I think you have a severe problem with people who don't agree with you. And I think you'd love to see some type of authority to shut them up. The only force that I want to see used to shut liberals up is ridicule.
So what do you propose Tim, 10 more years of sanctions ? 10 more years of hoping that he doesn't have WMD's ? 10 more years of agreements being broke ? 10 more years of his own people getting killed and imprisioned not to mention starved while he builds palaces?
I propose we let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. If they find weapons of mass destruction, we go in and take them out.
As far as his own people being killed and imprisoned, and starving, don't even go there. There are leaders all over the world that are living in palaces as their people die, and are killed. Many times, that leader is backed by the US government either publicly or through the CIA. The US government is not the "good guy" some of you think that they are. They fight for instability in 3rd world countries, especially when their leaders don't do whats best for America. So don't start with the "save the Iraqis" bullshit. You want to save your own ass.
I propose we let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. If they find weapons of mass destruction, we go in and take them out.
Considering they just found chemical warheads in Iraq today, which is a material breach, I take it you are now in favor of going into Iraq? Although I do not think this will happen. The Saudis and the Russians are talking to Saddam and I think he will be leaving the country soon. There will be regime change without war.
I propose we let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. If they find weapons of mass destruction, we go in and take them out.
Looks like they are and they are finding stuff as of today as well. For some it won't be enough unless there's a nuke on the launching pad doing a countdown like in a bond film.
But they found some today so I guess we should go in and take them out as you reccomend.
As far as his own people being killed and imprisoned, and starving, don't even go there. There are leaders all over the world that are living in palaces as their people die, and are killed. Many times, that leader is backed by the US government either publicly or through the CIA. The US government is not the "good guy" some of you think that they are. They fight for instability in 3rd world countries, especially when their leaders don't do whats best for America. So don't start with the "save the Iraqis" bullshit. You want to save your own ass.
Really ? And you know this from talking to me in a few posts ? I never said we were always the good guy, so again Tim, I'm gonna ask again don't put words in my mouth. And I'm not starting with the save the Iraqis bulshit o.k I was there. I also know there would be alot of Iraqi troops and people that would love to see us come in and take him out.
They are saying on the news that these empty chemical warheads, with traces of chemicals in them, were NOT part of their arms declaration. Another material breach. Not to mention Blix said that they found Iraq has smuggled in weapons that also constitutes a material breach. How many times must Saddam be found in material breach before something is done?
I told you Wolvie, unless they bust into Dr.Evil's secret lair and find a nuke on countdown launch and there's an inspector tied to a slow moving saw blade and there's also cameras from Al Jezeera there to document it and Sadamn is in the control room with his hand on the button, it won't matter. I guarantee it. It will go from let them do their job (which they're doing) to Well yea, but, um, C'mon, that's not bad.
As much as those opposed to taking out Saddie have said inspections are a cover, the same could be said of those who used inspectors as cover as well. They keep saying let them do their job. Well they are and the war hasn't started so what's the point.
No. Here are my reasons. One, the Russians will veto any resolution authorizing force, France may also. Two, politically I think we only need to get the ok from a majority of our allies. Third, I do not think we should let the U.N. dictate U.S. policy. All that said, I still think Saddam will leave the country before a war starts. He will because he knows if he does not , he will be removed and possibly face a war crimes tribunal.
"it's not like we didn't know they have weapons...I mean...we have the reciepts. "
So what?
The United States practiced realpolitik for 50 years during the Cold War. We based foreign policy on power instead of the ideals. Genie's out of the bottle, That can't be changed.
Today is a material breach. Saddam has to step down and leave the country, or things get really brutal. There will be no more reports and no more inspections. That time has passed.
Like I said, the United States practiced realpolitik for 50 years during the Cold War. We based foreign policy on power instead of the ideals. Genie's out of the bottle,
Did you catch Friedman's article yesterday or was it Tuesday ?
Anyway, he made a good point about Egypt. We have given them billions in aid and essentially stayed out of their affairs. However anti American sentiment is very strong there even after that. I'll see if I can find you a link to it. I know what you are saying and no we're not always on a white horse nor are we wearing the mask all the time. Iraq is actually fairly moderate compared to some other countries who are even our allies.
Today is a material breach. Saddam has to step down, or things get really brutal.
I hope he does or is deposed and the brakes can be put on and everyone can go home.
if you think what this is about is "going back home" when it's done, then I think you aren't seeing what this is all about. We want to stay and set up oil company outposts.
"You got any proof to back up that outrageous claim? "
The people Crabgrass talks about probably don't have any plans of that.
But it could end up that way.
You think there's a playbook for any of this? You think all there is to this is "we'll just free these people, whip a little capitalism and democracy on them and we can go home."
Vision like that gets the United States into the position it is now.
"Americans remain divided on a possible war with Iraq,according to a recent Knight Ridder poll. Fully 83 percent of the 1,204 adults surveyed Jan. 3-6 said they would support a war that was backed by the United Nations and conducted by an international coalition. But without such support, only one-third of those questioned said they favored war. And just 27 percent supported quick military action.
"In addition to the main rally, which will start on the National Mall at 11 a.m. Saturday, smaller anti-war demonstrations will be conducted Friday and Sunday by a number of groups representing women, students and religious and ethnic minorities."
Dissent is good. I think that the country wants UN backing is a good sign.
The London Times reported on January 23, 2001 -- as soon as Bush entered the White House -- that BP and ExxonMobil were again buying oil from Iraq, in spite of the problems involved with corruption and public relations.
At the beginning of April 2001, the Middle East Economic Survey, an industry research periodical, reported that ninety percent of Iraq's oil sales in January and February had gone to US companies. Following that lead, international oil companies jumped into the market, and MEES reported that Iraq's March oil sales would surpass previous levels. The next week, MEES reported that "the main market for Iraqi crude is now the US." On April 3, the new administration's State Department sent an unusual letter to executives in about 23 US companies, pointing that "the US is the largest customer of Iraqi oil." The concern of the letter, however, was not that the US was Iraq's biggest customer. The concern was that US companies not pay too much, by yielding to Baghdad's demands for a "surcharge" for shipping to US customers rather than to others.
Indeed, US companies were Iraq's biggest customers throughout 2001, a fact not emphasized publicly by this administration. According to the Department of Energy, America imported about 290 million barrels of crude oil from Iraq in 2001 -- abut 795,000 barrels per day, making Iraq our sixth-largest supplier.
Forbes Magazine -- not to be confused with Sierra Club publications -- estimated this summer that American companies purchased almost 70% of Iraqi oil in 2001, naming ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, BP, and Marathon Oil.
Despite assertions intermittently linking Iraq with terrorism, by the way, Iraqi sales and US imports of Iraqi oil remained high throughout fall of 2001, with no sign that the White House considered this a security breach. (Chevron and Texaco, two major Iraqi oil customers, merged on October 9, 2001, less than a month after September 11.) By mid-November 2001, Iraqi sales were soaring again.
This is not to imply that the imports stopped, or even slowed down, at the beginning of 2002. According to the American Petroleum Institute -- which has yet to be mistaken for Greenpeace -- US companies imported an average 611,000 barrels per day from Iraq from January through June of this year, making Iraq America's fifth-largest supplier of oil in the first half of 2002.
As recently as this summer, the Middle East Economic Survey estimated that "as much as 90 percent of the actual amount of Iraq's estimated 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) are going to U.S. Gulf coast refineries" (cited by ABC News.com, July 20, 2002).
The Bush White House, Republicans in the House of Representatives, and the oil companies have opposed ANY effort to curtail US purchases of Iraqi oil. Iraq holds the world's second-largest oil reserves, and Iraqi oil has less sulfur than other oil, reducing the cost of environmental compliance for refineries. When Saddam cut off supplies to American companies last May, US companies and the White House tried to get around the embargo -- less by finding other sources for oil, or developing alternative energy, than by buying Iraqi oil through Russia and other middlemen.
Iraq transports millions of barrels of oil openly via pipeline through our ally Turkey, and tankers supplying US companies uplift most of their Iraqi shipments at the Turkish port of Ceyhan, with the full knowledge and consent of the administration. US shipping, be it noted, is regulated at every level by the federal government.
Of course, Iraq also sells huge quantities of oil to our allies, including Turkey, Jordan, and Russia. It also sells through middlemen of virtually every nationality, including those of our allies, again with the knowledge and consent of the administration. The White House is not even sanctioning our non-ally Syria, which is massively dependent on Iraqi oil and has constructed a joint pipeline with Iraq, for buying in excess of allowable amounts. This May, Iraq completed repairs on the Iraq-Saudi Arabia pipeline, which had been out of commission since 1990, although Saudi Arabia is theoretically a premier US ally in the Middle East.
Former subsidiaries of Vice President Cheney's Halliburton are also still doing business with Iraqi oil fields, and the oil fields are operating with equipment and facilities provided by Halliburton. Not much new there: Halliburton, a huge oil field equipment and supply company with over five hundred subsidiaries, contributed largely to the rebuilding of Iraq's oil sector after the ravages of two wars.
President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc. -- a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming -- for more than a decade.
Cheney, intentionally or inadvertently, went against his own edicts in order to pad his company's profits. He told Sam Donaldson in August 2000 that, as the head of Halliburton, "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." And yet, as the Financial Times eventually proved, Cheney oversaw $23.8 million in sales to Iraq in 1998 and 1999. Cheney, who collected a $36 million salary before becoming vice president, essentially profited from the destruction of Iraq that he oversaw as secretary of defense during the Gulf War. And while the oil-rig and equipment sales were legal -- a 1998 U.N. resolution gave Iraq the right to rebuild its oil industry -- Cheney's firm sold through European subsidiaries "to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government," according to a November 2000 Financial Times report.
Cheney also helped Halliburton obtain a windfall of U.S. government loans. He secured $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed financing for Halliburton -- a massive increase over the $100 million loan it received during the five-year period before Cheney took over. And while Cheney has claimed that Halliburton's rise to power had nothing to do with his political stature, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times suggest that U.S. officials assisted Halliburton both in Asia and Africa. Even the domestic defense-contracting arm of Halliburton -- Brown & Root -- saw its fortune change drastically once Cheney took over. The company booked $1.2 billion in contracts between 1990 and 1995; with Cheney at the helm, contract awards spiked to $2.3 billion between 1995 and 2000.
Other Bush administration officials have also profited from past government experience and influence. Bush's father and his then Secretary of State James Baker -- the lawyer who fought for Bush during the Florida election fiasco -- work for the Carlyle Group, an investment firm that until recently collected investments from the bin Laden family and other members of the Saudi elite. Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz sat on the board of Chevron before the arrival of Condoleezza Rice.
Rice joined the Chevron board in 1991, after serving for a year on Bush Sr.'s National Security Council. There, she earned a $35,000 annual retainer, $1,500 for every meeting she attended and stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to SEC documents. She was reportedly hired for expertise in the former Soviet states, and long before U.S. planes started dropping bombs in nearby Afghanistan, she spent much of her time at Chevron working on prospective deals in the Caspian region.
I don't think so, jethro. You should think again.
I think you have a severe problem with people who don't agree with you. And I think you'd love to see some type of authority to shut them up. The only force that I want to see used to shut liberals up is ridicule.
"The only force that I want to see used to shut liberals up is ridicule. "
Well, liberals have been getting enough of that since the November elections. So you should be happy there.
So what do you propose Tim, 10 more years of sanctions ? 10 more years of hoping that he doesn't have WMD's ? 10 more years of agreements being broke ? 10 more years of his own people getting killed and imprisioned not to mention starved while he builds palaces?
I propose we let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. If they find weapons of mass destruction, we go in and take them out.
As far as his own people being killed and imprisoned, and starving, don't even go there. There are leaders all over the world that are living in palaces as their people die, and are killed. Many times, that leader is backed by the US government either publicly or through the CIA. The US government is not the "good guy" some of you think that they are. They fight for instability in 3rd world countries, especially when their leaders don't do whats best for America. So don't start with the "save the Iraqis" bullshit. You want to save your own ass.
The US government is not the "good guy" some of you think that they are.
I am sure it would be if Al Gore had won.
Not really, I am not even referring to Dubbya this time.
Fifty years of Cold War realpolitik by the United States made a lot of enemies.
I propose we let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. If they find weapons of mass destruction, we go in and take them out.
Considering they just found chemical warheads in Iraq today, which is a material breach, I take it you are now in favor of going into Iraq? Although I do not think this will happen. The Saudis and the Russians are talking to Saddam and I think he will be leaving the country soon. There will be regime change without war.
Take out the weapons, hopefully peacefully.
Tim,
Looks like they are and they are finding stuff as of today as well. For some it won't be enough unless there's a nuke on the launching pad doing a countdown like in a bond film.
But they found some today so I guess we should go in and take them out as you reccomend.
Really ? And you know this from talking to me in a few posts ? I never said we were always the good guy, so again Tim, I'm gonna ask again don't put words in my mouth. And I'm not starting with the save the Iraqis bulshit o.k I was there. I also know there would be alot of Iraqi troops and people that would love to see us come in and take him out.
I understand a lot of people there don't like him, but a lot of Iraqi troops and people will be killed if we go in there.
They are saying on the news that these empty chemical warheads, with traces of chemicals in them, were NOT part of their arms declaration. Another material breach. Not to mention Blix said that they found Iraq has smuggled in weapons that also constitutes a material breach. How many times must Saddam be found in material breach before something is done?
How many times must Saddam be found in material breach before something is done?
As many as occur until Saddam dies of old age.
I told you Wolvie, unless they bust into Dr.Evil's secret lair and find a nuke on countdown launch and there's an inspector tied to a slow moving saw blade and there's also cameras from Al Jezeera there to document it and Sadamn is in the control room with his hand on the button, it won't matter. I guarantee it. It will go from let them do their job (which they're doing) to Well yea, but, um, C'mon, that's not bad.
As much as those opposed to taking out Saddie have said inspections are a cover, the same could be said of those who used inspectors as cover as well. They keep saying let them do their job. Well they are and the war hasn't started so what's the point.
Should the US wait for a use-of-force resolution from the UN?
No. Here are my reasons. One, the Russians will veto any resolution authorizing force, France may also. Two, politically I think we only need to get the ok from a majority of our allies. Third, I do not think we should let the U.N. dictate U.S. policy. All that said, I still think Saddam will leave the country before a war starts. He will because he knows if he does not , he will be removed and possibly face a war crimes tribunal.
If they are going to contribute troops, money and support, sure.
it's not like we didn't know they have weapons...I mean...we have the reciepts.
"it's not like we didn't know they have weapons...I mean...we have the reciepts. "
So what?
The United States practiced realpolitik for 50 years during the Cold War. We based foreign policy on power instead of the ideals. Genie's out of the bottle, That can't be changed.
Today is a material breach. Saddam has to step down and leave the country, or things get really brutal. There will be no more reports and no more inspections. That time has passed.
Rick,
Did you catch Friedman's article yesterday or was it Tuesday ?
Anyway, he made a good point about Egypt. We have given them billions in aid and essentially stayed out of their affairs. However anti American sentiment is very strong there even after that. I'll see if I can find you a link to it. I know what you are saying and no we're not always on a white horse nor are we wearing the mask all the time. Iraq is actually fairly moderate compared to some other countries who are even our allies.
I hope he does or is deposed and the brakes can be put on and everyone can go home.
if you think what this is about is "going back home" when it's done, then I think you aren't seeing what this is all about. We want to stay and set up oil company outposts.
We want to stay and set up oil company outposts.
You got any proof to back up that outrageous claim?
can you tell me how many people in the current administration have oil connections?
or, if it's easier, you can just name those who don't
do you have receipts to prove it?
"You got any proof to back up that outrageous claim? "
The people Crabgrass talks about probably don't have any plans of that.
But it could end up that way.
You think there's a playbook for any of this? You think all there is to this is "we'll just free these people, whip a little capitalism and democracy on them and we can go home."
Vision like that gets the United States into the position it is now.
if you think that the oil companies have no plans concerning middle east oil...well...
there is a reason that Cheney refused to say what was discussed and who it was discussed with when he was formulating the nation's energy policies.
"if you think that the oil companies have no plans concerning middle east oil...well... "
Well, what?
Make a claim and back it up.
"Americans remain divided on a possible war with Iraq,according to a recent Knight Ridder poll. Fully 83 percent of the 1,204 adults surveyed Jan. 3-6 said they would support a war that was backed by the United Nations and conducted by an international coalition. But without such support, only one-third of those questioned said they favored war. And just 27 percent supported quick military action.
"In addition to the main rally, which will start on the National Mall at 11 a.m. Saturday, smaller anti-war demonstrations will be conducted Friday and Sunday by a number of groups representing women, students and religious and ethnic minorities."
Dissent is good. I think that the country wants UN backing is a good sign.
can you tell me how many people in the current administration have oil connections?
That's your proof?
I think that belongs here: "Answer the question with a question" 1/3/03 10:30pm
THX,
Most of crabby's responses belong there. He makes a lot of claims/statements and I have yet to see him back up one.
waiting for an answer
Cheney refused to say what was discussed and who it was discussed with when he was formulating the nation's energy policies.
I wonder why
BTW, I can't prove the future any more than you can
no....this isn't about oil, is it?
do you people honestly think this administration don't equate national security with access to oil?
it's the oil
waiting for an answer
Yes, I am.
do you people honestly think this administration don't equate national security with access to oil?
Yes, that's a very nice, unbiased, web-site.
We already have access to oil. We get very little of our oil from the Middle East (about 20%).
let's hear from Mr. John J. Maresca, who apparently thinks it's about the oil. At least that what he told Congress
okay...I'll ask you again...do you honestly think that this administration doesn't equate national security with access to oil?
not about the oil?
it couldn't be about the oil, could it?
it's all just a big coincidence?
could it be the oil?
I'd have to say quite a bit of the action in Iraq has to do with oil. I don't why anyone should deny that.
So what?
Is the movement of oil at market prices not important to world stability, Crabs?
fucking for virginity?
ask THX
Is the movement of oil at market prices not important to world stability, Crabs?
yes
is obtaining it by war "stability"?
Is world instability required for the movement of oil at market prices?
and why are these conservatives pretending that it's about "evil"?
that isn't what it's about
I don't know. Maybe a greater degree of stability. Won't know until Saddam is out of office, which can't be an entirely bad thing.
Is it the oil part or the war part that bothers you more, Crabs?