0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 12:55 pm
Hoping strongly, this will do a lot of help to suffering politicans and their industrial lobbies:

Quote:
Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.
Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2837477.stm
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 12:56 pm
Walter

Do you think we should give the contracts to German and French companies?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 12:59 pm
That's a novel idea! Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:07 pm
Marc wrote:
I heard it was even questionable that Iraq set their oil fields ablaze last time.....supposedly there have been stories of gulf war vets that have stepped forward and said that they were ordered to set the oil fields on fire after the gulf war and that it wasn't Iraq.

Yes, welcome Marc. Please offer us some links or citations to support this claim. (As a rule, "I heard..." is not well received in these discussions as it is how baseless rumors get started.)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:14 pm
perception

No, I think, it's okay that US firms want to have the jam.
And certainly the Vice-Presidents connections should get more than others.

Doing so before the war really starts, will help to give best results afterwards.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:15 pm
I would give the French and the Germans the finger.
0 Replies
 
ul
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:22 pm
Bush Sr warning over unilateral action
From Roland Watson in Washington


THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. ....

timesonline.co.uk
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:26 pm
Walter

One of the few issues we agree on.......you are a gentleman and a scholar.

However before they can get to the "JAM" they may get a lot of practice putting out fires.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:27 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:29 pm
Walter - That an oil construction subsidiary of Haliburton should be barred from bidding on oil construction contracts because a current elected official is a former board member seems a bit of a stretch.

Now, if that company gets the contract and someone can show a factual reason why their bid was not the best bid, then you might have reason to start asking some questions...
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 01:35 pm
Bush Sr quips:

Quote:
The case against Saddam was "less clear" than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were "a little fuzzier today", he added.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:01 pm
Thanks, Jespah, for moving us! I wish we COULD get Roadrunner, but it's like, here in Bush country, they don't want us to get our information fast (if ever).
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:02 pm
Information is the root of all Evil? Keep'm in the dark and dusty places - Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:10 pm
BillW, Good link on Bush Sr. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:13 pm
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15300

Tell me again--who is the enemy?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:21 pm
He is us, no question about it, Diane. Now -- let's try and explain willful blindness... Those who support war and Bush remind me of the Stockholm syndrome -- captives who come to like their captors.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:22 pm
Diane, But the war-mongers keep telling us that Saddam is a danger to ALL of us, and he must be 'eliminated.' They will not change their tune even though Bush Sr and millions around this world is against this war with Iraq without UN approval. This administration is going to have their war even if they don't get the UN resolution passed this week. c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:23 pm
Iraq is between an rock and a hard place: no matter what they do or don't do, GWBush is going to start his war - his mind is made up. c.i.
0 Replies
 
ul
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:25 pm
From UN Wire (3/10)

"U.N. To Investigate American Spying

Sources inside U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's office confirmed that the United Nations will investigate allegations of U.S. spying on U.N. delegates, according to the London Observer.

Last week the newspaper broke the story of a leaked memo sent by Frank Koza, defense chief of staff at the U.S. National Security Agency, ordering heightened surveillance of U.N. delegates from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan. The revelation angered Chile and prompted three phone calls last week from Chilean President Lagos to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A 28-year-old woman who works at the United Kingdom's top-security Government Communication Headquarters has been arrested in connection with the leak. The newspaper quotes former NSA intelligence officer Wayne Madsen as speculating that there are "people in the U.S. and British intelligence community who are deeply concerned about their governments 'cooking' intelligence to link Iraq to al-Qaeda."

According to American intelligence experts, the espionage operation at the United Nations would have been authorized by U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush (London Observer, March 9)...."
0 Replies
 
ul
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:32 pm
"Iraq does not exist in a vacuum," Annan added. "What happens there will have profound implications -- for better or worse -- for other issues of great importance to the surrounding region, and to the world. The broader the consensus on Iraq, the better the chance that we can come together again and deal effectively with other burning conflicts in the world, starting with the one between Israelis and Palestinians" (Jim Wurst, UN Wire, March 10).


The latest news here:
It is said that Chirac said on French TV tonight he will not approve the resolution. His vote will be no.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/25/2024 at 01:17:35