> Middle English verite, truth, from Old French, from Latin vrits, from
> vrus, true. See wr-o- in Indo-European Roots.
>
> So enduring truths have led them to irrational thought,
Er, while you've got that dictionary open try looking up "sarcasm" and
"irony".
> in your
> opinion. They are obligated to "think(ing) outside the
> tiny [?] black box [?] in order to find your position viable?
No, my position's got nothing to do with it. My comment was about the
2/3-3/4 of the population who reflexively believe what their leaders tell
them. Since all the publically stated reasons for the war are demonstrably
bogus there is no other viable explanation for "their position", other than
that they are not used to thinking outside their little boxes.
The 1/4-1/3 who represent "my position" actually do no such thing, they
represent a wide range of positions, from the war being morally wrong, to
the war being inadvisable, to the war should have waited for UN approval.
The only common thread among them is that the shock-and-awe propaganda
campaign of the Bush Administration didn't win them over completely.
> Whew,
> you sure don't make it easy, do you?
>
I made it quite ridiculously easy, all you have to do is provide
quasi-sensible answers to the questions I posed above.
> >As long as a simple majority
> >are fat and warm the Bush Reich have nothing to worry about, although it
is
> >heartening that a sizeable minority are ungovernable even now, after one
of
> >the more intense propaganda campaigns in the history of civilization
(Iraq a
> >threat to the U.S.? Doesn't even rise to the level of laughable).
> >
> I suppose you said the same about Al Queda, didn't you?
I have no idea what sense this question makes. Are you asking me if I was
in favor of military conquest of Saudi Arabia and Home Depot a couple of
years ago?
> >
> >
>
> You are heartened by an ungovernable minority? Man, that's sad.
>
Yes, I am heartened that there is a sizeable minority of the population that
does not unquestioningly swallow lies and distortions. Should I not be?
Scott B. Husted
Kuwaiti actors. It was filmed at the same secret studio where the
'supposed' moon landing was filmed and where Republicans are still holding
Elvis prisoner.
--
Scott B. Husted
"PA-Scott"
ICQ# 4395450
http://www.Husted.cc
"DanMatz" <dan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030323011128...@mb-bj.aol.com...
Robin Henderson
Donald Rumsfeld just said on CNN that he had no reports of Iraq firing
banned missiles...
Robin
Bill Bessette
216.39.144.87:
> Donald Rumsfeld just said on CNN that he had no reports
> of Iraq firing banned missiles...
So now we are supposed to believe Rumsfeld? :)
Bill
Robin Henderson
"santolina" <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote in message
news:b5koh1$2a2bl5$1...@ID-78591.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Two Cents Worth <boo...@hicksville.org> wrote in message
> news:ufeq7vcgb7skn9dsm...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:27:36 -0800, "santolina"
> > <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote:
Snip
>
> I made it quite ridiculously easy, all you have to do is provide
> quasi-sensible answers to the questions I posed above.
>
>
Hey Santolina,
Your expectations are way too high here... ;-)
Robin
Robin Henderson
doesn't say anything. I just watched his interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN
and he did not give a straight answer to a single question that Wolf asked
him. When asked did we have evidence of chemical, biological or banned
missiles, he said 'I have not reports of that'. The man is incapable of
giving a simple yes or no answer.
I find it highly entertaining the way our government uses plausible
deniability. Iraq reports that a coalition plane was downed. The US says
that no US plane has been shot down, shortly thereafter they announce that a
British plane was shot down by our own Patriot missile. Of course they were
right that it was not a US plane. Then Iraq says they have captured
prisoners and the US denies it at first, then they say less than 10, then
they say 11... They are so conditioned to lie to us that they just can't
help themselves... Their creditability will soon be shot, and even
misguided patriots will have to start asking themselves some tough
questions...
Robin
Phil N D'Blanc®
Rick
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5kpbp$468$0...@216.39.144.87...
> Donald Rumsfeld just said on CNN that he had no reports of Iraq firing
> banned missiles...
> Robin
You need to clean out your ears. He said "Scud" missiles. Scuds are not the
only banned arms. The prohibition is range-based.
Rick
Rick
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5kr3d$8c7$1...@216.39.144.87...
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93477CE5917E7d...@216.168.3.30...
> > "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in news:b5kpbp$468$0@
> > 216.39.144.87:
> > > Donald Rumsfeld just said on CNN that he had no reports
> > > of Iraq firing banned missiles...
> > So now we are supposed to believe Rumsfeld? :)
> > Bill
> You don't have to believe any thing that Donald Rumsfeld says, because he
> doesn't say anything. I just watched his interview with Wolf Blitzer on
CNN
> and he did not give a straight answer to a single question that Wolf asked
> him.
So ya think maybe Iraqi leadership has satellite TV? Do you suggest Rumsfeld
gives the media info that may endanger military lives? THAT would be
heinous! What is surprising to me is the openness and quick confirmations
the media is getting from military command. It's probably actually a little
*too* much from a strategic standpoint.
>When asked did we have evidence of chemical, biological or banned
> missiles, he said 'I have no(t) reports of that'. The man is incapable of
> giving a simple yes or no answer.
> Robin
What's ambigous about his answer?
Rick
Robin Henderson
"Rick" <pete_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Lwmfa.1775$TW2.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
You need to clean out your brain, if they had proof of banned weapons they
would be pasting them all over the news.
Robin
Rick
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5kr3d$8c7$1...@216.39.144.87...
> I find it highly entertaining the way our government uses plausible
> deniability. Iraq reports that a coalition plane was downed. The US says
> that no US plane has been shot down, shortly thereafter they announce that
a
> British plane was shot down by our own Patriot missile. Of course they
were
> right that it was not a US plane. Then Iraq says they have captured
> prisoners and the US denies it at first, then they say less than 10, then
> they say 11... They are so conditioned to lie to us that they just can't
> help themselves... Their creditability will soon be shot, and even
> misguided patriots will have to start asking themselves some tough
> questions...
> Robin
Ya think maybe there's a lot going on over there? They are dealing with a
lot of conflicting and rapidly changing information. They are providing the
media with an unprecedented amount of information in a timely manner.
Your statements are kinda like the Monday morning quarterbacking that goes
on in here during the season. Fun, sure. But it's still hindsight.
Rick
DrGruesome
That's exactly my point. There would never be enough evidence for the US to
be satisfied that Iraq is in compliance with the UN resolution, because our
pat answer is "they're hiding them". If we were really interested in
proving that Iraq had illegal weapons, we'd have recomissioned one of our
SR-71s and taken photos of them, or done something similar to prove
conclusively that Iraq was in violation. We didn't.
By shifting the burden of proof to Iraq to prove that they don't have what
we say they are hiding, the road to war was assured becuase there is no
possible way to prove conclusively that you don't have something. Video
evidence? Staged. Documents? Faked. Witnesses? Coerced. As you say,
for some people no amount of evidence will ever be enough.
Going to war to provoke Iraq to use the weapons they allegedly have hidden
is tantamount to throwing an accused witch into the river to see if she
floats or drowns. Aside from the moral and ethical issues, the problem is
that if she really is a witch, all you end up with is a wet and pissed off
witch.
Michael Johnson
Rick
Your reply has nothing to do with my pointing out your misquote of Rumsfeld.
This is indicative of your argumentation shortcomings.
Rick
Robin Henderson
>
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:b5kr3d$8c7$1...@216.39.144.87...
>
> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93477CE5917E7d...@216.168.3.30...
> > > "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in news:b5kpbp$468$0@
> > > 216.39.144.87:
>
> > > > Donald Rumsfeld just said on CNN that he had no reports
> > > > of Iraq firing banned missiles...
>
> > > So now we are supposed to believe Rumsfeld? :)
>
> > > Bill
>
> > You don't have to believe any thing that Donald Rumsfeld says, because
he
> > doesn't say anything. I just watched his interview with Wolf Blitzer on
> CNN
> > and he did not give a straight answer to a single question that Wolf
asked
> > him.
>
> So ya think maybe Iraqi leadership has satellite TV? Do you suggest
Rumsfeld
> gives the media info that may endanger military lives? THAT would be
> heinous! What is surprising to me is the openness and quick confirmations
> the media is getting from military command. It's probably actually a
little
> *too* much from a strategic standpoint.
I don't expect him to tell us troop positions, strengths or strategy. But
he could try and give at least one straight answer about something.
>
> >When asked did we have evidence of chemical, biological or banned
> > missiles, he said 'I have no(t) reports of that'. The man is incapable
of
> > giving a simple yes or no answer.
>
> > Robin
>
> What's ambigous about his answer?
>
> Rick
>
By saying he does not have any reports he insinuates that those reports may
be out there he just does not have them yet. While the fact remains that
they have inspected the missile wreckage and the reports indicate that the
missiles were not banned missiles and contained only conventional
warheads...
Robin
Robin Henderson
All morning long after Iraq says they shot down a coalition jet we denied
it... And now all of a sudden "There has been a report of an aircraft
missing," the secretary acknowledged on NBC's "Meet the Press. "I don't want
to speculate because I simply don't know" He does not know much does he.
Robin
Robin Henderson
And you misquoted Rumsfeld, he never said scud missiles. Quoting an AP story
"The Pentagon said U.S. troops hunting for banned chemical and biological
weapons and Scud missiles have so far come up empty. Rumsfeld said allied
forces so far are ''not in that business'' of searching for weapons of mass
destruction inside Iraq because they have been ''on the ground 72 hours
fighting a war.'' But if the Pentagon says "troops hunting for weapons"
then aren't we in fact in that business? I watched the wolf Blitzer
interview with Rumsfeld live and when Wolf pressed him on the issue he said
"I have no reports of that"
I still say if they had any proof that Iraq was using any banned weapons
system it would be all over the news. Can you show me one single news
article with positive proof, not speculation, that a banned weapons system
has been used? No you cannot. Don't be a naive fool...
Robin
Warren Louthan
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5kk9t$pa6$0...@216.39.144.87...
You mean "This" war correct?
Hawksfanatic
>
> That's exactly my point. There would never be enough evidence for the US
to
> be satisfied that Iraq is in compliance with the UN resolution, because
our
> pat answer is "they're hiding them". If we were really interested in
> proving that Iraq had illegal weapons, we'd have recomissioned one of our
> SR-71s and taken photos of them, or done something similar to prove
> conclusively that Iraq was in violation. We didn't.
Just because you have not seen photos, or those photos have not been
released to the press, means they do not exist? The information that Powell
gave to the UN was pretty damned compelling from an intel point of view. As
I stated before, I was amazed at what he did say.
BTW, we have many other platforms that are much more reliable and produce
better intel than the venerable SR-71.
>
>
> Going to war to provoke Iraq to use the weapons they allegedly have hidden
> is tantamount to throwing an accused witch into the river to see if she
> floats or drowns.
But she turned me into a newt....
Hawksfanatic
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5kr3d$8c7$1...@216.39.144.87...
>
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93477CE5917E7d...@216.168.3.30...
> > "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in news:b5kpbp$468$0@
> > 216.39.144.87:
> >
> > > Donald Rumsfeld just said on CNN that he had no reports
> > > of Iraq firing banned missiles...
> >
> > So now we are supposed to believe Rumsfeld? :)
> >
> > Bill
Robin, sometimes you just don't get it do you? : )
> You don't have to believe any thing that Donald Rumsfeld says, because he
> doesn't say anything. I just watched his interview with Wolf Blitzer on
CNN
> and he did not give a straight answer to a single question that Wolf asked
> him. When asked did we have evidence of chemical, biological or banned
> missiles, he said 'I have not reports of that'. The man is incapable of
> giving a simple yes or no answer.
>
> I find it highly entertaining the way our government uses plausible
> deniability. Iraq reports that a coalition plane was downed. The US says
> that no US plane has been shot down, shortly thereafter they announce that
a
> British plane was shot down by our own Patriot missile. Of course they
were
> right that it was not a US plane. Then Iraq says they have captured
> prisoners and the US denies it at first,
It's called OPSEC. Operations Security. Don't give any information you don't
have until you finally have to.
Robin Henderson
"Warren Louthan" <warl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Y2ofa.215993$qi4.104151@rwcrnsc54...
from aggression. Therefore I would say the Iraqis are justified in
defending themselves from us. After all we are attacking them with a far
superior force after we imposed 13 years of sanctions and limited their
weapons. It would be like picking some poor bum off the street and telling
him we were going to have a fight, he gets a sharp stick and we get to use a
bazooka. Could you blame the bum for taking any advantage he could get in
an unfair fight?
Robin
Robin Henderson
"Hawksfanatic" <cv.f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%iofa.86354$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
It is also called plausible deniability. Many of the questions that he was
asked have little or no strategic value. It is highly publicized that the
US is employing psy-ops in this war. Anyone who thinks that our government
is not also employing those same tactics against their own citizens are
naive and weak minded.
Robin
Scott B. Husted
--
Scott B. Husted
"PA-Scott"
ICQ# 4395450
http://www.Husted.cc
"Phil N D'Blanc®" <cuvyoreg{V_UNGR_PNAARQ_ZRNG!}@gryhfcynarg.arg> wrote in
message news:Nhmfa.530228$Yo4.32...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Robin Henderson
"Scott B. Husted" <Sc...@Husted.cc> wrote in message
news:b5l7jm$1uh$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...
> Bad Middle Eastern Cuisine.
What? You've got something against lamb??? ;-)
Robin
DrGruesome
>
> Just because you have not seen photos, or those photos have not been
> released to the press, means they do not exist? The information that
Powell
> gave to the UN was pretty damned compelling from an intel point of view.
As
> I stated before, I was amazed at what he did say.
>
> BTW, we have many other platforms that are much more reliable and produce
> better intel than the venerable SR-71.
I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting we have photos
that prove beyond any doubt the existence of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq? Do you think we deliberately chose to undermine the authority of the
UN by withholding the very evidence that could have united the security
council and gained us UN authorization of the use of force against Iraq?
What posible reason could we have to withhold proof?
No, I think it is far more likely, and believable, that such photographs do
not exist. At least I hope that's the case, because the alternative is
insidious to the point of being criminal. In fact, I am pretty sure I don't
want to be associated with a nation that would act so reprehensibly. Would
you?
As far as surveillance platforms, to my knowledge, the SR-71 was the only
easily positionable aerial surveillance platform we had that was nearly
invulnerable to attack. What others do we have like that, and why didn't we
use them? Instead we used the U2 until Saddam threatened to shoot at them,
and then we stopped. I know you could go Tom Clancy on me here and claim we
are using some top-secret classified uber-stealth thing that we're not to be
told of, but I'll give you fair advance warning that I'm simply not going to
believe it.
Michael Johnson
Hawksfanatic
>
> It is also called plausible deniability. Many of the questions that he
was
> asked have little or no strategic value. It is highly publicized that the
> US is employing psy-ops in this war. Anyone who thinks that our
government
> is not also employing those same tactics against their own citizens are
> naive and weak minded.
>
> Robin
>
Do youself a favor and read what OPSEC actually is. Go on...do a Google
search and read away. Hell, you might even be able to find the Army FM and
AR that covers OPSEC.
I take it you didn't see that briefing. He was not asked questions. He
simply put out information.
BTW, it's called Information Warfare. Psy-Ops is something completely
different. Dropping the MOAB and making sure the world saw it, was IO.
Watching Somalis drag an American Blackhawk crew member around the streets,
is IO. Dropping leaflets and blasting messages out of loudspeakers, is
Psy-Ops.
And yes, it would be foolish NOT to employ IO in a conflict of this
magnatude. I would expect the allies to do this very thing.
Why must you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to everyone else around
the world and think of Americans as the Devil?
DrGruesome
It's not the lamb - I'm moving to New Zealand where the lamb is succulent,
roasted and smothered in rich gravy.
No, it's the curry. It's the curried chicken and curried lamb and curried
goat and curried unidentifiable meat (anyone see the cat?) and curried corn
flakes. People eat curry three meals a day until they just can't stand it
any more, and then they become suicide bombers just to escape more curry.
"Well, there's curry, eggs, sausage and curry, that's not got much curry in
it..."
Michael Johnson
Hawksfanatic
"DrGruesome" <dr.gr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dLpfa.86848$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Hawksfanatic" <cv.f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:kfofa.86336$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > Just because you have not seen photos, or those photos have not been
> > released to the press, means they do not exist? The information that
> Powell
> > gave to the UN was pretty damned compelling from an intel point of view.
> As
> > I stated before, I was amazed at what he did say.
> >
> > BTW, we have many other platforms that are much more reliable and
produce
> > better intel than the venerable SR-71.
>
> I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting we have photos
> that prove beyond any doubt the existence of weapons of mass destruction
in
> Iraq?
Well, we will all know within about two to three weeks.
> Do you think we deliberately chose to undermine the authority of the
> UN by withholding the very evidence that could have united the security
> council and gained us UN authorization of the use of force against Iraq?
We never would have gotten authorization for the use of force against Iraq.
It's that simple.
> What posible reason could we have to withhold proof?
>
> No, I think it is far more likely, and believable, that such photographs
do
> not exist. At least I hope that's the case, because the alternative is
> insidious to the point of being criminal. In fact, I am pretty sure I
don't
> want to be associated with a nation that would act so reprehensibly.
Would
> you?
>
> As far as surveillance platforms, to my knowledge, the SR-71 was the only
> easily positionable aerial surveillance platform we had that was nearly
> invulnerable to attack.
Ummmmm.....satellites?
DrGruesome
>
>
> Well, we will all know within about two to three weeks.
The time to prove the case for war is before the war - that's what people
tend to get upset about. Showing pictures in 2-3 weeks does no one any
good.
> We never would have gotten authorization for the use of force against
Iraq.
> It's that simple.
No, it's not that simple. That is simply your opinion.
> > As far as surveillance platforms, to my knowledge, the SR-71 was the
only
> > easily positionable aerial surveillance platform we had that was nearly
> > invulnerable to attack.
>
> Ummmmm.....satellites?
Since when are satellites easy to position over a target? Do we have
satellites that have enough power to move from one orbit to another as we
need them? From what fuel source do they derive the mechanical energy to
change orbits whenever we want them to?
Michael Johnson
Hawksfanatic
>
> "Hawksfanatic" <cv.f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:kXpfa.18337$IM3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> >
> >
> > Well, we will all know within about two to three weeks.
>
> The time to prove the case for war is before the war - that's what people
> tend to get upset about. Showing pictures in 2-3 weeks does no one any
> good.
Overall, I agree. The administration should have made a more comprehensive
case to go to war while knowing we were NEVER going to get the green light
from the UN to invade. (While keeping the secrecy of intelligence assets
intact, of course) It was a PR battle that was lost.
DrGruesome
>
> Overall, I agree. The administration should have made a more comprehensive
> case to go to war while knowing we were NEVER going to get the green light
> from the UN to invade. (While keeping the secrecy of intelligence assets
> intact, of course) It was a PR battle that was lost.
This "never going to get the green light" thing is unfounded. We got the
green light for the previous action, so it is safe to assume that had we
made a convincing case we would have got it in this case too. We will never
know, because we failed to make a convincing case. This is why evidence
presented in 2-3 weeks is completely useless. The damage done to UN
credibility is done. To show evidence in 2-3 weeks destroys our credibility
as well.
Michael Johnson
Two Cents Worth
wrote:
>
>"santolina" <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote in message
>news:b5koh1$2a2bl5$1...@ID-78591.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> Two Cents Worth <boo...@hicksville.org> wrote in message
>> news:ufeq7vcgb7skn9dsm...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:27:36 -0800, "santolina"
>> > <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote:
>
>Snip
>>
>> I made it quite ridiculously easy, all you have to do is provide
>> quasi-sensible answers to the questions I posed above.
>>
>>
>
>Hey Santolina,
>
>Your expectations are way too high here... ;-)
>
>Robin
>
Wow! The Idiot finds and uses a four-syllable word! (Forehead
slapping, gnashing of teeth, sobbing, a smattering of applause, etc.)
I guess that monkey/typewriter thing really IS true!
Robin Henderson
I simply refuse to let them use their psy-ops on me. It seems pretty
obvious to me that a large portion of our population is convinced that
anything our government does has to be right. I don't buy it.
Robin
Robin Henderson
>
> "Hawksfanatic" <cv.f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:kfofa.86336$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > Just because you have not seen photos, or those photos have not been
> > released to the press, means they do not exist? The information that
> Powell
> > gave to the UN was pretty damned compelling from an intel point of view.
> As
> > I stated before, I was amazed at what he did say.
> >
> > BTW, we have many other platforms that are much more reliable and
produce
> > better intel than the venerable SR-71.
>
> I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting we have photos
> that prove beyond any doubt the existence of weapons of mass destruction
in
> Iraq? Do you think we deliberately chose to undermine the authority of
the
> UN by withholding the very evidence that could have united the security
> council and gained us UN authorization of the use of force against Iraq?
> What posible reason could we have to withhold proof?
Not to mention that if we had proof and did not present it to the UN
security council then we would have been in violation of UN resolution 1441.
Robin
snip
>
Robin Henderson
Hey! I like curry. That must be it! My mind has been controlled by
genetically altered curry that causes me to be sympathetic to the plight of
Arab nations! Proof of chemical weapons! Mind altering curry powder! Oh
the humanity!
Robin
Robin Henderson
I agree, if we had positive proof there was no way that the security council
could have failed to approve military action.
The problem is that the UN wanted to disarm Iraq and Bush was set on a
regime change. Bush would not have been happy if Saddam destroyed every
sharp pointy stick in Iraq. The agenda has always been regime change...
And I think our creditability is already destroyed...
Robin
Rick
Michael,
We got the green light in the previous action because it was impossible for
the rest of the world to waffle in the face of the Kuwait invasion. It was
blatant, in-your-face military aggression. IMHO, Saddam's actions over the
past twelve years are just as in-your-face. However, the absence of an
obvious actual attack by Iraqi forces has allowed those U.N. Security
Council members with hidden (financial and anti-U.S.) agendas to delay any
action by the U.S. *IF* we had stayed within the U.N. framework, U.S.
action would ultimately have been blocked indefinitely. Iraq was able to
hide for twelve years. There's no compelling reason to believe that was
going to change.
And yes, I realize I have no proof of that eventuality. It's simply my take
on the situation after watching it for so long. I would think that some of
today's discoveries would lend credence to my view, but I understand there
are some in the world who feel military action is never warranted. I wish
that were true, but sadly, it is naivete.
Rick
DrGruesome
>
> We got the green light in the previous action because it was impossible
for
> the rest of the world to waffle in the face of the Kuwait invasion. It was
> blatant, in-your-face military aggression. IMHO, Saddam's actions over the
> past twelve years are just as in-your-face. However, the absence of an
> obvious actual attack by Iraqi forces has allowed those U.N. Security
> Council members with hidden (financial and anti-U.S.) agendas to delay any
> action by the U.S. *IF* we had stayed within the U.N. framework, U.S.
> action would ultimately have been blocked indefinitely. Iraq was able to
> hide for twelve years. There's no compelling reason to believe that was
> going to change.
>
> And yes, I realize I have no proof of that eventuality. It's simply my
take
> on the situation after watching it for so long. I would think that some of
> today's discoveries would lend credence to my view, but I understand there
> are some in the world who feel military action is never warranted. I wish
> that were true, but sadly, it is naivete.
>
> Rick
>
>
Ok, let's look at agendas for a sec.
It is true some countries have made agreements with Iraq for oil
exploration. However, they would never be able to act on those agrements
until such time as Iraq satisfies the US (due to veto power) that they have
fulfulled all aspects of resolution 1441 - i.e. disarmament. So, France's
agenda is for Iraq to disarm so that they can make money off of Iraqi oil.
They definitely have cause to stall until Iraq disarms, so they can do
business.
The US on the other hand, cannot make any deals with Iraq unless the
government is changed. Simply getting rid of Saddam is not good enough
because the agreements would still exist with France as long as Saddam's
dominant political party remains in power, and keep the US out of the deal.
Thus the only chance for the US to make good on Iraqi oil is to install a
new government in Iraq - one that does not have to honor the deals with
France.
The way this has played out is that the US went into the United Nations with
a logical imposibiliy - that Iraq had to prove they didn't have something we
said they are hiding. We did not seek to try Saddam & Sons on war criminal
charges (that we had overwhelming evidence of) but instead went off on this
red herring "weapons of mass distruction" and "possible ties to terrorism"
that we lacked the evidence to confirm. I don't pretend to know why we went
down this road - could be inept diplomacy or could be wilfull militarism or
could be a third thing. I do know that we took the only course that leads
to US profits.
So forgive me if I remain skeptical when someone comes along claiming that
the other countries on the security council have hidden agendas, when they
are certainly not alone in that regard.
I do not wish to believe that the US would undermine the UN and risk its own
people simply for economic gain, but I have to admit my belief in our
innocence in that regard has been severely shaken.
In short, spare me the claims that only other nations act out of their own
greed and the US is acting solely out of humanitarianism. I wish that were
true, but I am not that naive.
Michael Johnson
Warren Louthan
something like Pearl Harbor would be a justification for military
retaliation then? I'm having a hard time following.
Bill Bessette
news:H8zfa.2247$rw....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
> It is true some countries have made agreements with Iraq for oil
> exploration.
France and Russia have contracts with Iraq worth more than
20 Billion Dollars.
More alarming are the reports that France, Russia, and
China have been selling Iraq Chemicals for rocket fuel,
electronic jamming devices and spare parts for
military jets and helicopters.
I suspect these sales are the tip of the iceberg, and
that a good part of these countries dogged opposition to
the conflict is financial.
Bill
Robin Henderson
for our country going to war. We should not be an aggressor nation.
Robin
Robin Henderson
Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton who now holds the contracts to rebuild
Iraqi oil field also does millions of dollars worth of business with Iraq
and Iran.
The US points its finger with dirty hands.... I was once told that when you
point your index finger at someone you have three fingers pointing back at
you...
Robin
William Bessette
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9348483CEF0F6d...@216.168.3.30...
>> I suspect these sales are the tip of the iceberg, and
>> that a good part of these countries dogged opposition to
>> the conflict is financial.
>
> Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton who now holds the contracts to
> rebuild Iraqi oil field also does millions of dollars worth of
> business with Iraq and Iran.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7oc0
>
> The US points its finger with dirty hands.... I was once told that
> when you point your index finger at someone you have three fingers
> pointing back at you...
The fact that Cheney's *former* company may be involved with
rebuilding a post-war Iraq does not change the fact that
the Russians, Chinese, and French had contracts with the
*current* regime, many of them *violating* the sanctions
of the vaunted UN which you hold so near and dear.
I would also like to know:
1) Is Haliburton especially qualified to rebuild Iraqs Oil fields?
2) Was their bid competitive or even lower than those who were
competing for the contracts?
3) Does Haliburton's prior experience in Iraq give them a logical
technical advantage over other companies who have less or no
experience in that area (in other words, will Haliburton be
tasked to repair equipment that they installed years ago?)
Bill
Robin Henderson
"William Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93486FCA4A8B9d...@216.168.3.30...
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:b5n8lr$f0j$2...@216.39.144.87:
>
> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9348483CEF0F6d...@216.168.3.30...
>
> >> I suspect these sales are the tip of the iceberg, and
> >> that a good part of these countries dogged opposition to
> >> the conflict is financial.
> >
> > Dick Cheney's old company Haliburton who now holds the contracts to
> > rebuild Iraqi oil field also does millions of dollars worth of
> > business with Iraq and Iran.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/7oc0
> >
> > The US points its finger with dirty hands.... I was once told that
> > when you point your index finger at someone you have three fingers
> > pointing back at you...
>
> The fact that Cheney's *former* company may be involved with
> rebuilding a post-war Iraq does not change the fact that
> the Russians, Chinese, and French had contracts with the
> *current* regime, many of them *violating* the sanctions
> of the vaunted UN which you hold so near and dear.
Bill, did you bother to read the link? Haliburton had contracts with Iraq
and Iran prior to his becoming VP. He snuck around sanctions by working
through the dreaded French...
http://tinyurl.com/7yj7
http://tinyurl.com/7oc0
http://tinyurl.com/7yjk
http://tinyurl.com/7yk3
>
> I would also like to know:
>
> 1) Is Haliburton especially qualified to rebuild Iraqs Oil fields?
They will hire subcontractors to do the actual work.
> 2) Was their bid competitive or even lower than those who were
> competing for the contracts?
Only five US companies were allowed to bid by the Bush administration.
> 3) Does Haliburton's prior experience in Iraq give them a logical
> technical advantage over other companies who have less or no
> experience in that area (in other words, will Haliburton be
> tasked to repair equipment that they installed years ago?)
You mean a couple of years ago? They might...
I have posted numerous links to this information in previous threads. All I
see from you are ambiguous accusations about what the French or Russians are
doing. Usually you don't have the balls to respond after I post the
facts...
Robin
DrGruesome
> France and Russia have contracts with Iraq worth more than
> 20 Billion Dollars.
That they cannot cash in on unless Iraq disarms, and that we cannot cash in
on unless we change the Iraqi government (as opposed to merely ousting
Saddam Hussein) which cannot be done via diplomacy.
20 billion dollars is peanuts. That wouldn't even make much of a dent in
the cost of this war. It represents only 1/36 of Bush's proposed tax cut.
> More alarming are the reports that France, Russia, and
> China have been selling Iraq Chemicals for rocket fuel,
> electronic jamming devices and spare parts for
> military jets and helicopters.
I agree - this behavior of some of the security council nations (provided it
is being reported correctly) is reprehensible and steps should have been
taken to stop such activity. This does not, however, give the US a green
light to be reprehensible as well.
> I suspect these sales are the tip of the iceberg, and
> that a good part of these countries dogged opposition to
> the conflict is financial.
>
> Bill
And I suspect our taking a diplomatic path that could only lead to war was
in no small part financially motivated as well.
Michael Johnson
Bill Bessette
> "William Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93486FCA4A8B9d...@216.168.3.30...
>> The fact that Cheney's *former* company may be involved with
>> rebuilding a post-war Iraq does not change the fact that
>> the Russians, Chinese, and French had contracts with the
>> *current* regime, many of them *violating* the sanctions
>> of the vaunted UN which you hold so near and dear.
>
> Bill, did you bother to read the link? Haliburton had contracts with
> Iraq and Iran prior to his becoming VP. He snuck around sanctions by
> working through the dreaded French...
Did YOU read the link you posted?
A quote from your own story:
"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."
Note that France's, China's, and Russia's sales of
ballistic rocket fuel, Helicopter and military jet parts,
and GPS Jamming systems are not part of the UN oil-for-food
program.
>> I would also like to know:
>>
>> 1) Is Haliburton especially qualified to rebuild Iraqs Oil fields?
>
> They will hire subcontractors to do the actual work.
Is this standard practice? I know they have done work in
Iraq before (see above.)
>> 2) Was their bid competitive or even lower than those who were
>> competing for the contracts?
>
> Only five US companies were allowed to bid by the Bush
> administration.
How many would be enough? 15? 20? How many companies are
even qualified to do the work?
Just a personal comment, the company that I work for
generally three (3) bids on projects.
>> 3) Does Haliburton's prior experience in Iraq give them a logical
>> technical advantage over other companies who have less or no
>> experience in that area (in other words, will Haliburton be
>> tasked to repair equipment that they installed years ago?)
>
> You mean a couple of years ago? They might...
>
> I have posted numerous links to this information in previous threads.
> All I see from you are ambiguous accusations about what the French or
> Russians are doing. Usually you don't have the balls to respond after
> I post the facts...
I thought we were having a conversation here... what's
with the insults?
The links regarding the French, Chinese and Russian
dealings have been posted here in the past and frankly I
assumed them to be common knowledge to anyone who has
been even casually following the story over the last
few months and days.
But perhaps you missed them. Here they are again.
French, Chinese, Syria - Ballistic rocket fuel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
Russians sell jamming, night vision equipment to Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/8267
http://tinyurl.com/81z8
France sells jet, helicopter parts to Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/826w
Bill
Bill Bessette
news:1JGfa.17148$tO3....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net:
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9348483CEF0F6d...@216.168.3.30...
>
>> France and Russia have contracts with Iraq worth more than
>> 20 Billion Dollars.
>
> That they cannot cash in on unless Iraq disarms
Or the inspections run their course, nothing is found,
and sanctions are lifted.
> 20 billion dollars is peanuts. That wouldn't even make much of a dent
> in the cost of this war. It represents only 1/36 of Bush's proposed
> tax cut.
20 Billion dollars is not peanuts to France and
Russia, and I suspect it is only the tip of the iceberg.
>> More alarming are the reports that France, Russia, and
>> China have been selling Iraq Chemicals for rocket fuel,
>> electronic jamming devices and spare parts for
>> military jets and helicopters.
>
> I agree - this behavior of some of the security council nations
> (provided it is being reported correctly) is reprehensible and steps
> should have been taken to stop such activity. This does not, however,
> give the US a green light to be reprehensible as well.
The ties of several security council nations are such that
no agreement leading to conclusive, lasting disarmament would
ever be achieved. They have too much to lose with Saddam
out of power.
>> I suspect these sales are the tip of the iceberg, and
>> that a good part of these countries dogged opposition to
>> the conflict is financial.
>
> And I suspect our taking a diplomatic path that could only lead to war
> was in no small part financially motivated as well.
I am sufficiently convinced that the Iraq presents
a danger to the US. I do not believe long running sanctions
are a good thing for the Iraqi people, nor do I think that
the Iraqi leadership can be convinced to A) Disarm fully,
B)Stop attempting to aquire WMDS, and C) Stop supporting
terrorist groups (Hamas and the like.)
I do not deny that some companies will benefit financially
from a change in the Iraqi leadership, but I do not
believe that our motivation is primarily fiscal.
Many of these same gains could easily be achieved by
simply supporting the lifting of sanctions and
working out contracts of our own with Iraq.
I support your right to be skeptical. I simply
disagree.
Bill
Robin Henderson
"Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93487C629BDD9d...@216.168.3.30...
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:b5nb3o$jkr$1...@216.39.144.87:
>
> > "William Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93486FCA4A8B9d...@216.168.3.30...
>
> >> The fact that Cheney's *former* company may be involved with
> >> rebuilding a post-war Iraq does not change the fact that
> >> the Russians, Chinese, and French had contracts with the
> >> *current* regime, many of them *violating* the sanctions
> >> of the vaunted UN which you hold so near and dear.
> >
> > Bill, did you bother to read the link? Haliburton had contracts with
> > Iraq and Iran prior to his becoming VP. He snuck around sanctions by
> > working through the dreaded French...
>
> Did YOU read the link you posted?
>
> A quote from your own story:
>
> "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."
Legal? Maybe, but is it ethical? Here is another quote from the article...
"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."
>
> Note that France's, China's, and Russia's sales of
> ballistic rocket fuel, Helicopter and military jet parts,
> and GPS Jamming systems are not part of the UN oil-for-food
> program.
>
> >> I would also like to know:
> >>
> >> 1) Is Haliburton especially qualified to rebuild Iraqs Oil fields?
> >
> > They will hire subcontractors to do the actual work.
>
> Is this standard practice? I know they have done work in
> Iraq before (see above.)
You asked if they were specifically qualified. Any company could contract
with other companies to get the job done.
>
> >> 2) Was their bid competitive or even lower than those who were
> >> competing for the contracts?
> >
> > Only five US companies were allowed to bid by the Bush
> > administration.
>
> How many would be enough? 15? 20? How many companies are
> even qualified to do the work?
In a normal bid for government contacts any company that is willing could
place a bid. Have yoiu ever worked on a bid for governement contacts. I
have.
>
> Just a personal comment, the company that I work for
> generally three (3) bids on projects.
The government normally has to abide by regulations that a private business
does not.
> >> 3) Does Haliburton's prior experience in Iraq give them a logical
> >> technical advantage over other companies who have less or no
> >> experience in that area (in other words, will Haliburton be
> >> tasked to repair equipment that they installed years ago?)
> >
> > You mean a couple of years ago? They might...
> >
> > I have posted numerous links to this information in previous threads.
> > All I see from you are ambiguous accusations about what the French or
> > Russians are doing. Usually you don't have the balls to respond after
> > I post the facts...
>
> I thought we were having a conversation here... what's
> with the insults?
Come on Bill, you are not going to whine over my assertion that you lack
balls are you?
>
> The links regarding the French, Chinese and Russian
> dealings have been posted here in the past and frankly I
> assumed them to be common knowledge to anyone who has
> been even casually following the story over the last
> few months and days.
>
> But perhaps you missed them. Here they are again.
>
> French, Chinese, Syria - Ballistic rocket fuel.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
This is an editorial piece from William Safire who was a Nixon speech
writer... Come on! You can do better than that...
>
>
> Russians sell jamming, night vision equipment to Iraq
> http://tinyurl.com/8267
> http://tinyurl.com/81z8
The US claims that Russia has provided these systems to Iraq, but Russia
denies it...
>
> France sells jet, helicopter parts to Iraq
> http://tinyurl.com/826w
This article says, "The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading
company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a
third country into Iraq by truck." This is very different from France
selling weapons to Iraq....
Robin
Mike Kohary
<Sc...@Husted.cc> wrote:
>But that wasn't real footage, it was the Bush administration filming with
>Kuwaiti actors. It was filmed at the same secret studio where the
>'supposed' moon landing was filmed and where Republicans are still holding
>Elvis prisoner.
I mean, just look at the shadows. The shadows are falling in all the
wrong directions! And the flag shouldn't be waving - THERE'S NO WIND
IN KUWAIT. Or the Moon. Well anyway, you know what I mean. It's a
setup! It's a setup!
:)
Mike
--
| Mike Kohary
"Make the pie higher!" | mko...@earthlink.net
| http://www.kohary.com
Seattle Seahawks http://www.kohary.com/seahawks GO HAWKS!
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the Iraqi
>troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
>weapons?
Even if we find no WMDs, so what? It doesn't make Saddam Hussein any
less of a tyrant. WMDs were never my personal reason for wanting to
invade Iraq anyway, so to a fellow like me, it doesn't even matter.
If we find some, icing on the cake. If we don't, ousting Hussein was
still justified.
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>In my mind the only thing that would justify war would be defending oneself
>from aggression.
Would you agree that aggression need not necessarily involve an actual
attack?
Robin Henderson
"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:j4nu7vs5u9k91q487...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Mar 2003 20:21:20 GMT, "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In my mind the only thing that would justify war would be defending
oneself
> >from aggression.
>
> Would you agree that aggression need not necessarily involve an actual
> attack?
>
> Mike
> --
Yes. But it would be hard to prove...
Robin
Robin Henderson
> On 23 Mar 2003 02:06:25 GMT, "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the
Iraqi
> >troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
> >weapons?
>
> Even if we find no WMDs, so what? It doesn't make Saddam Hussein any
> less of a tyrant. WMDs were never my personal reason for wanting to
> invade Iraq anyway, so to a fellow like me, it doesn't even matter.
> If we find some, icing on the cake. If we don't, ousting Hussein was
> still justified.
>
> Mike
That is where your ethics seem flawed to me Mike. You can't just go off
killing people because you don't like the way they do business.
Robin
DrGruesome
> Or the inspections run their course, nothing is found,
> and sanctions are lifted.
The United States would have to be satisfied of disarmament in order for
sanctions to be lifted, because we have veto power on the Security Council.
If Iraq has disarmed to our satisfaction, what is the problem? What would be
so awful about a peaceful resolution of the conflict?
> The ties of several security council nations are such that
> no agreement leading to conclusive, lasting disarmament would
> ever be achieved. They have too much to lose with Saddam
> out of power.
This is a misconception. They do not need Saddam Hussein. They made
agreements with the government of Iraq, not indivual people. The agreements
stand even if a different political party is in control. When they cease to
apply is when the US destroys and rebuilds the Iraqi government, which is
precicely the path we chose to pursue.
> I am sufficiently convinced that the Iraq presents
> a danger to the US. I do not believe long running sanctions
> are a good thing for the Iraqi people, nor do I think that
> the Iraqi leadership can be convinced to A) Disarm fully,
> B)Stop attempting to aquire WMDS, and C) Stop supporting
> terrorist groups (Hamas and the like.)
Iraq neds to disarm and to be a peaceful member of the world community.
Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power. Destroying their government,
however, is not the only method by which this goal can be achieved.
> Many of these same gains could easily be achieved by
> simply supporting the lifting of sanctions and
> working out contracts of our own with Iraq.
I don't believe the US could ever work deals with Iraq while Saddam is in
power, so I think this statement of yours is false. Additionally, the only
condition under which we would allow lifting of sanctions is when Iraq has
disarmed to our satisfaction, and again I fail to see the problem if they do
that peacefully.
Michael Johnson
Bill Bessette
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93487C629BDD9d...@216.168.3.30...
>> "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."
>
> Legal? Maybe, but is it ethical?
Certainly, under the oil for food program. In order
to trade oil-for-food, your oil equipment needs to work.
>> Note that France's, China's, and Russia's sales of
>> ballistic rocket fuel, Helicopter and military jet parts,
>> and GPS Jamming systems are not part of the UN oil-for-food
>> program.
No comment regarding this?
>> >> I would also like to know:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Is Haliburton especially qualified to rebuild Iraqs Oil fields?
>> >
>> > They will hire subcontractors to do the actual work.
>>
>> Is this standard practice? I know they have done work in
>> Iraq before (see above.)
>
> You asked if they were specifically qualified. Any company could
> contract with other companies to get the job done.
Is subcontracting what Haliburton does? Are they good
at putting these projects together, and doing it more
efficiently and inexpensively than others?
If you can provide evidence where they are being paid
more and/or do work inferior to other bidders, then
I might come closer to being convinced with regards
to inappropriate awarding of bids.
>> >> 2) Was their bid competitive or even lower than those who were
>> >> competing for the contracts?
>> >
>> > Only five US companies were allowed to bid by the Bush
>> > administration.
>>
>> How many would be enough? 15? 20? How many companies are
>> even qualified to do the work?
>
> In a normal bid for government contacts any company that is willing
> could place a bid. Have yoiu ever worked on a bid for governement
> contacts. I have.
Working on a bid is not the same thing as fielding bids.
When companies (and governments) call for bids, they do not
take bids from "as many that are willing to bid".
>> Just a personal comment, the company that I work for
>> generally three (3) bids on projects.
>
> The government normally has to abide by regulations that a private
> business does not.
What are the regulations? Is some regulation with
regard to the minimum number of bidders being abused?
>> > I have posted numerous links to this information in previous
>> > threads. All I see from you are ambiguous accusations about what
>> > the French or Russians are doing. Usually you don't have the balls
>> > to respond after I post the facts...
>>
>> I thought we were having a conversation here... what's
>> with the insults?
>
> Come on Bill, you are not going to whine over my assertion that you
> lack balls are you?
If you'd like to discuss these things like an adult, then
I'm right here. Treat me as you would like to be treated.
>> The links regarding the French, Chinese and Russian
>> dealings have been posted here in the past and frankly I
>> assumed them to be common knowledge to anyone who has
>> been even casually following the story over the last
>> few months and days.
>>
>> But perhaps you missed them. Here they are again.
>>
>> French, Chinese, Syria - Ballistic rocket fuel.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
>
> This is an editorial piece from William Safire who was
> a Nixon speech writer... Come on! You can do better
> than that...
The evidence presented are facts.
>> Russians sell jamming, night vision equipment to Iraq
>> http://tinyurl.com/8267
>> http://tinyurl.com/81z8
>
> The US claims that Russia has provided these systems to Iraq, but
> Russia denies it...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/82d6
>>
>> France sells jet, helicopter parts to Iraq
>> http://tinyurl.com/826w
>
> This article says, "The unidentified company sold the parts to a
> trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the
> parts through a third country into Iraq by truck." This is very
> different from France selling weapons to Iraq....
No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I know
because I work for a company that ships chemicals throughout the
world.
This sort of thing does not go on without tacit knowledge and
approval of the governments involved.
Hasn't it occured to you that you have to go to extraordinary
lengths to explain away the evidence against the actions
of these countries?
Bill
Bart Borcherding
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5noh5$f74$1...@216.39.144.87...
Why I don't see a flaw at all in Mikes ethics here.
> Robin
>
>
Bill Bessette
news:qfLfa.22652$IM3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93487E7E82016d...@216.168.3.30...
>
>> Or the inspections run their course, nothing is found,
>> and sanctions are lifted.
>
> The United States would have to be satisfied of disarmament in order
> for sanctions to be lifted, because we have veto power on the Security
> Council. If Iraq has disarmed to our satisfaction, what is the
> problem? What would be so awful about a peaceful resolution of the
> conflict?
There has been evidence that Iraq has continued to
re-arm despite sanctions.
There has also been evidence of Iraq funding terrorism, and
facilitating the training of terrorists.
There is the huminarian aspect of continuing
sanctions forever.
Finally, Iraq only allowed inspectors back into its country
under the threat of military action by a huge buildup on
our part. Keeping a large military force in that region
of the world is neither cheap nor desireable.
>> The ties of several security council nations are such that
>> no agreement leading to conclusive, lasting disarmament would
>> ever be achieved. They have too much to lose with Saddam
>> out of power.
>
> This is a misconception. They do not need Saddam
> Hussein. They made agreements with the government of
> Iraq, not indivual people.
The government of Iraq is Saddam Hussein (and his Baath
party cadre of thugs.)
> The agreements stand even if a different political
> party is in control. When they cease to apply is when
> the US destroys and rebuilds the Iraqi government, which
> is precicely the path we chose to pursue.
The current government of Iraq is the problem... Setting
aside the abuses that they frequent on their own people,
this is a group that seeks to aquire weapons of mass
distruction as a matter of policy, and actively funds
and trains terrorists.
>> I am sufficiently convinced that the Iraq presents
>> a danger to the US. I do not believe long running sanctions
>> are a good thing for the Iraqi people, nor do I think that
>> the Iraqi leadership can be convinced to A) Disarm fully,
>> B)Stop attempting to aquire WMDS, and C) Stop supporting
>> terrorist groups (Hamas and the like.)
>
> Iraq neds to disarm and to be a peaceful member of the world
> community. Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power. Destroying
> their government, however, is not the only method by which this goal
> can be achieved.
I disagree. The Iraqi government headed by Qusay, Uday, or
any other Baath thug is the same thing as an Iraqi government
headed by Hussein himself.
>> Many of these same gains could easily be achieved by
>> simply supporting the lifting of sanctions and
>> working out contracts of our own with Iraq.
>
> I don't believe the US could ever work deals with Iraq
> while Saddam is in power, so I think this statement of
> yours is false.
Sure they would, if pure, abject greed was the real aim.
> Additionally, the only condition under which we
> would allow lifting of sanctions is when Iraq has
> disarmed to our satisfaction, and again I fail to see
> the problem if they do that peacefully.
They've spent the last 12 years refusing to do that
peacefully.
Bill
Robin Henderson
"Bart Borcherding" <wuts...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:4ZLfa.224659$qi4.111341@rwcrnsc54...
Because you suffer from the same ethical flaw that Mike has???
Robin
Robin Henderson
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:b5nloc$a2f$0...@216.39.144.87:
>
> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93487C629BDD9d...@216.168.3.30...
>
> >> "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."
> >
> > Legal? Maybe, but is it ethical?
>
> Certainly, under the oil for food program. In order
> to trade oil-for-food, your oil equipment needs to work.
Then why did he deny it and why did Haliburton work so hard to hide it?
>
> >> Note that France's, China's, and Russia's sales of
> >> ballistic rocket fuel, Helicopter and military jet parts,
> >> and GPS Jamming systems are not part of the UN oil-for-food
> >> program.
>
> No comment regarding this?
I address this later in the message by saying that the fact that Iraq gets
this stuff and it came from France or Russia doesn't necessarily mean that
France or Russias governments had anything to do with it. And as far as
China goes... Who could say what they were going to do.
>
> >> >> I would also like to know:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Is Haliburton especially qualified to rebuild Iraqs Oil fields?
> >> >
> >> > They will hire subcontractors to do the actual work.
> >>
> >> Is this standard practice? I know they have done work in
> >> Iraq before (see above.)
> >
> > You asked if they were specifically qualified. Any company could
> > contract with other companies to get the job done.
>
> Is subcontracting what Haliburton does? Are they good
> at putting these projects together, and doing it more
> efficiently and inexpensively than others?
How the heck should I know? If they were the lease expensive why would Bush
need to limit the bid to only five companies?
Let me ask you a question, isn't it even the slightest bit suspicious that
Dick Cheney's comapany would get the bid?
>
> If you can provide evidence where they are being paid
> more and/or do work inferior to other bidders, then
> I might come closer to being convinced with regards
> to inappropriate awarding of bids.
I won't have to, it is already being reviewed in congress...
>
> >> >> 2) Was their bid competitive or even lower than those who were
> >> >> competing for the contracts?
> >> >
> >> > Only five US companies were allowed to bid by the Bush
> >> > administration.
> >>
> >> How many would be enough? 15? 20? How many companies are
> >> even qualified to do the work?
> >
> > In a normal bid for government contacts any company that is willing
> > could place a bid. Have yoiu ever worked on a bid for governement
> > contacts. I have.
>
> Working on a bid is not the same thing as fielding bids.
> When companies (and governments) call for bids, they do not
> take bids from "as many that are willing to bid".
If you want to bid on a government contract and you meet the conditions set
out in the bid you can bid on it. It is not normal that the bid would be
limited to just a few companies and many are complaining about the Bush
administrations actions...
>
> >> Just a personal comment, the company that I work for
> >> generally three (3) bids on projects.
> >
> > The government normally has to abide by regulations that a private
> > business does not.
>
> What are the regulations? Is some regulation with
> regard to the minimum number of bidders being abused?
Bush avoided the normal bid process by lumping the cost in with the Defense
Procurement Bill.
>
> >> > I have posted numerous links to this information in previous
> >> > threads. All I see from you are ambiguous accusations about what
> >> > the French or Russians are doing. Usually you don't have the balls
> >> > to respond after I post the facts...
> >>
> >> I thought we were having a conversation here... what's
> >> with the insults?
> >
> > Come on Bill, you are not going to whine over my assertion that you
> > lack balls are you?
>
> If you'd like to discuss these things like an adult, then
> I'm right here. Treat me as you would like to be treated.
I treat people the way they usually treat me...
>
> >> The links regarding the French, Chinese and Russian
> >> dealings have been posted here in the past and frankly I
> >> assumed them to be common knowledge to anyone who has
> >> been even casually following the story over the last
> >> few months and days.
> >>
> >> But perhaps you missed them. Here they are again.
> >>
> >> French, Chinese, Syria - Ballistic rocket fuel.
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
> >
> > This is an editorial piece from William Safire who was
> > a Nixon speech writer... Come on! You can do better
> > than that...
>
> The evidence presented are facts.
Just like Michael Moore? I don't beleive that they are facts. They
assumptions and half truths.
>
> >> Russians sell jamming, night vision equipment to Iraq
> >> http://tinyurl.com/8267
> >> http://tinyurl.com/81z8
> >
> > The US claims that Russia has provided these systems to Iraq, but
> > Russia denies it...
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/82d6
> >>
> >> France sells jet, helicopter parts to Iraq
> >> http://tinyurl.com/826w
> >
> > This article says, "The unidentified company sold the parts to a
> > trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the
> > parts through a third country into Iraq by truck." This is very
> > different from France selling weapons to Iraq....
>
> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I know
> because I work for a company that ships chemicals throughout the
> world.
>
Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which is not
under sanctions...
> This sort of thing does not go on without tacit knowledge and
> approval of the governments involved.
Just like Haliburton snuck their contracts with Iraq through Libya and
France?
>
> Hasn't it occured to you that you have to go to extraordinary
> lengths to explain away the evidence against the actions
> of these countries?
>
They are not extreme measures. I can usually find the answers I need with a
simple Google search. Your problem is that you to readily accept the
propaganda that your own government feeds you.
A prime example is how our government is crying foul saying that Iraq is
breaking Geneva conventions by showing POW's on tv. I saw many Iraqi POW's
being captured by US troops on tv before that happened and now all of a
sudden the networks say they will no longer show Iraqi POW's on tv. We saw
Afghani POW's hog tied and hooded. We should be shown that video. The only
reason our government doesn't want us to see it is because it would be
demoralizing...
Robin
Hawksfanatic
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5m0up$dsp$1...@216.39.144.87...> news:dLpfa.86848$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...> > news:kfofa.86336$iq1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > >
> > > Just because you have not seen photos, or those photos have not been
> > > released to the press, means they do not exist? The information that
> > Powell
> > > gave to the UN was pretty damned compelling from an intel point of
view.
> > As
> > > I stated before, I was amazed at what he did say.
> > >
> > > BTW, we have many other platforms that are much more reliable and
> produce
> > > better intel than the venerable SR-71.
> >
> > I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting we have
photos
> > that prove beyond any doubt the existence of weapons of mass destruction
> in
> > Iraq? Do you think we deliberately chose to undermine the authority of
> the
> > UN by withholding the very evidence that could have united the security
> > council and gained us UN authorization of the use of force against Iraq?
> > What posible reason could we have to withhold proof?
>
> Not to mention that if we had proof and did not present it to the UN
> security council then we would have been in violation of UN resolution
1441.
Huh? We have absolutely no responsibility to give anyone intelligence
information. Not even GB, AUS, NZ, and CAN if we choose not to.
>
> Robin
>
> snip
> >
>
>
Hawksfanatic
> > <<snip>>
> >
> > >
> > > It is also called plausible deniability. Many of the questions that
he
> > was
> > > asked have little or no strategic value. It is highly publicized that
> the
> > > US is employing psy-ops in this war. Anyone who thinks that our
> > government
> > > is not also employing those same tactics against their own citizens
are
> > > naive and weak minded.
> > >
> > > Robin
> > >
> >
> > Do youself a favor and read what OPSEC actually is. Go on...do a Google
> > search and read away. Hell, you might even be able to find the Army FM
and
> > AR that covers OPSEC.
> >
> > I take it you didn't see that briefing. He was not asked questions. He
> > simply put out information.
> >
> > BTW, it's called Information Warfare. Psy-Ops is something completely
> > different. Dropping the MOAB and making sure the world saw it, was IO.
> > Watching Somalis drag an American Blackhawk crew member around the
> streets,
> > is IO. Dropping leaflets and blasting messages out of loudspeakers, is
> > Psy-Ops.
> >
> > And yes, it would be foolish NOT to employ IO in a conflict of this
> > magnatude. I would expect the allies to do this very thing.
> >
> > Why must you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to everyone else
around
> > the world and think of Americans as the Devil?
>
> I simply refuse to let them use their psy-ops on me. It seems pretty
> obvious to me that a large portion of our population is convinced that
> anything our government does has to be right. I don't buy it.
>
> Robin
>
>
If you read the articles you link constantly on this board, you are a victim
of IO. If you watch television, you are a victim of IO. If you read Michael
Moore or watch 'Bowling for Columbine', you are a victim of IO. It's that
simple.
So, let me try to understand this...
YOU deem it not worthy and false = Poor information and invalid.
Just because YOU agree with certain information and it validates one of your
arguments = makes it gospel.
Robin Henderson
Our justification for attacking Iraq is that they failed to comply with UN
resolution 1441. If we expected them to comply I would assume that we were
supposed to comply with the terms of the resolution also. Here is paragraph
10 of the resolution.
"10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA
in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information
related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates,
including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by
recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of
such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be
reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;"
Robin
Hawksfanatic
I'm pretty sure we did give information to the UN about certain sites to be
inspected.
We will not, nor should not, give information to another country or
organization that 'burns' a source. That is simple bad intel ops.
Peter Reggio
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5o70t$dej$0...@216.39.144.87...
Warning: These are graphic pictures
http://www.al-jazeera.com/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-23.htm
If you look closely, the guy with the bullet-hole in his head in the
first picture is shown being interviewed by IraqTV in subsequent pictures.
To my knowledge, we do not do this to our POWs. Unless they have some way
to revive the dead, it is patently clear that they killed him after having
captured him...not during a battle.
Regis
Robin Henderson
"Peter Reggio" <ire...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:DDOfa.206322$F1.10633@sccrnsc04...
Thanks for the link, I think....
You are mistaken, the four live prisoners shown are four of the five still
live prisoners that Iraq has in custody. The first guy with the bullet
wound in the head is not the same guy shown live later. The US is not even
claiming that, you just have an overactive imagination...
Robin
Robin Henderson
>
> Warning: These are graphic pictures
> http://www.al-jazeera.com/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-23.htm
>
> If you look closely, the guy with the bullet-hole in his head in the
> first picture is shown being interviewed by IraqTV in subsequent pictures.
> To my knowledge, we do not do this to our POWs. Unless they have some way
> to revive the dead, it is patently clear that they killed him after having
> captured him...not during a battle.
>
> Regis
>
>
http://www.iht.com/articles/90895.html
Here are a some interesting qoutes from the article...
"Arab television networks broadcast footage on Sunday of Iraqi soldiers
interrogating five U.S. prisoners, as well as images of dead soldiers who
were identified as Americans"
The dead soldiers have been identified. The third Geneva protocol is the
one that the US claims Iraq is breaking...
"Among the four major Geneva Conventions protocols, the third relates to the
treatment of war prisoners. Among other things, it mandates that "prisoners
should not be exposed to public curiosity," nor be subjected to "humiliating
and degrading treatment." "
Donald Rumsfeld complained...
"The images of the U.S. prisoners, several of whom appeared frightened,
wounded and disoriented, sparked a sharp rebuke from the White House. U.S.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the broadcast showed that Saddam
Hussein's military was violating the Geneva Conventions."
But as usual the US is guilty of 'do as I say and not as I do'...
"But Western news organizations have disseminated scores of photographs and
other images of Iraqi prisoners being marched along highways in southern
Iraq or held at gunpoint by U.S. soldiers, images that observers say exposes
the White House to charges that it, too, is violating the conventions."
.
The Red Cross has warned both sides to abide by the third convention...
"We would remind both sides to take particular caution in respecting," the
third convention, said Amanda Williamson, a Red Cross spokeswoman in
Washington. She said it was uncertain exactly when the committee would gain
access to prisoners on both sides, but hopes it will be "days, rather than
weeks."
Robin.
santolina
The U.S. thought of a very clever way of subverting the Geneva Convention in
Afghanistan. Simply call the POWs something else ("unlawful combatants")
wisk them off to an American base, and deny them any legal rights
whatsoever, domestic or international.
Bill Bessette
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9348AE0391DC9d...@216.168.3.30...
>> Certainly, under the oil for food program. In order
>> to trade oil-for-food, your oil equipment needs to work.
>
> Then why did he deny it
I don't know... to be honest I haven't studied this
situation.
> and why did Haliburton work so hard to hide it?
Obviously they have an evil alterior motive....like
making money. :P
>> >> Note that France's, China's, and Russia's sales of
>> >> ballistic rocket fuel, Helicopter and military jet parts,
>> >> and GPS Jamming systems are not part of the UN oil-for-food
>> >> program.
>>
>> No comment regarding this?
>
> I address this later in the message by saying that the fact that Iraq
> gets this stuff and it came from France or Russia doesn't necessarily
> mean that France or Russias governments had anything to do with it.
> And as far as China goes... Who could say what they were going to do.
I think I see an interesting double standard at work
here. Russia and France can't keep track of their companies
dealings with imbargoed nations, but the US has the
incredibly intricate conspiracy web cooked up.
>> Is subcontracting what Haliburton does? Are they good
>> at putting these projects together, and doing it more
>> efficiently and inexpensively than others?
>
> How the heck should I know?
You're the one hinting that there's something
stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
more details on it. I thought these were pretty
fair questions.
> If they were the lease expensive why would Bush need
> to limit the bid to only five companies?
Did Bush limit the bids, or was that just the way it
worked out (only 5 qualified?) Is it SOP (standard
operating procedure to receive 4-5 bids, or is this
highly unusual - or worse - against regulations?)
These are honest questions..do you know the answer?
I thought you might have the details because you're
claiming possible wrong-doing. If it's just theorizing
on your part, that's fine, we can let it go.
> Let me ask you a question, isn't it even the slightest
> bit suspicious that Dick Cheney's comapany would get
> the bid?
It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
price.)
>> If you can provide evidence where they are being paid
>> more and/or do work inferior to other bidders, then
>> I might come closer to being convinced with regards
>> to inappropriate awarding of bids.
>
> I won't have to, it is already being reviewed in
> congress...
Until wrong-doing has been proven, I'm going to have
to wait before connecting the dots on this leg of the
conspiracy theory.
>> Working on a bid is not the same thing as fielding bids.
>> When companies (and governments) call for bids, they do not
>> take bids from "as many that are willing to bid".
>
> If you want to bid on a government contract and you meet the
> conditions set out in the bid you can bid on it.
Bingo.
> It is not normal that the bid would be limited to just
> a few companies and many are complaining about the Bush
> administrations actions...
It is normal if the limitations are based on conditions.
Who are these companies, and are they more
qualified/lower-priced than the ones allowed in?
>> >> Just a personal comment, the company that I work for
>> >> generally three (3) bids on projects.
>> >
>> > The government normally has to abide by regulations that a private
>> > business does not.
>>
>> What are the regulations? Is some regulation with
>> regard to the minimum number of bidders being abused?
>
> Bush avoided the normal bid process by lumping the cost
> in with the Defense Procurement Bill.
I don't understand how "lumping the cost" somehow
circumvents the bid process.
>> >> I thought we were having a conversation here... what's
>> >> with the insults?
>> >
>> > Come on Bill, you are not going to whine over my assertion that you
>> > lack balls are you?
>>
>> If you'd like to discuss these things like an adult, then
>> I'm right here. Treat me as you would like to be treated.
>
> I treat people the way they usually treat me...
I'm trying to debate this point seriously...lets try to stay on target.
>> >> French, Chinese, Syria - Ballistic rocket fuel.
>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
>> >
>> > This is an editorial piece from William Safire who was
>> > a Nixon speech writer... Come on! You can do better
>> > than that...
>>
>> The evidence presented are facts.
>
> Just like Michael Moore? I don't beleive that they are facts. They
> assumptions and half truths.
Michael Moore edited his movie in such a way as to distort history
to tell the story he wanted.
You might enjoy this:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Safire researched the links, and the details are rather compelling.
If you see half-truths and assumptions, please point them out.
>> > This article says, "The unidentified company sold the parts to a
>> > trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the
>> > parts through a third country into Iraq by truck." This is very
>> > different from France selling weapons to Iraq....
>>
>> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I know
>> because I work for a company that ships chemicals throughout the
>> world.
>
> Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which is
> not under sanctions...
That stuff is *easily* traceable, and military arms sales ARE traced.
This is the sort of thing that governmental intelligence agencies live
for.
That France didn't know about military spare parts sales going to Iraq
is laughable on it's face.
>> This sort of thing does not go on without tacit knowledge and
>> approval of the governments involved.
>
> Just like Haliburton snuck their contracts with Iraq through Libya and
> France?
Again, Haliburton's contract was legal under the UN
War-for-Oil thingy.
>> Hasn't it occured to you that you have to go to extraordinary
>> lengths to explain away the evidence against the actions
>> of these countries?
>
> They are not extreme measures. I can usually find the answers I need
> with a simple Google search. Your problem is that you to readily
> accept the propaganda that your own government feeds you.
Your problem is that you're pre-disposed to distrust
*everything* that the US government says. When
someone distrusts anything, it's plenty easy to find
support somewhere.
> A prime example is how our government is crying foul saying that Iraq
> is breaking Geneva conventions by showing POW's on tv. I saw many
> Iraqi POW's being captured by US troops on tv
Actually it's rather simple. Governments can't interview
POWs on TV for propaganda purposes. Free-ranging media
are free, however, to film POWs being brought in. It's
the whole willful humiliation of an enemy thing.
Try out a google search or two on the topic...it's really
quite interesting.
Bill
Bill Bessette
> But as usual the US is guilty of 'do as I say and not as I do'...
They haven't been interviewed on TV.
Bill
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:9tmu7v4qn9p1ardb8...@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Mar 2003 02:06:25 GMT, "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the
>Iraqi
>> >troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
>> >weapons?
>>
>> Even if we find no WMDs, so what? It doesn't make Saddam Hussein any
>> less of a tyrant. WMDs were never my personal reason for wanting to
>> invade Iraq anyway, so to a fellow like me, it doesn't even matter.
>> If we find some, icing on the cake. If we don't, ousting Hussein was
>> still justified.
>
>That is where your ethics seem flawed to me Mike. You can't just go off
>killing people because you don't like the way they do business.
It's not a matter of not liking the way he does business. To put it
that way trivializes the attrocities against humanity that he has
committed.
Warren Louthan
"Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b5noh5$f74$1...@216.39.144.87...
The way they do
business? Which business would that be? The raping wives/daughters in front
of husbands/fathers business? Maybe the lowering people into the plastic
shredder business? The acid bath business? The rewarding families of suicide
bomber business? The training terrorists to kill innocent civillians
business? Or the wiping out villages with chemicals business?
Lets not slap a generic label
like "The way they do business" on what atrocities have been commited. We
aren't the mafia.
Robin Henderson
Not a double standard, just that my personal integrity is not in any way
tied to Russia or France.
>
> >> Is subcontracting what Haliburton does? Are they good
> >> at putting these projects together, and doing it more
> >> efficiently and inexpensively than others?
> >
> > How the heck should I know?
>
> You're the one hinting that there's something
> stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
> more details on it. I thought these were pretty
> fair questions.
I am not hinting at anything. They are stinky deals. I was just trying to
show that it is in fact about oil and padding the pockets of those whose
money put you in power...
>
> > If they were the lease expensive why would Bush need
> > to limit the bid to only five companies?
>
> Did Bush limit the bids, or was that just the way it
> worked out (only 5 qualified?) Is it SOP (standard
> operating procedure to receive 4-5 bids, or is this
> highly unusual - or worse - against regulations?)
The Bush administration limited the bidding process to just five American
countries. He bypassed normal bid process by lumping it in with his Defense
Procurement bill.
> These are honest questions..do you know the answer?
> I thought you might have the details because you're
> claiming possible wrong-doing. If it's just theorizing
> on your part, that's fine, we can let it go.
I suppose all polititcians find ways to pay back the people who fund their
campaigns. It is just that going to war to do it seems a little extreme to
me...
>
> > Let me ask you a question, isn't it even the slightest
> > bit suspicious that Dick Cheney's comapany would get
> > the bid?
>
> It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
> bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
> this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
> price.)
They are one of the experts in the field. But we will never know if they
would have been low bidder since all qualified candidates were not allowed
to bid.
>
> >> If you can provide evidence where they are being paid
> >> more and/or do work inferior to other bidders, then
> >> I might come closer to being convinced with regards
> >> to inappropriate awarding of bids.
> >
> > I won't have to, it is already being reviewed in
> > congress...
>
> Until wrong-doing has been proven, I'm going to have
> to wait before connecting the dots on this leg of the
> conspiracy theory.
The investigation into the accounting practices of Chenney while at
Haliburton have been stalled by a federal judge. We most likely will not
know the truth until after Bush and Chenney are out of office. If ever.
>
> >> Working on a bid is not the same thing as fielding bids.
> >> When companies (and governments) call for bids, they do not
> >> take bids from "as many that are willing to bid".
> >
> > If you want to bid on a government contract and you meet the
> > conditions set out in the bid you can bid on it.
>
> Bingo.
If you are allowed to bid...
>
> > It is not normal that the bid would be limited to just
> > a few companies and many are complaining about the Bush
> > administrations actions...
>
> It is normal if the limitations are based on conditions.
> Who are these companies, and are they more
> qualified/lower-priced than the ones allowed in?
For one thing only American companies were allowed in, British companies are
calling foul as they are contributing to the coallition but not allowed in
for the spoils of war.
>
> >> >> Just a personal comment, the company that I work for
> >> >> generally three (3) bids on projects.
> >> >
> >> > The government normally has to abide by regulations that a private
> >> > business does not.
> >>
> >> What are the regulations? Is some regulation with
> >> regard to the minimum number of bidders being abused?
> >
> > Bush avoided the normal bid process by lumping the cost
> > in with the Defense Procurement Bill.
>
> I don't understand how "lumping the cost" somehow
> circumvents the bid process.
Here is a qoute about the Defense Procurement Act...
"The DPA, which became law during the Korean War and is reauthorized
periodically, gives the president authority to cut through procurement red
tape to assure swift delivery of equipment, supplies and services to troops.
Administration officials testifying at a hearing preceding the markup denied
that the law could be used to increase the size of contracts. Rather, they
said, the act provides authority to accelerate delivery of goods and
services on existing agreements."
Do you think that rebuilding Iraqs oil fields quailfies for cutting red tape
to support troops?
>
> >> >> I thought we were having a conversation here... what's
> >> >> with the insults?
> >> >
> >> > Come on Bill, you are not going to whine over my assertion that you
> >> > lack balls are you?
> >>
> >> If you'd like to discuss these things like an adult, then
> >> I'm right here. Treat me as you would like to be treated.
> >
> > I treat people the way they usually treat me...
>
> I'm trying to debate this point seriously...lets try to stay on target.
Lighten up, if I can't try and get your goat it wouldn't be any fun... ;-)
>
> >> >> French, Chinese, Syria - Ballistic rocket fuel.
> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html
> >> >
> >> > This is an editorial piece from William Safire who was
> >> > a Nixon speech writer... Come on! You can do better
> >> > than that...
> >>
> >> The evidence presented are facts.
> >
> > Just like Michael Moore? I don't beleive that they are facts. They
> > assumptions and half truths.
>
> Michael Moore edited his movie in such a way as to distort history
> to tell the story he wanted.
I couldn't tell you, I did not see the movie and had never heard of Michael
Moore before Jake started qouting him.
>
> You might enjoy this:
> http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
>
> Safire researched the links, and the details are rather compelling.
> If you see half-truths and assumptions, please point them out.
>
It was still an editorial (opinion) piece. And from a pretty right wing
kind of guy. A lot of his points were based on rumor and conjecture, and
now the link doesn't seem to work anymore so it is hard for me to comment on
specifics.
> >> > This article says, "The unidentified company sold the parts to a
> >> > trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the
> >> > parts through a third country into Iraq by truck." This is very
> >> > different from France selling weapons to Iraq....
> >>
> >> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I know
> >> because I work for a company that ships chemicals throughout the
> >> world.
> >
> > Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which is
> > not under sanctions...
>
> That stuff is *easily* traceable, and military arms sales ARE traced.
> This is the sort of thing that governmental intelligence agencies live
> for.
> That France didn't know about military spare parts sales going to Iraq
> is laughable on it's face.
You are saying that they trace every shipment of parts that are shipped by
every company that does business in their country? I doubt it.
>
> >> This sort of thing does not go on without tacit knowledge and
> >> approval of the governments involved.
> >
> > Just like Haliburton snuck their contracts with Iraq through Libya and
> > France?
>
> Again, Haliburton's contract was legal under the UN
> War-for-Oil thingy.
Just like the parts shipments to the UAE were legal. Or they would not have
gone.
>
> >> Hasn't it occured to you that you have to go to extraordinary
> >> lengths to explain away the evidence against the actions
> >> of these countries?
> >
> > They are not extreme measures. I can usually find the answers I need
> > with a simple Google search. Your problem is that you to readily
> > accept the propaganda that your own government feeds you.
>
> Your problem is that you're pre-disposed to distrust
> *everything* that the US government says. When
> someone distrusts anything, it's plenty easy to find
> support somewhere.
>
I am not predisposed to distrust everything. But I also don't take
everything they feed us as gospel either. Not to mention that I find myself
playing the devils advocate around here.
> > A prime example is how our government is crying foul saying that Iraq
> > is breaking Geneva conventions by showing POW's on tv. I saw many
> > Iraqi POW's being captured by US troops on tv
>
> Actually it's rather simple. Governments can't interview
> POWs on TV for propaganda purposes. Free-ranging media
> are free, however, to film POWs being brought in. It's
> the whole willful humiliation of an enemy thing.
Not true. The third convention states that POW's are not to be submitted to
"public curiosity" It does not say anything about interviews. If you read
my other post, and I am too tired to look up the link right now. The Red
Cross has warned both Iraq and the US that they are in violation of the
third convention for putting POW's on TV. And the Red Cross is particulary
unhappy with the treatment of Afghani prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
>
> Try out a google search or two on the topic...it's really
> quite interesting.
>
Ok, I already did, but here you go...
"It is forbidden to expose prisoners of war to public curiosity. and the
essential thing is to make clear to *all* parties that POWs should not be
exposed in any form," said Jakob Kellenberger, the Swiss president of the
ICRC."
"After the images were broadcast on Sunday, the ICRC issued a statement
calling for *all* sides to respect the Geneva Conventions."
"ICRC spokesmen Florian Westphal... rejected accusations of bias on the part
of the ICRC, countering that huge media interest had prompted Sunday's
response."
"After the images of the American PoWs were shown on al-Jazeera [an Arab
news network], we were flooded with phone calls from the media. whereas on
Saturday, when the images were shown of the Iraqi PoWs, we hardly received
any calls," he said."
"I think that may have led to the somewhat misleading impression that the
ICRC had a lot to say about one case and not so much about the other," he
added."
I posted some quotes from another article by a New York Times columnist in
another thread that pointed out how Iraqi POW's were all over the News
networks prior to the Al Jazeera airing of American POW's. I was watching
CNN and they said that they had been ask to no longer show Iraqi POW's. So
I ask where was president Bushs indignation when American networks trampled
on the Geneva conventions. I get real tired of all the hypocrisy.
Robin
Robin Henderson
"Warren Louthan" <warl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%ERfa.228642$sf5.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
inteviewed Iraqi dissidents. The one woman spoke perfect english. It was
all heresay evidence provided by Husseins enemies. After the interview the
News Anchor (I forget his name) said something to the effect that 70% of it
might even be true...
>
> Lets not slap a generic label
> like "The way they do business" on what atrocities have been commited. We
> aren't the mafia.
My comment was directed at Mikes ethics, not Saddam Husseins.
Personally, I think we should be a little more worried about our own ethics
before we go off trying to correct that of other countries...
Robin
>
>
>
Robin Henderson
> On 24 Mar 2003 20:07:01 GMT, "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:9tmu7v4qn9p1ardb8...@4ax.com...
> >> On 23 Mar 2003 02:06:25 GMT, "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I thought Iraq was firing banned scud missiles??? And I thought the
> >Iraqi
> >> >troops along the Kuwaiti border had been supplied with banned chemical
> >> >weapons?
> >>
> >> Even if we find no WMDs, so what? It doesn't make Saddam Hussein any
> >> less of a tyrant. WMDs were never my personal reason for wanting to
> >> invade Iraq anyway, so to a fellow like me, it doesn't even matter.
> >> If we find some, icing on the cake. If we don't, ousting Hussein was
> >> still justified.
> >
> >That is where your ethics seem flawed to me Mike. You can't just go off
> >killing people because you don't like the way they do business.
>
> It's not a matter of not liking the way he does business. To put it
> that way trivializes the attrocities against humanity that he has
> committed.
>
I was using it as a general expression. I did not say "you cannot start a
war because you do not like the way a particular leader runs his country"
It was an expression of the flaw in your ethics. Just like when I pointed
out in your analogy about the noisy neighbor and the police.
There is no doubt that he has committed atrocities, but where is your
indignation over the atrocities committed by the Israelis against the
Palestinians? Many people will try to justify the way the Israelis treat
the Palestinians because that is the only way they can insure that their
country will remain viable. Did you ever think that Saddam Hussein did what
he had to do to stop civil war and unrest in Iraq? I am not saying that I
agree with his tactics, but they did work. That is after all why Bush
senior left him in power and failed to support the Kurds. He believed that
Hussein was better left alone as the devil you know vs the devil you don't
know..
Robin
Warren Louthan
Thats
actually kinda funny, since I never saw the Barbara Walters special. By the
way, if the woman spoke perfect english does this disqualify her in some
way?
> > Lets not slap a generic
label
> > like "The way they do business" on what atrocities have been commited.
We
> > aren't the mafia.
>
> My comment was directed at Mikes ethics, not Saddam Husseins.
Actually it was the way it was put
that caused me to reply. I saw it as an ironic statement. You can't go off
killing people because of the way they do business, which happens to be
going off and killing people that don't submit to them.
>
> Personally, I think we should be a little more worried about our own
ethics
> before we go off trying to correct that of other countries...
>
> Robin
> >
We have an extensive
network of groups that do nothing but act as a watchdog on our own ethical
practices, because we live in a free democratic republic and they have
rights to do so. It would be impossible for those groups to exist in Iraq,
because of the way they do business.
Robin Henderson
But what gives us the right to go to Iraq and impose our ethics on their
country? There is only one answer to that question and it is not good
ethics. And that answer is we have bigger guns.
Robin
Warren Louthan
Heh that's not my answer. I
guess what it boils down to is if you believe in absolutes. If you believe
that cold blooded murder is absolutely evil, wrong, bad or however you want
to put it, then its not troublesome to see they who practice it removed. If
you see it as a matter of ethics, they have their and we have ours, then I
can see where it would be difficult to accept that acting to have them
removed at the cost of the lives of some of our troops and some civilians
might not be viable. But if ethics are relative, then what is viable?
When Eichman was put on trial
for organizing the slaughter of millions of Jews his defense was, at the
time and place that it happened, it was the law. He was merely enforcing
it. Though obviously reprehensible to anyone with a heart, he was
conducting the enforcement of law set down by the rulers of the Nationalist
Socialist Party, the ruling party of Germany at the time. From their twisted
point of view it was ethical to eliminate Jews from existence, because they
were inferior to the aryan race. Hitler even said the one thing he would be
remembered for as a hero was wiping Europe clean of the Jews.
I wouldn't hesitate a minute to
impose our ethics on such a monster, nor upon the society that spawned him.
Bill Bessette
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9348E1E7B2B3Dd...@216.168.3.30...
>> I think I see an interesting double standard at work
>> here. Russia and France can't keep track of their companies
>> dealings with imbargoed nations, but the US has the
>> incredibly intricate conspiracy web cooked up.
>
> Not a double standard, just that my personal integrity
> is not in any way tied to Russia or France.
I don't understand how that answer has anything to do
with what I wrote.
>> You're the one hinting that there's something
>> stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
>> more details on it. I thought these were pretty
>> fair questions.
>
> I am not hinting at anything. They are stinky deals.
In your opinion, granted. I don't see much out of
the ordinary other than the fact that the vice President
once worked for the company that won the bid.
>> These are honest questions..do you know the answer?
>> I thought you might have the details because you're
>> claiming possible wrong-doing. If it's just theorizing
>> on your part, that's fine, we can let it go.
>
> I suppose all polititcians find ways to pay back the
> people who fund their campaigns. It is just that
> going to war to do it seems a little
> extreme to me...
I haven't seen anyone come close to proving this.
>> It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
>> bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
>> this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
>> price.)
>
> They are one of the experts in the field. But we will
> never know if they would have been low bidder since
> all qualified candidates were not allowed to bid.
An observation - one gets the feeling that no amount of
bidders would ever be enough, so long as Haliburton won.
>> Until wrong-doing has been proven, I'm going to have
>> to wait before connecting the dots on this leg of the
>> conspiracy theory.
>
> The investigation into the accounting practices of
> Chenney while at Haliburton have been stalled by a
> federal judge.
I thought you said that congress was checking out the bid
process, not Cheney's accounting practices.
>> > Bush avoided the normal bid process by lumping the cost
>> > in with the Defense Procurement Bill.
>>
>> I don't understand how "lumping the cost" somehow
>> circumvents the bid process.
>
> Here is a qoute about the Defense Procurement Act...
>
> "The DPA, which became law during the Korean War and is reauthorized
> periodically, gives the president authority to cut through procurement
> red tape to assure swift delivery of equipment, supplies and services
> to troops. Administration officials testifying at a hearing preceding
> the markup denied that the law could be used to increase the size of
> contracts. Rather, they said, the act provides authority to accelerate
> delivery of goods and services on existing agreements."
>
> Do you think that rebuilding Iraqs oil fields quailfies for cutting
> red tape to support troops?
Sounds more like cutting red tape to speed the support of
the Iraqi people. The quicker we can get their infrastructure
up and running again (and dousing oil-well fires is a part of that)
the better for all parties concerned.
>> >> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I know
>> >> because I work for a company that ships chemicals throughout the
>> >> world.
>> >
>> > Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which is
>> > not under sanctions...
Military hardware is ruthlessly tracked. It is the
responsibility of the trading nation to know where the goods
are going before allowing the sales to proceed.
>> That France didn't know about military spare parts sales going to
>> Iraq is laughable on it's face.
>
> You are saying that they trace every shipment of parts
> that are shipped by every company that does business in their
> country? I doubt it.
Military parts? Believe it.
>> Again, Haliburton's contract was legal under the UN
>> War-for-Oil thingy.
>
> Just like the parts shipments to the UAE were legal.
No...the French didn't sell the parts to the UAE
government. They went through a third party in the UAE
which indicates that the UAE wasn't the end point for the
transaction.
>> Your problem is that you're pre-disposed to distrust
>> *everything* that the US government says. When
>> someone distrusts anything, it's plenty easy to find
>> support somewhere.
>>
> I am not predisposed to distrust everything.
That's certainly what it seems like to me. Everything
that anyone else does gets an excuse made for it, everything
that the US does gets questioned.
>> Actually it's rather simple. Governments can't interview
>> POWs on TV for propaganda purposes. Free-ranging media
>> are free, however, to film POWs being brought in. It's
>> the whole willful humiliation of an enemy thing.
>
> Not true. The third convention states that POW's are not to be
> submitted to "public curiosity"
Public curiosity - meaning interviewing your enemy POWs
and running on your state run television station. Taking
enemy POWs and walking them down the main street of one
of your cities, subjecting them to open ridicule.
Get back to me when we march Iraqi POWs down Broadway,
or when we start asking them their name on MTV.
Free ranging or embedded journalists taking photos of
Iraqi surrenders as they happen in the field are
not the same thing.
Bill
Robin Henderson
It is really very basic, we teach our kids ethics in Kindergarten. Two
wrongs don't make a right. Cold blooded murder to stop a cold blooded
murderer is not ethical. The rest of the world understands this, why not
Americans. Besides, we are not the worlds police department, contrary to
popular American belief. This arrogant attitude that it is our duty to set
the rest of the world straight is why the world opinion of the US is so low
right now.
>
> When Eichman was put on
trial
> for organizing the slaughter of millions of Jews his defense was, at the
> time and place that it happened, it was the law. He was merely enforcing
> it. Though obviously reprehensible to anyone with a heart, he was
> conducting the enforcement of law set down by the rulers of the
Nationalist
> Socialist Party, the ruling party of Germany at the time. From their
twisted
> point of view it was ethical to eliminate Jews from existence, because
they
> were inferior to the aryan race. Hitler even said the one thing he would
be
> remembered for as a hero was wiping Europe clean of the Jews.
> I wouldn't hesitate a minute to
> impose our ethics on such a monster, nor upon the society that spawned
him.
>
Germany took their views and tried to impose them on the rest of the world.
They initiated a war against what they saw as evil. They forced the rest of
the world to stand against them and lost. The criminals of their government
were then forced to face trial in a world court.
If you are trying to draw parallels with the current situation the US falls
more in line with Germany. We have initiated a war to stamp out what we
perceive as evil, which just happens to be a religious ethnic group, Islamic
Fundamentalist. We have initiated this war with a couple of our allies
against the wishes of the rest of the world. If this war progresses along
the lines of Vietnam it won't be long until we are wiping out entire
villages of civilians because they might be harboring the hated Islamic
Extremist. Sound mighty familiar to me.... We are already holding Muslim
Fundamentalist in a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay against all Geneva
conventions because we refuse to acknowledge them as POW's. Check out what
the Red Cross has to say about that.
I strongly suggest you take a hard look at the actions of our government and
try to think like a citizen of a foreign nation. One that does not have the
military and economic power of the US. Imagine that the US may be coming to
your country next to set you straight... Scary!
Robin
Robin
Robin Henderson
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:b5os62$nrm$0...@216.39.144.87:
>
> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9348E1E7B2B3Dd...@216.168.3.30...
>
> >> I think I see an interesting double standard at work
> >> here. Russia and France can't keep track of their companies
> >> dealings with imbargoed nations, but the US has the
> >> incredibly intricate conspiracy web cooked up.
> >
> > Not a double standard, just that my personal integrity
> > is not in any way tied to Russia or France.
>
> I don't understand how that answer has anything to do
> with what I wrote.
If I had a dime for every time one of you guys makes a statement like this
I'd be rich. What do you mean you don't understand? You said I have a
double standard and I said my integrity isn't tied to Russia or France. I
am more concerned about how my country acts. Seems pretty simple to me.
>
> >> You're the one hinting that there's something
> >> stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
> >> more details on it. I thought these were pretty
> >> fair questions.
> >
> > I am not hinting at anything. They are stinky deals.
>
> In your opinion, granted. I don't see much out of
> the ordinary other than the fact that the vice President
> once worked for the company that won the bid.
Won the bid? Was handed the contract on a silver platter would be more
accurate. Rewarded for being a significant campaign contributor sounds
about right. But nothing fishy there, that kind of slimy deal is expected
in our government right?
>
> >> These are honest questions..do you know the answer?
> >> I thought you might have the details because you're
> >> claiming possible wrong-doing. If it's just theorizing
> >> on your part, that's fine, we can let it go.
> >
> > I suppose all polititcians find ways to pay back the
> > people who fund their campaigns. It is just that
> > going to war to do it seems a little
> > extreme to me...
>
> I haven't seen anyone come close to proving this.
I have made my points over and over again, but to sumarize. Haliburton
sneaks around and does business with Iraq while Chenney denies it then
latter admits to deals channeled through Libya and France. Haliburton and
Arthur Anderson hide operational losses, Chenney dumps his stock for a
substantial gain then Haliburton screws over all their shareholders.
Haliburton declares bankruptcy protection to avoid paying creditors.
Chenney is elected VP with the help of substantial corporate contributions
to their campaign. War is declared against Iraq and Haliburton is given
contracts in excess of 1.5 billion dollars before the war even starts with
potential for much more money later. Nope, nothing fishy there... NOT!
>
> >> It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
> >> bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
> >> this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
> >> price.)
> >
> > They are one of the experts in the field. But we will
> > never know if they would have been low bidder since
> > all qualified candidates were not allowed to bid.
>
> An observation - one gets the feeling that no amount of
> bidders would ever be enough, so long as Haliburton won.
You just don't get it. How can you even call it a bid process when only a
limited group are allowed to bid. For that matter in any of the articles
that I read no mention was ever made of an actual bid occurring. Not saying
that it didn't, but Haliburton is never reffered to as the low bidder.
>
> >> Until wrong-doing has been proven, I'm going to have
> >> to wait before connecting the dots on this leg of the
> >> conspiracy theory.
> >
> > The investigation into the accounting practices of
> > Chenney while at Haliburton have been stalled by a
> > federal judge.
>
> I thought you said that congress was checking out the bid
> process, not Cheney's accounting practices.
Both, the investigation into his accounting practices at Haliburton began
several years ago but has been stalled by a federal judge. I posted the
link earlier.
>
> >> > Bush avoided the normal bid process by lumping the cost
> >> > in with the Defense Procurement Bill.
> >>
> >> I don't understand how "lumping the cost" somehow
> >> circumvents the bid process.
> >
> > Here is a qoute about the Defense Procurement Act...
> >
> > "The DPA, which became law during the Korean War and is reauthorized
> > periodically, gives the president authority to cut through procurement
> > red tape to assure swift delivery of equipment, supplies and services
> > to troops. Administration officials testifying at a hearing preceding
> > the markup denied that the law could be used to increase the size of
> > contracts. Rather, they said, the act provides authority to accelerate
> > delivery of goods and services on existing agreements."
> >
> > Do you think that rebuilding Iraqs oil fields quailfies for cutting
> > red tape to support troops?
>
> Sounds more like cutting red tape to speed the support of
> the Iraqi people. The quicker we can get their infrastructure
> up and running again (and dousing oil-well fires is a part of that)
> the better for all parties concerned.
Yep! I definitely see a priority on getting those oil wells pumping as soon
as possible. After all the 40 billion dollars that Iraq has in reserve in
their oil for food fund wouldn't begin to cover paying Bush back for his war
now would it? All of the priorities are around protectind those oil wells
$$$$$$$$$$.
>
> >> >> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I know
> >> >> because I work for a company that ships chemicals throughout the
> >> >> world.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which is
> >> > not under sanctions...
>
> Military hardware is ruthlessly tracked. It is the
> responsibility of the trading nation to know where the goods
> are going before allowing the sales to proceed.
And they went to the UAE.
>
> >> That France didn't know about military spare parts sales going to
> >> Iraq is laughable on it's face.
> >
> > You are saying that they trace every shipment of parts
> > that are shipped by every company that does business in their
> > country? I doubt it.
>
> Military parts? Believe it.
Sorry I don't.
>
> >> Again, Haliburton's contract was legal under the UN
> >> War-for-Oil thingy.
> >
> > Just like the parts shipments to the UAE were legal.
>
> No...the French didn't sell the parts to the UAE
> government. They went through a third party in the UAE
> which indicates that the UAE wasn't the end point for the
> transaction.
The parts were sold and delivered to someone in the UAE. End of story as
far as the French are concerned. One French company doing business with a
UAE business. Just like Haliburton channeled their dealings with Iraq
through Libya and France. Why is it OK for us but some nefarious act when
another country does it? The US government didn't know that Haliburton had
dealings with Iraq, that is why there was an investigations. Why would you
assume that the French government knew every intricacies of the business
dealings of the clients of every one of their companies. Sorry, that is
pure fantasy.
>
> >> Your problem is that you're pre-disposed to distrust
> >> *everything* that the US government says. When
> >> someone distrusts anything, it's plenty easy to find
> >> support somewhere.
> >>
> > I am not predisposed to distrust everything.
>
> That's certainly what it seems like to me. Everything
> that anyone else does gets an excuse made for it, everything
> that the US does gets questioned.
Well I could say the same thing about you, but I prefer to stick to the
facts instead of conjecture.
>
> >> Actually it's rather simple. Governments can't interview
> >> POWs on TV for propaganda purposes. Free-ranging media
> >> are free, however, to film POWs being brought in. It's
> >> the whole willful humiliation of an enemy thing.
> >
> > Not true. The third convention states that POW's are not to be
> > submitted to "public curiosity"
>
> Public curiosity - meaning interviewing your enemy POWs
> and running on your state run television station. Taking
> enemy POWs and walking them down the main street of one
> of your cities, subjecting them to open ridicule.
>
> Get back to me when we march Iraqi POWs down Broadway,
> or when we start asking them their name on MTV.
>
> Free ranging or embedded journalists taking photos of
> Iraqi surrenders as they happen in the field are
> not the same thing.
>
> Bill
That is not what the Red Cross had to say. And if that were the case why
has the US government asked the news networks to stop showing Iraqi
prisoners of war. This is another excellent example of American hypocrisy.
Even before the war started the US made a big deal about how the Iraqis were
going to surrender in huge numbers. Showing them doing so on TV would have
been a propaganda coup. This type of activity is exactly what the Geneva
Convention is trying to prevent. But it did not work out that way. Now our
government is changing their tactics and telling us horror stories about
guerillas pretending to surrender. This will be the justification for
shooting any Iraqi on sight. Sound familiar? Yep, same thing happened in
Vietnam. The talking heads are already saying we need start targeting the
cities and civilian populations to win this war. After all with our markets
taking a dive on news of war complications we will need that influx of oil
money as soon as possible!
Robin
Robin
William Bessette
> "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93494CA9D36BEd...@216.168.3.30...
>> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:b5os62$nrm$0...@216.39.144.87:
>>
>> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9348E1E7B2B3Dd...@216.168.3.30...
>>
>> >> I think I see an interesting double standard at work
>> >> here. Russia and France can't keep track of their companies
>> >> dealings with imbargoed nations, but the US has the
>> >> incredibly intricate conspiracy web cooked up.
>> >
>> > Not a double standard, just that my personal integrity
>> > is not in any way tied to Russia or France.
>>
>> I don't understand how that answer has anything to do
>> with what I wrote.
>
> If I had a dime for every time one of you guys makes a
> statement like this I'd be rich.
If I had a penny every time you made an unclear statement I'd
be richer than Bill Gates. Hyperbole Bonanza!
> What do you mean you don't understand? You said I
> have a double standard and I said my integrity isn't
> tied to Russia or France. I am more concerned about how
> my country acts.
You cleared it up with your last sentence. You care more
about what we do than what other countries do. Fair enough.
However remember that the actions of other countries
go a long way towards explaining why they take the
stances they do in the UN security council. Just
something for you to ponder.
>> >> You're the one hinting that there's something
>> >> stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
>> >> more details on it. I thought these were pretty
>> >> fair questions.
>> >
>> > I am not hinting at anything. They are stinky deals.
>>
>> In your opinion, granted. I don't see much out of
>> the ordinary other than the fact that the vice President
>> once worked for the company that won the bid.
>
> Won the bid? Was handed the contract on a silver platter
> would be more accurate. Rewarded for being a significant
> campaign contributor sounds about right. But nothing
> fishy there, that kind of slimy deal is expected in our
> government right?
I don't see how any corruption in the process has been proven.
I do see a whole lot of opinion on display, however.
>> > I suppose all polititcians find ways to pay back the
>> > people who fund their campaigns. It is just that
>> > going to war to do it seems a little
>> > extreme to me...
>>
>> I haven't seen anyone come close to proving this.
>
> I have made my points over and over again, but to sumarize.
> Haliburton sneaks around and does business with Iraq while Chenney
> denies it then latter admits to deals channeled through Libya and
> France.
Whether Cheney admits or denies involvement is irrelevent. The
deal was LEGAL.
> Haliburton and Arthur Anderson hide operational losses,
> Chenney dumps his stock for a substantial gain then Haliburton screws
> over all their shareholders. Haliburton declares bankruptcy protection
> to avoid paying creditors. Chenney is elected VP with the help of
> substantial corporate contributions to their campaign. War is
> declared against Iraq and Haliburton is given contracts in excess of
> 1.5 billion dollars before the war even starts with potential for much
> more money later. Nope, nothing fishy there... NOT!
I've offered some other possible, and I think, probable explanations.
You've simply chosen the ones that suit your world view.
>> >> It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
>> >> bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
>> >> this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
>> >> price.)
>> >
>> > They are one of the experts in the field. But we will
>> > never know if they would have been low bidder since
>> > all qualified candidates were not allowed to bid.
>>
>> An observation - one gets the feeling that no amount of
>> bidders would ever be enough, so long as Haliburton won.
>
> You just don't get it. How can you even call it a bid process when
> only a limited group are allowed to bid. For that matter in any of
> the articles that I read no mention was ever made of an actual bid
> occurring. Not saying that it didn't, but Haliburton is never
> reffered to as the low bidder.
So you're enraged over a deal without knowing the facts?
Quite a leap to judgement, wouldn't you say?
>> > The investigation into the accounting practices of
>> > Chenney while at Haliburton have been stalled by a
>> > federal judge.
>>
>> I thought you said that congress was checking out the bid
>> process, not Cheney's accounting practices.
>
> Both, the investigation into his accounting practices at Haliburton
> began several years ago but has been stalled by a federal judge. I
> posted the link earlier.
Both? The bid process is being investigated?
>> > Do you think that rebuilding Iraqs oil fields quailfies for cutting
>> > red tape to support troops?
>>
>> Sounds more like cutting red tape to speed the support of
>> the Iraqi people. The quicker we can get their infrastructure
>> up and running again (and dousing oil-well fires is a part of that)
>> the better for all parties concerned.
>
> Yep! I definitely see a priority on getting those oil wells pumping
> as soon as possible. After all the 40 billion dollars that Iraq has
> in reserve in their oil for food fund wouldn't begin to cover paying
> Bush back for his war now would it? All of the priorities are around
> protectind those oil wells $$$$$$$$$$.
You're not as convincing when you get all worked up like this.
Being able to dousing fires quickly was something that needed
to be lined up and ready to go from day one. So was having
the ability to quickly fix infrastructure and deploy aid
in an effort to prevent a humanitarian crisis.
>> >> >> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I
>> >> >> know because I work for a company that ships chemicals
>> >> >> throughout the world.
>> >> >
>> >> > Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which
>> >> > is not under sanctions...
>>
>> Military hardware is ruthlessly tracked. It is the
>> responsibility of the trading nation to know where the goods
>> are going before allowing the sales to proceed.
>
> And they went to the UAE.
Not the UAE government.
>> >> That France didn't know about military spare parts sales going to
>> >> Iraq is laughable on it's face.
>> >
>> > You are saying that they trace every shipment of parts
>> > that are shipped by every company that does business in their
>> > country? I doubt it.
>>
>> Military parts? Believe it.
>
> Sorry I don't.
Color me surprised. ;)
>> >> Again, Haliburton's contract was legal under the UN
>> >> War-for-Oil thingy.
>> >
>> > Just like the parts shipments to the UAE were legal.
>>
>> No...the French didn't sell the parts to the UAE
>> government. They went through a third party in the UAE
>> which indicates that the UAE wasn't the end point for the
>> transaction.
>
> The parts were sold and delivered to someone in the UAE.
> End of story as far as the French are concerned.
No, that's not the way it works out. French responsibility extends
to the end of the line. You bet your bippy that the US government
would be culpable if it were found that we were selling
Iraqi's artillery tech through a third country. I know you
don't care what the French do, but lets not break our backs
bending over backwards to ignore their actions.
> One French company doing business with a UAE business.
> Just like Haliburton channeled their dealings with Iraq
> through Libya and France.
So Haliburton knew, but France didn't. Particularly when
France was dealing in illegal goods, and Haliburton wasn't.
Double standard again.
> Why is it OK for us but some nefarious act when another
> country does it?
Oil-for-food program.
> The US government didn't know that Haliburton had
> dealings with Iraq
Did you mean to say that Cheney denied it so that proves
the government didn't know about it?
>> That's certainly what it seems like to me. Everything
>> that anyone else does gets an excuse made for it, everything
>> that the US does gets questioned.
>
> Well I could say the same thing about you, but I prefer
> to stick to the facts instead of conjecture.
You've defended or explained away everything from illegal
arms sales to the stories of torture by Saddam's victims.
Great googly moogly.
>> >> Actually it's rather simple. Governments can't interview
>> >> POWs on TV for propaganda purposes. Free-ranging media
>> >> are free, however, to film POWs being brought in. It's
>> >> the whole willful humiliation of an enemy thing.
>> >
>> > Not true. The third convention states that POW's are not to be
>> > submitted to "public curiosity"
>>
>> Public curiosity - meaning interviewing your enemy POWs
>> and running on your state run television station. Taking
>> enemy POWs and walking them down the main street of one
>> of your cities, subjecting them to open ridicule.
>>
>> Get back to me when we march Iraqi POWs down Broadway,
>> or when we start asking them their name on MTV.
>>
>> Free ranging or embedded journalists taking photos of
>> Iraqi surrenders as they happen in the field are
>> not the same thing.
>
> That is not what the Red Cross had to say.
Then they're wrong.
> And if that were the case why has the US government
> asked the news networks to stop showing Iraqi prisoners of war.
I had not heard that (and it's interesting you should say that
because I've seen several pictures of EPOWs on CNN today.)
If they did make the request it's probably a pre-emptive effort
to stop some over-zealous media member from stuffing a mic in
front of an Iraqi's face.
> This is another excellent example of American
> hypocrisy. Even before the war started the US made a big deal about
> how the Iraqis were going to surrender in huge numbers. Showing them
> doing so on TV would have been a propaganda coup. This type of
> activity is exactly what the Geneva Convention is trying to prevent.
Actually, it's meant to prevent the individual humiliation of
POWs. Photographing a mass of Iraqis with white flags isn't the
same thing.
> But it did not work out that way.
Yeah, instead of surrendering, they just went home. Easier to
do when you're in your home country as opposed to occupying Kuwait.
> Now our government is changing their tactics and telling us horror
> stories about guerillas pretending to surrender.
That evidently is exactly what happened in at least a couple of
instances.
> This will be the justification for shooting any Iraqi on sight.
Whoa doggies... that's simply NOT true.
> Sound familiar? Yep, same thing happened in Vietnam. The
> talking heads are already saying we need start targeting the cities
> and civilian populations to win this war.
There's a civilian uprising today in Basra. Seems the people were
waiting to see if we really were going to stick around this time.
This isn't Vietnam, Robin. You don't need to be afraid.
> After all with our markets taking a dive on news of war complications
Last week the Market posted the best numbers since 1982. After a big
drop on Monday, the market is up over 100 points today at the time
of my posting.
> we will need that influx of oil money as soon as possible!
LOL...
Bill
Robin Henderson
"William Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93498EAD44D44d...@216.168.3.30...
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:b5pu2o$he7$0...@216.39.144.87:
>
> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93494CA9D36BEd...@216.168.3.30...
> >> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> >> news:b5os62$nrm$0...@216.39.144.87:
> >>
> >> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns9348E1E7B2B3Dd...@216.168.3.30...
> >>
> >> >> I think I see an interesting double standard at work
> >> >> here. Russia and France can't keep track of their companies
> >> >> dealings with imbargoed nations, but the US has the
> >> >> incredibly intricate conspiracy web cooked up.
> >> >
> >> > Not a double standard, just that my personal integrity
> >> > is not in any way tied to Russia or France.
> >>
> >> I don't understand how that answer has anything to do
> >> with what I wrote.
> >
> > If I had a dime for every time one of you guys makes a
> > statement like this I'd be rich.
>
> If I had a penny every time you made an unclear statement I'd
> be richer than Bill Gates. Hyperbole Bonanza!
My statments are all very clear. You just choose to look at them through
red white and blue tinted glasses.
>
> > What do you mean you don't understand? You said I
> > have a double standard and I said my integrity isn't
> > tied to Russia or France. I am more concerned about how
> > my country acts.
>
> You cleared it up with your last sentence. You care more
> about what we do than what other countries do. Fair enough.
Cool.
>
> However remember that the actions of other countries
> go a long way towards explaining why they take the
> stances they do in the UN security council. Just
> something for you to ponder.]
Just as our actions explain our stance with the UN. Something for you to
ponder.
>
> >> >> You're the one hinting that there's something
> >> >> stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
> >> >> more details on it. I thought these were pretty
> >> >> fair questions.
> >> >
> >> > I am not hinting at anything. They are stinky deals.
> >>
> >> In your opinion, granted. I don't see much out of
> >> the ordinary other than the fact that the vice President
> >> once worked for the company that won the bid.
> >
> > Won the bid? Was handed the contract on a silver platter
> > would be more accurate. Rewarded for being a significant
> > campaign contributor sounds about right. But nothing
> > fishy there, that kind of slimy deal is expected in our
> > government right?
>
> I don't see how any corruption in the process has been proven.
> I do see a whole lot of opinion on display, however.
>
Simple, it is unethical for the administration to give the VP's former
company a contract for post war activities hidden in the DPA. I did not
make this idea up, it is being debated in congress as you well know... It
just is not making headlines because that sort of stuff does not sell
advertising space like killing Iraqis does.
> >> > I suppose all polititcians find ways to pay back the
> >> > people who fund their campaigns. It is just that
> >> > going to war to do it seems a little
> >> > extreme to me...
> >>
> >> I haven't seen anyone come close to proving this.
> >
> > I have made my points over and over again, but to sumarize.
> > Haliburton sneaks around and does business with Iraq while Chenney
> > denies it then latter admits to deals channeled through Libya and
> > France.
>
> Whether Cheney admits or denies involvement is irrelevent. The
> deal was LEGAL.
>
That has not been fully determined yet...
> > Haliburton and Arthur Anderson hide operational losses,
> > Chenney dumps his stock for a substantial gain then Haliburton screws
> > over all their shareholders. Haliburton declares bankruptcy protection
> > to avoid paying creditors. Chenney is elected VP with the help of
> > substantial corporate contributions to their campaign. War is
> > declared against Iraq and Haliburton is given contracts in excess of
> > 1.5 billion dollars before the war even starts with potential for much
> > more money later. Nope, nothing fishy there... NOT!
>
> I've offered some other possible, and I think, probable explanations.
> You've simply chosen the ones that suit your world view.
As you have chosen to disregard the real smoking gun.
>
> >> >> It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
> >> >> bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
> >> >> this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
> >> >> price.)
> >> >
> >> > They are one of the experts in the field. But we will
> >> > never know if they would have been low bidder since
> >> > all qualified candidates were not allowed to bid.
> >>
> >> An observation - one gets the feeling that no amount of
> >> bidders would ever be enough, so long as Haliburton won.
> >
> > You just don't get it. How can you even call it a bid process when
> > only a limited group are allowed to bid. For that matter in any of
> > the articles that I read no mention was ever made of an actual bid
> > occurring. Not saying that it didn't, but Haliburton is never
> > reffered to as the low bidder.
>
> So you're enraged over a deal without knowing the facts?
> Quite a leap to judgement, wouldn't you say?
>
I am not enraged. It is just one more piece of the puzzle that explains why
we are at war when it doesn't really make any sense...
>
> >> > The investigation into the accounting practices of
> >> > Chenney while at Haliburton have been stalled by a
> >> > federal judge.
> >>
> >> I thought you said that congress was checking out the bid
> >> process, not Cheney's accounting practices.
> >
> > Both, the investigation into his accounting practices at Haliburton
> > began several years ago but has been stalled by a federal judge. I
> > posted the link earlier.
>
> Both? The bid process is being investigated?
Yes, I posted the link about Defense Procurement Bill being held up in
congress... That was a March 20th article I believe.
>
> >> > Do you think that rebuilding Iraqs oil fields quailfies for cutting
> >> > red tape to support troops?
> >>
> >> Sounds more like cutting red tape to speed the support of
> >> the Iraqi people. The quicker we can get their infrastructure
> >> up and running again (and dousing oil-well fires is a part of that)
> >> the better for all parties concerned.
> >
> > Yep! I definitely see a priority on getting those oil wells pumping
> > as soon as possible. After all the 40 billion dollars that Iraq has
> > in reserve in their oil for food fund wouldn't begin to cover paying
> > Bush back for his war now would it? All of the priorities are around
> > protectind those oil wells $$$$$$$$$$.
>
> You're not as convincing when you get all worked up like this.
> Being able to dousing fires quickly was something that needed
> to be lined up and ready to go from day one. So was having
> the ability to quickly fix infrastructure and deploy aid
> in an effort to prevent a humanitarian crisis.
The Kuwaitis are putting out fires as we speak. We did not need Haliburtons
1.5 billion dollar contract to accomplish that.
>
> >> >> >> No it's not. Freight forwarders are tightly watched. This I
> >> >> >> know because I work for a company that ships chemicals
> >> >> >> throughout the world.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Exactly, the stuff was shipped to the United Arab Emirates which
> >> >> > is not under sanctions...
> >>
> >> Military hardware is ruthlessly tracked. It is the
> >> responsibility of the trading nation to know where the goods
> >> are going before allowing the sales to proceed.
> >
> > And they went to the UAE.
>
> Not the UAE government.
>
That is what I said...
>
> >> >> That France didn't know about military spare parts sales going to
> >> >> Iraq is laughable on it's face.
> >> >
> >> > You are saying that they trace every shipment of parts
> >> > that are shipped by every company that does business in their
> >> > country? I doubt it.
> >>
> >> Military parts? Believe it.
> >
> > Sorry I don't.
>
> Color me surprised. ;)
Instead of being surprised, why not try and prove it?
>
> >> >> Again, Haliburton's contract was legal under the UN
> >> >> War-for-Oil thingy.
> >> >
> >> > Just like the parts shipments to the UAE were legal.
> >>
> >> No...the French didn't sell the parts to the UAE
> >> government. They went through a third party in the UAE
> >> which indicates that the UAE wasn't the end point for the
> >> transaction.
> >
> > The parts were sold and delivered to someone in the UAE.
> > End of story as far as the French are concerned.
>
> No, that's not the way it works out. French responsibility extends
> to the end of the line. You bet your bippy that the US government
> would be culpable if it were found that we were selling
> Iraqi's artillery tech through a third country. I know you
> don't care what the French do, but lets not break our backs
> bending over backwards to ignore their actions.
Prove to me that they US tracks all arms sells by private companies in the
US...
Check this quote...
"If Israeli weapons sales to China induce misgivings, including the most
recent U.S. blocked sale of Israel's Phalcon airborne radar, the
beneficiaries of Chinese arms transfers of Israeli-American technology are
even more disturbing. In 1996, as disclosed in the UN Register of
Conventional Arms, China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran, along
with a handful of combat aircraft and warships. Even worse, in 1997 the New
York Daily News reported that Iraq had deployed Israeli-developed, Chinese
PL-8 missiles in the no-fly zones, endangering American pilots."
>
> > One French company doing business with a UAE business.
> > Just like Haliburton channeled their dealings with Iraq
> > through Libya and France.
>
> So Haliburton knew, but France didn't. Particularly when
> France was dealing in illegal goods, and Haliburton wasn't.
>
> Double standard again.
There you go again, I just showed you how Iraq acquired US/Israeli missiles
through China. So I guess I could use the same logic that you use and say
the the United States has provided Iraq with illegal weapons also...
>
> > Why is it OK for us but some nefarious act when another
> > country does it?
>
> Oil-for-food program.
PL-8 Missiles for oil program?
>
> > The US government didn't know that Haliburton had
> > dealings with Iraq
>
> Did you mean to say that Cheney denied it so that proves
> the government didn't know about it?
If the governement knew about it why did they have to hide it by going
through Libya and France? And why would they need an investigation?
>
> >> That's certainly what it seems like to me. Everything
> >> that anyone else does gets an excuse made for it, everything
> >> that the US does gets questioned.
> >
> > Well I could say the same thing about you, but I prefer
> > to stick to the facts instead of conjecture.
>
> You've defended or explained away everything from illegal
> arms sales to the stories of torture by Saddam's victims.
> Great googly moogly.
Like I said, I am playing the devils advocate. You have taken every bit of
propaganda that your government has fed you as the gospel truth. Don't you
ever think that maybe some of it might be BS?
>
> >> >> Actually it's rather simple. Governments can't interview
> >> >> POWs on TV for propaganda purposes. Free-ranging media
> >> >> are free, however, to film POWs being brought in. It's
> >> >> the whole willful humiliation of an enemy thing.
> >> >
> >> > Not true. The third convention states that POW's are not to be
> >> > submitted to "public curiosity"
> >>
> >> Public curiosity - meaning interviewing your enemy POWs
> >> and running on your state run television station. Taking
> >> enemy POWs and walking them down the main street of one
> >> of your cities, subjecting them to open ridicule.
> >>
> >> Get back to me when we march Iraqi POWs down Broadway,
> >> or when we start asking them their name on MTV.
> >>
> >> Free ranging or embedded journalists taking photos of
> >> Iraqi surrenders as they happen in the field are
> >> not the same thing.
> >
> > That is not what the Red Cross had to say.
>
> Then they're wrong.
I am right, I posted the comments by the Red Cross spokesman Westphal.
> > And if that were the case why has the US government
> > asked the news networks to stop showing Iraqi prisoners of war.
>
> I had not heard that (and it's interesting you should say that
> because I've seen several pictures of EPOWs on CNN today.)
>
> If they did make the request it's probably a pre-emptive effort
> to stop some over-zealous media member from stuffing a mic in
> front of an Iraqi's face.
They are showing the Al Fazeera videi now too. If you ask me "public
curiosity" would be parading them up and down the streets or putting them
in stockades where people could throw things at them. I don't see anything
wrong with showing them on TV. In fact I saw an interview with a parent of
one of the POW's and he was happy that he saw his son on TV because he knows
that he is alive and appeared in good health. It was the height of hypocisy
when Bush made the complaint in the first place, and like I said they only
wanted to suppress the video for propaganda purposes. Having American POW's
on TV is not good for the war ratings...
>
> > This is another excellent example of American
> > hypocrisy. Even before the war started the US made a big deal about
> > how the Iraqis were going to surrender in huge numbers. Showing them
> > doing so on TV would have been a propaganda coup. This type of
> > activity is exactly what the Geneva Convention is trying to prevent.
>
> Actually, it's meant to prevent the individual humiliation of
> POWs. Photographing a mass of Iraqis with white flags isn't the
> same thing.
We have used the surrender of Iraqis as a huge part of our Psy-ops campaign
against Iraq. If that is not a violation of the spirit of the Geneva
convention then I do not know what is...
>
> > But it did not work out that way.
>
> Yeah, instead of surrendering, they just went home. Easier to
> do when you're in your home country as opposed to occupying Kuwait.
They went home to dig trenches and prepare to defend their cities. Where
is the cakewalk we were promised? Where are the cheering adulations of the
liberated Iraqis? You have been duped...
>
> > Now our government is changing their tactics and telling us horror
> > stories about guerillas pretending to surrender.
>
> That evidently is exactly what happened in at least a couple of
> instances.
And it should have been expected. When you are going against laser guided
bomb with an AK47 you have to take any advantage you can get. I said from
the beginning that this war would deteriorate into another Vietnam.
>
> > This will be the justification for shooting any Iraqi on sight.
>
> Whoa doggies... that's simply NOT true.
I saw a retired US general on Fox news last night saying the Marines would
have to get tougher and treat every Iraqi like the enemey and stop worrying
so much about civilian casualties. We may not be there yet, but it very
well could happen...
>
> > Sound familiar? Yep, same thing happened in Vietnam. The
> > talking heads are already saying we need start targeting the cities
> > and civilian populations to win this war.
>
> There's a civilian uprising today in Basra. Seems the people were
> waiting to see if we really were going to stick around this time.
>
Yep, and the Shiites said when Saddam was gone they would throw the
Americans out of Iraq! The deterioration begins. Turkey is invading from
the north. The Shiites are rebelling in the south. What is next? Iran?
Syria? I see we bombed a bus load of Syrians at the border yesterday...
> This isn't Vietnam, Robin. You don't need to be afraid.
Nope, it has the potential to be much worse than Vietnam. And I am afraid,
and not ashamed of it.
>
> > After all with our markets taking a dive on news of war complications
>
> Last week the Market posted the best numbers since 1982. After a big
> drop on Monday, the market is up over 100 points today at the time
> of my posting.
If we face anymore setbacks it will crash again...
>
> > we will need that influx of oil money as soon as possible!
>
> LOL...
>
Laugh away funny man... If you are not disturbed by even a small portion of
what I have said then you are quite naive....
Robin
>
john wallace craven
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Bill Bessette wrote:
> "Robin Henderson" <940...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:b5os62$nrm$0...@216.39.144.87:
>
> > "Bill Bessette" <dsqu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9348E1E7B2B3Dd...@216.168.3.30...
>
> >> I think I see an interesting double standard at work
> >> here. Russia and France can't keep track of their companies
> >> dealings with imbargoed nations, but the US has the
> >> incredibly intricate conspiracy web cooked up.
> >
> > Not a double standard, just that my personal integrity
> > is not in any way tied to Russia or France.
>
> I don't understand how that answer has anything to do
> with what I wrote.
I think what he meant to say was, "Yes, it is a double standard. I hold
the United States to a higher standard than Russia or France, because we
are better than they are." Don't you agree?
>
> >> You're the one hinting that there's something
> >> stinky about this deal...I just thought you'd have some
> >> more details on it. I thought these were pretty
> >> fair questions.
> >
> > I am not hinting at anything. They are stinky deals.
>
> In your opinion, granted. I don't see much out of
> the ordinary other than the fact that the vice President
> once worked for the company that won the bid.
Which is a pretty big "other", if you ask me.
> >> It would definitely be suspicious if they weren't the low
> >> bidder, or weren't the experts in their field or with
> >> this particular equipment (thus justifying a higher
> >> price.)
> >
> > They are one of the experts in the field. But we will
> > never know if they would have been low bidder since
> > all qualified candidates were not allowed to bid.
>
> An observation - one gets the feeling that no amount of
> bidders would ever be enough, so long as Haliburton won.
Personally, I would introduce legislation that would make companies who
once employed members of the current executive office (not cabinet members
here, just the President and Vice President) ineligible for government
contracts of any kind. I know that that may seem anti-business to some,
but there's a great deal of graft going right now.
John Craven