The Real Hollywood Idiots - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/26/2003 03:21:49 PM · #101

Originally posted by achiral:

no it's not. you think i'm naive but you are just as naive for going on this pointless witch hunt. i could see cheney making money off of stock if he still owned any, but i doubt he does. even if what you are saying is true, you're not going to tell me that you wouldn't help out some friends if you could, not that haliburton needs any helping out. i'm not scared of the oil industry. i'm for anything that will take our dependence off of saudi oil. i'm for strengthening the economy by keeping the price of oil down.

so now you're thinking it might be for oil...anything to keep your independence off saudi oil? help out some friends? how about invading iraq for some friends that owe you $1 million a year? clearly it's more complex than that, but...

this is why canada said no to this thing without the UN. as i said before, i'd have been OK with dealing with hussein under the UN's umbrella, but without it it really just looks like a couple of oil guys going in to secure the region for the sake of oil interests. i've felt terrible about this argument. i hate arguing, and i hate having to take personal insults. i believe strongly enough in the cynical motives for this war, however, that it needs to be yelled over and over again that people should not die for the sake of oil and money. if removing hussein for humanitarian reasons was as easy as going in and taking out his government by force after a few weeks of fighting, sure. that would be OK. but, i thank god that some people at the UN were smart enough to see that it wouldn't be the case. that the US government has gone against the UN is terribly shocking and frightening for the world as a whole. it means that nation states will now be able to attack other nations based solely on a perceived threat, which is a rediculous notion. sigh...

that 'sounding like and american' comment was totally uncalled for, i apologise to those americans who read it. responding to insults in kind is wrong.

anyways...i'm going to hope that this doesn't put me off this site in general...

james.

Alecia

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/26/2003 03:40:56 PM · #102

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by Alecia:

um hello? do we need to go into time out? i for one am getting tired of watching the name calling and insulting of people everytime everytime someone says something that someone else disagrees with.

and ach, just because you dont like just canada or whomever else doesnt mean the rest of us americans feel the same. you are embarrasing me. please stop. thanks.

i'm not going to sit here and listen to these people make insuations about me. i don't represent you, you represent yourself. have you actually read every post or what? some of these people have said some terrible things. i'm sorry if you feel offended, i don't know why you do. there are americans dying in iraq and all these people want to talk about is how stupid america is, how it's only for oil, how they hate bush. they could care less about americans dying, and i'm sure after reading some of the posts that it probably makes some of them smile to hear of us casualties. i haven't said anything that wrong considering the conversation. the canadian members that choose to argue just hate america. go read jimmy's posts, zadore's posts. it's unbelievable.

when you say americans hate someone, you are representing me as i happen to be american! :)

i have been following these threads and i have a hard time believing that any these people are actually smiling at american casualities, or any others. and i just see most of these conversations as being heated because it is a scary time. if anything, maybe they disagree with some of the things our government is doing--but i dont take it to mean that anyone is hating an entire country--i know i dont hate entire countries. how weird is that?

rcrawford

Nikon D300

03/26/2003 03:46:42 PM · #103

Originally posted by spiderman:

do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"??

Can anybody show me anything in Pres Bush's lifestyle that would indicate that he is motivated by greed? As near as I can tell he chooses to live in a small town in Texas (I really like it's name) and spends his free time fixing old rusty fences and clearing brush.

However if you made these charges against the Hollywood crowd it might be a bit more convincing.

welcher

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/26/2003 03:53:08 PM · #104

The problem with this debate is that achiral mistakes dissent and disagreement with dislike and hatred. Instead of confronting the reasons for peoples' anti-war stances, he dismisses them as silly, or somehow beneath contempt. When the error of his ways is pointed out, he resorts to name calling and insults. He is, basically, incapable of a rational debate.

I never said anything bad about Bush, America, or anyone. I just merely stated that I didn't think the war was a good idea. Which earned me insults from some folks. That's not the way to a good debate. Which, when you think about it, may be the reason for the insults.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/26/2003 03:56:16 PM · #105

1) I do not cheer any casualties, American or otherwise
2) It is precisely because I value their lives so highly that I feel it my duty to protest when I believe the motivations placing them in peril are less noble than advertised...I have been aware of national governmental affairs since my class was interrupted with the news of John Kennedy's assasination. I do not have time right now to list the times the President, Congress, and everyone else has LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for political and financial gain.
When Mr. Bush is willing to sit down with me over a couple of beers and maybe some sodium pentothal and look me in the eye and say it's about liberating oppressed Iraqis I will believe him. Until then I consider all information from any government source to be suspect.
I'm truly sorry I have to feel that way, but my positions are based on experience, not hypothesis or faith. "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

03/26/2003 04:24:23 PM · #106

Originally posted by welcher:

I think achiral is just frustrated, because no one cares to hear what is really going on.
It is like a parent and child. The parent can tell the child not to do something because it will hurt them in the long run until their face turns blue. But you know they most learn from their own mistakes and not ours. He is as frustrated as any parent is. Give hime a break.

Take time to look at what he is saying and you will find that a lot of it is legit. Don't be so hard headed. I can see your point if it were true, but it is not. You all are just assuming most of these things.

hmmm.....What is the arguement about again?? I think I am lost again. lol

03/26/2003 04:27:19 PM · #107

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

i'd have been OK with dealing with hussein under the UN's umbrella, but without it it really just looks like a couple of oil guys going in to secure the region for the sake of oil interests. i've felt terrible about this argument.

this just proves you don't actually believe in what you're saying. you would be okay with this under the UN umbrella? all that means is that there is some stamp on what is going on here. the united states would have been still doing 80% of the military action, it's not like any of the countries would have given a significant number of troops even if there was an agreement. this makes sense because the US has the most to give, but besides basically an "OK" from the UN, the exact same outcome will come out of action. war with iraq that includes a UN stamp isn't going to insulate the US from flare ups of muslim hatred. and even if the stamp was granted by the UN, the exact same oil decisions would be made after the war, and haliburton would still get the contract, and bush and cheney would both still be swimming in petroleum, black gold, texas tea. so if all you are waiting on is formal approval to agree, you really haven't made your own decision about anything yet.

03/26/2003 04:30:06 PM · #108

Originally posted by GeneralE:

When Mr. Bush is willing to sit down with me over a couple of beers and maybe some sodium pentothal and look me in the eye and say it's about liberating oppressed Iraqis I will believe him. Until then I consider all information from any government source to be suspect.
"

What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Is this also how you fill about your neighbor and friends? Usually the ones who don't trust others are the ones who can not be trusted themselves. Just a simple observation. Skunk smells his own hole.

welcher

03/26/2003 04:40:08 PM · #109

Wow Sonifo, that's pretty insulting. Achiral is the parent, and all of us that disagree with the war are the children? And WE'RE the ones being hardheaded?

Of course there are good reasons for going to war. There are also several good reasons for NOT going to war. Of course, you guys just say "oh, it's not true." Is it not true that if Israel got involved, things would go bad? Is it not true that we are taking a $75b (and counting) hit on an economy just barely struggling along? Is it not true that an invasion and occupation could very well inflame anti-American sentiment in the Middle East?

You guys are the hard-headed ones.

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/26/2003 04:47:34 PM · #110

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

i'd have been OK with dealing with hussein under the UN's umbrella, but without it it really just looks like a couple of oil guys going in to secure the region for the sake of oil interests. i've felt terrible about this argument.

this just proves you don't actually believe in what you're saying. you would be okay with this under the UN umbrella? all that means is that there is some stamp on what is going on here. the united states would have been still doing 80% of the military action, it's not like any of the countries would have given a significant number of troops even if there was an agreement. this makes sense because the US has the most to give, but besides basically an "OK" from the UN, the exact same outcome will come out of action. war with iraq that includes a UN stamp isn't going to insulate the US from flare ups of muslim hatred. and even if the stamp was granted by the UN, the exact same oil decisions would be made after the war, and haliburton would still get the contract, and bush and cheney would both still be swimming in petroleum, black gold, texas tea. so if all you are waiting on is formal approval to agree, you really haven't made your own decision about anything yet.

it doesn't prove anything of the sort...your logic is bad. it just means that i support the UN, right or wrong. we need to stick together. that the UN didn't approve it, didn't want it, and says that it shouldn't have been done only validates my reasoning. i guess the UN's judgement is worse than yours, though.

for the UN to have approved the ousting of saddam, the situation would necessarily have to be different. the UN model called for more time, more diplomacy and more international involvement. in case you were paying attention, i said that i'm also british, and therefore my people are actually fighting this war as well...not that you'd care. you just assume that i'm simply a canadian who has no interest....

all of the reasons you layed out above are reasons why the UN didn't have the votes to actually do it...nobody wanted to see people on either side die for something which was laid out for the wrong reasons. until you see that the humanitarian issue is just a front (and a well-meaning front, which is why so many of you have been, i believe, misled) you'll never see that the reasons to go to war were not the right ones.

Message edited by author 2003-03-26 16:49:33.

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/26/2003 05:09:15 PM · #111

Originally posted by Sonifo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

When Mr. Bush is willing to sit down with me over a couple of beers and maybe some sodium pentothal and look me in the eye and say it's about liberating oppressed Iraqis I will believe him. Until then I consider all information from any government source to be suspect.
"

What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Is this also how you fill about your neighbor and friends? Usually the ones who don't trust others are the ones who can not be trusted themselves. Just a simple observation. Skunk smells his own hole.

this is exactly the argument that the UN was using with the inspections...no proof of weapons, no guilt. the bush administration, on the other hand, has placed the burden of proof on the accused (decidedly un-american, don't you think) and has chosen to invade a sovereign state on a hunch.

which has led to this mess...

spiderman

Canon EOS-D60

03/26/2003 05:15:11 PM · #112

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly."

"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

"Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance."

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now."

"He (Saddam) will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past."

"The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. ... without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

" ...America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

-------------------------------------------------

excerpts, President CLINTON's address to the nation , Dec 16, 1998
{link to original thread - He was a Rhodes Scholar}

Message edited by author 2003-03-27 02:15:25.

03/26/2003 05:19:03 PM · #113

Originally posted by welcher:

Wow Sonifo, that's pretty insulting. Achiral is the parent, and all of us that disagree with the war are the children? And WE'RE the ones being hardheaded?

Welcher, I apoligize! I didn't mean for it to be insulting. Please forgive me.
I am against war like everyone else, please know that. But I refuse to put our men and women down during this trying time. I will support them all the way and that in turn means supporting Bush.

I would like someone to write the pro's and con's of this issue. So I can see where everyone stands. Let's see the proof and the speculations. Really, get to typing.

03/26/2003 06:21:26 PM · #114

Originally posted by welcher:

how come no one talks about name calling when you post stupid crap like this

03/26/2003 06:33:01 PM · #115

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:

When Mr. Bush is willing to sit down with me over a couple of beers and maybe some sodium pentothal and look me in the eye and say it's about liberating oppressed Iraqis I will believe him. Until then I consider all information from any government source to be suspect.
"

What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty? Is this also how you fill about your neighbor and friends? Usually the ones who don't trust others are the ones who can not be trusted themselves. Just a simple observation. Skunk smells his own hole.

this is exactly the argument that the UN was using with the inspections...no proof of weapons, no guilt. the bush administration, on the other hand, has placed the burden of proof on the accused (decidedly un-american, don't you think) and has chosen to invade a sovereign state on a hunch.

which has led to this mess...

please read this

Resolution 1441, Approved 15-0

i don't see where it says anything close to what you said the UN's mandate was for Iraq

Originally posted by resolution 1441:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import anduse of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

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 since1998 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;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

but hey keep defending saddam

dwoolridge

03/26/2003 06:36:07 PM · #116

Originally posted by lisae:

Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields.

There has been much talk of the conflict of interest, on the part of Cheney and other political figures with old (and some extant) ties to the oil industry, and of the pursuit of obscene wealth and power by those same people (and even their detractors). This is nothing new, so we should not be so surprised; the expected course of imperialism is forged by such relationships, such greed. These are not exceptional people, so we should be more alarmed perhaps because of that.

Flip the coin. What authority has the power to award such a contract, or even post it in the first place? Who owns the Basra oil fields and who is responsible for them? Can it be Iraq? Can it be the US or some other member of its military entourage? I assert than it should be neither.

Should democracy flourish there, at the centre of the earth, and supposing it is good, then that future, duly elected government ought to have sole authority over its resources, infrastructure, and any effort to rebuild. The world should only be too glad to lend a dollar, or a hand.

welcher

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

03/26/2003 07:17:10 PM · #117

Well, I think I'm just about done. This place is one of the destinations on the net that I came to get away from these types of "debates", and in fact from war in general. I'd much rather forget about all that stuff while I'm here.

Achiral, I'll leave you with this: there are millions and millions of very smart people out there that disagree with you. Some of them even on this board. Do yourself a favor and listen to what they have to say. You probably won't change your mind, but you might learn something about the great big world outside America. At the very least, try to refrain from insulting people that don't agree with you.

Back to the photos!

dwoolridge

03/26/2003 07:22:51 PM · #118

Originally posted by achiral:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The critical terminology in this paragraph is "serious consequences", which Powell and others prefer to interpret as the use of force, though other permanent members of the Security Council had already formally stated that it did not include the automatic use of force.

It is usual, even required, in resolutions to state all intentions as clearly, and as simply, as possible, which is why they are so damn long most of the time (e.g., "stop blowing up shit" turns into a three page forray into history and legalese). This is for the common good. Now, "serious consequences" may not be vague to many people, but it is not even close to being clear enough (just look at the context in that resolution alone).

Any state may interpret it as they see fit, but where it conflicts with, in this case, Article 51 or the Charter of the United Nations, other options must be explored.

A new resolution, clarifying the term and authorizing the use of force could be put forth, although that avenue was effectively blocked by France's outspoken denouncement of any such resolution. I can't recall France's exact language, but the US should have went ahead with the resolution anyway, just to be on record. Although vetoed resolutions are not maintained in UN public records, it behooves all nations -- particularly those who espouse the virtues of diplomacy, democracy, and justice/law -- to utterly exhaust the stores of diplomacy available to them.

Another option, would have been to bring a case to the International Court of Justice, to interpret the term and either give the (interpretation as) "use of force" its blessing or not.

It is specious to assert that others are defending Hussein, or that they are anti-American. Of course, this is the immediate and outward appearance of some sentiments, but the real cause, what stirs most people, is the apparent lack of werewithal to follow the internationally accepted channel of international diplomacy.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

03/26/2003 07:24:29 PM · #119

Originally posted by Sonifo:

But I refuse to put our men and women down during this trying time. I will support them all the way and that in turn means supporting Bush.

I disagree that you have to support the policies of President Bush in order not to 'put down' the men and women fighting this war. I know no one that is against the troops. But I see no problem expressing the opinion that they should never have been sent there in the first place. To the credit of the men and women in harms way, they are following their orders and doing there job. And they are doing it with as much care for non-combatants as is humanly possible.

But the policies of the current administration are in no way, shape, or form honorable or even lawful. I pray that everyone in the region will be delivered safely from the nightmare currently inflicted on them by the shoot from the hip, cowboy policies of President Bush.

I agree that the argument that this is a war for oil is grossly over-simplistic. It is also carefully timed to distract the American public from the shambles President Bush has made of the world's economy. It's also carefully timed to give President Bush a popularity surge going into the next general election. It is about not being able to find Osama bin Laden and needing to find an enemy the administration can say they caught. The fact that both the President and Vice President have many friends with deep financial interests is just icing on the cake.

03/26/2003 07:42:39 PM · #120

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

Originally posted by lisae:
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields.

There has been much talk of the conflict of interest, on the part of Cheney and other political figures with old (and some extant) ties to the oil industry, and of the pursuit of obscene wealth and power by those same people (and even their detractors). This is nothing new, so we should not be so surprised; the expected course of imperialism is forged by such relationships, such greed. These are not exceptional people, so we should be more alarmed perhaps because of that.

Flip the coin. What authority has the power to award such a contract, or even post it in the first place? Who owns the Basra oil fields and who is responsible for them? Can it be Iraq? Can it be the US or some other member of its military entourage? I assert than it should be neither.

Should democracy flourish there, at the centre of the earth, and supposing it is good, then that future, duly elected government ought to have sole authority over its resources, infrastructure, and any effort to rebuild. The world should only be too glad to lend a dollar, or a hand.

i doubt iraq has the capabilities of haliburton

03/26/2003 07:48:37 PM · #121

Originally posted by myqyl:

Originally posted by Sonifo:
But I refuse to put our men and women down during this trying time. I will support them all the way and that in turn means supporting Bush.

I disagree that you have to support the policies of President Bush in order not to 'put down' the men and women fighting this war. I know no one that is against the troops. But I see no problem expressing the opinion that they should never have been sent there in the first place. To the credit of the men and women in harms way, they are following their orders and doing there job. And they are doing it with as much care for non-combatants as is humanly possible.

But the policies of the current administration are in no way, shape, or form honorable or even lawful. I pray that everyone in the region will be delivered safely from the nightmare currently inflicted on them by the shoot from the hip, cowboy policies of President Bush.

I agree that the argument that this is a war for oil is grossly over-simplistic. It is also carefully timed to distract the American public from the shambles President Bush has made of the world's economy. It's also carefully timed to give President Bush a popularity surge going into the next general election. It is about not being able to find Osama bin Laden and needing to find an enemy the administration can say they caught. The fact that both the President and Vice President have many friends with deep financial interests is just icing on the cake.

George Bush 1 had high ratings during the war and still lost to Clinton. I doubt there is anyone in the democratic party with near as much charisma as Clinton this time around though. Just as you state that the argument about oil is over simplified so is your argument about Bush being dishonorable, unlawful, greedy and a warmonger.

dwoolridge

03/26/2003 08:22:06 PM · #122

Originally posted by achiral:

i doubt iraq has the capabilities of haliburton

My point, which you must have missed, was not about who was awarded the contract, but the authority which awards it. I could care less if they raised the dead and gave them the contract. Iraq is in a state of conflict, in the midst of war (for those who prefer that term), so it is fairly premature for anyone to be making decisions to award contracts.

I see now it's the USACE that's awarding the contract to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs.
I withdraw my earlier argument, which was premature.

Carry on with the diatribe.

03/26/2003 08:59:56 PM · #123

[quote=achiral I doubt there is anyone in the democratic party with near as much charisma as Clinton this time around though.[/quote]

Correction you mean male hormones. hehehehe....lol

byetko