0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 09:49 am
Foxfyre wrote:
If the 'administration' turned a blind eye and ignored the problem as the Guardian piece implied, how did Bayoil get indicted? Hmm?

And where are the outcries of outrage and demands for retribution from Jordan or Russia or France or Kofi Annan's son's company or any other countries/companies/organization who were involved in this mess?

Tell me somebody who cares other than that the United States be embarrassed and/or excoriated.

Bayoil is pretty small potatoes among American oil companies. If they broke the law, they will be dealt with in no uncertain terms. But to suggest that George Bush or the administration knew what was going on and did nothing about it is absurd.



Oh, I see you edited your post...

Well, let me tell you that I find it disgusting how the program was undermined to make some profit. This includes all countries or companies involved. And what has been said here so far certainly doesn't amount to "outcries of outrage and demands for retribution" against the US.

But when people say how evil all nations BUT the United States are for dealing with and bribing Iraq, and for profiting from the "Oil-for-Food scam", it should be noted that numerous US companies (including, but not limited to Bayoil) paid millions and millions of dollars of bribes, and US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime.

I think it should be noted.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 09:54 am
Another reason why this is important is because it blows the theory out of the water about the reason why the folks in UN was going to vote against the war if we were involved in it to the tune of 52% ourselves.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 10:07 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
To maintain a fig leaf of legality.


That, and to avoid the political firestorm at home if they admitted to the explicit, web-published PNAC agenda to establish military bases in southwest Asia. Fear-mongering (WoMD, and vague and purposefully "in-explitict" inferences of an Iraqi link to September 11th, retailed by Cheney alone) was originally used, but when that collapsed, then a phony moralistic stance of "liberating" the Iraqi people was advanced.

Simply bribing Hussein, which already had been done, was insufficient to either guarantee future privileged access to Iraq's light sweet crude, or to permit the establishment of military bases in southwest Iraq.

The Project for a New American Century had been urging, based upon the now known to be phony WoMD claim, as well as an appeal to American "strategic interests" (read, light sweet crude), the invasion of Iraq before the Shrub came into office. You can read here the PNAC's open letter to President Clinton dated January 26, 1998, within less than a year of its foundation. It is signed by, among others, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Cheney is also among the founding members of the PNAC, along with those named above.

In a letter dated in May, 1998, to the then Speaker of the House, the Republican Representative Newt Gingrich, and to the then Senate Majority Leader, Republican Senator Trent Lott, these same men urge the program they urged on Clinton in the letter above, along with an allegation that Clinton had not only ignored their previous advice (he was, of course, under no obligation to take that advice) but was abandoning the policy of containment. In that letter, they clearly outline their goals for Iraq:

The PNAC members listed above as signatory to the January letter wrote:
-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and

-- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power


The repetition of the "vital interests" chestnut, in conjuntion with a call to "establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region" as well as a call "to use that force to protect" said interests, is telling.

This program was in the works long before the Shrub was elected, long before he and his handlers cynically used the September 11th tragedy to forward this agenda.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:03 am
Setanta wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
To maintain a fig leaf of legality.


That, and to avoid the political firestorm at home if they admitted to the explicit, web-published PNAC agenda to establish military bases in southwest Asia. Fear-mongering (WoMD, and vague and purposefully "in-explitict" inferences of an Iraqi link to September 11th, retailed by Cheney alone) was originally used, but when that collapsed, then a phony moralistic stance of "liberating" the Iraqi people was advanced.

Simply bribing Hussein, which already had been done, was insufficient to either guarantee future privileged access to Iraq's light sweet crude, or to permit the establishment of military bases in southwest Iraq.

The Project for a New American Century had been urging, based upon the now known to be phony WoMD claim, as well as an appeal to American "strategic interests" (read, light sweet crude), the invasion of Iraq before the Shrub came into office. You can read here the PNAC's open letter to President Clinton dated January 26, 1998, within less than a year of its foundation. It is signed by, among others, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Cheney is also among the founding members of the PNAC, along with those named above.

In a letter dated in May, 1998, to the then Speaker of the House, the Republican Representative Newt Gingrich, and to the then Senate Majority Leader, Republican Senator Trent Lott, these same men urge the program they urged on Clinton in the letter above, along with an allegation that Clinton had not only ignored their previous advice (he was, of course, under no obligation to take that advice) but was abandoning the policy of containment. In that letter, they clearly outline their goals for Iraq:

The PNAC members listed above as signatory to the January letter wrote:
-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and

-- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power


The repetition of the "vital interests" chestnut, in conjuntion with a call to "establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region" as well as a call "to use that force to protect" said interests, is telling.

This program was in the works long before the Shrub was elected, long before he and his handlers cynically used the September 11th tragedy to forward this agenda.


Good post set. I never doubted the invasion was to meet the geopolitical imperatives of America and her allies (why else does one start a war? for training purposes? for fun?) and I told my mp as much just before the start of hostilities, when the wmd scare stories were at their height. Having said that there was imo a good case for getting rid of Saddam. What I did not bargain for was the incompetent way in which the occupying forces a) failed to nip the insurgency in the bud b) failed to show good faith to the Iraqi people by restoring basic utlilites
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:06 am
As you know, i have never supported the war, nor its objectives. Since March, 2003, however, i have consistently taken the "you broke it, you gotta fix it" stance. On such a basis i am as appalled as you by the incompetence with which this operation has been conducted, and the complete failure to keep good faith with the Iraqis.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:22 am
Quote:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.


This is the part that gets me; the 'legitimate right' of resistance.

Basically the Iraqi gov't has said that those resisting US occupation are doing so legally and morally; as long as they are killing US soldiers and not Iraqi civvies.

Does anyone else see this as an attempt to bring at least part of the resistance back into the fold of Iraqi society?

The implications of our 'ally' Iraq granting moral and physical clemency to those who would kill our soldiers certainly doesn't seem encouraging to me...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:38 am
Quote:
Thursday, November 17, 2005

Conventional Terror...
It sat on my PC desktop for five days.

klik meSource
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 11:45 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Thanks for the articles from the Independent Walter. I think for some people the penny is finally dropping. We invaded Iraq to take control of its oil. Why did we do this? Because Iraqi sweet crude was just too tempting. The world is moving into an era of depleting oil supply whilst demand rises exponentially from China and India. America already imports nearly 60% of its daily oil needs. As supplies from around the world start to deplete (e.g. Venezuala, North Sea) the areas where oil is still abundant take on even more significance. This explains why Iraq with its vast resources of high grade conventional oil, is the keystone to American foreign policy.


Having been told probably 2 years ago by Georgeob1 that Peal Oil was a pseudo scientific fantasy (a phrase that has stuck in my mind) it gives me some pleasure to report of this bill before the House of Representatives

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the `Man on the Moon' project to address the inevitable challenges of `Peak Oil'.

Whereas the United States has only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves; Whereas the United States produces 8 percent of the world's oil and consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, of which nearly 60 percent is imported from foreign countries;

Whereas developing countries around the world are increasing their demand for oil consumption at rapid rates; for example, the average consumption increase, by percentage, from 2003 to 2004 for the countries of Belarus, Kuwait, China, and Singapore was 15.9 percent;

Whereas the United States consumed more than 937,000,000 tonnes of oil in 2004, and that figure could rise in 2005 given previous projection trends;

Whereas, as fossil energy resources become depleted, new, highly efficient technologies will be required in order to sustainably tap replenishable resources;

Whereas the Shell Oil scientist M. King Hubbert accurately predicted that United States domestic production would peak in 1970, and a growing number of petroleum experts believe that the peak in the world's oil production (Peak Oil) is likely to occur in the next decade while demand continues to rise;

Whereas North American natural gas production has also peaked; Whereas the United States is now the world's largest importer of both petroleum and natural gas;

Whereas the population of the United States is increasing by nearly 30,000,000 persons every decade;

Whereas the energy density in one barrel of oil is the equivalent of eight people working full time for one year;

Whereas affordable supplies of petroleum and natural gas are critical to national security and energy prosperity; and Whereas the United States has approximately 250 years of coal at current consumption rates, but if that consumption rate is increased by 2 percent per year, coal reserves are reduced to 75 years:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(1) in order to keep energy costs affordable, curb our environmental impact, and safeguard economic prosperity, including our trade deficit, the United States must move rapidly to increase the productivity with which it uses fossil fuel, and to accelerate the transition to renewable fuels and a sustainable, clean energy economy; and
(2) the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency of the `Man on the Moon' project to develop a comprehensive plan to address the challenges presented by Peak Oi
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 12:46 pm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 01:22 pm
Why, them dirty Iraqis, they act as though they had been invaded without provocation by a foreign army bent on imposing its will on . . .


. . . oh wait . . . never mind . . .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 01:32 pm
What McG said on another thread, where this was posted earlier:

McGentrix wrote:
Imagine that. The Arab League calling for the withdrawal of US and Coalition forces from Iraq...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 02:21 pm
bump.....back in a bit
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 02:45 pm
Setanta's comment led me to re-read today's Chicago Tribune Editorial which said:

"It would be premature to withdraw now, That would encourage insurgents to attempt to take control of territory that has been wrested free for Iraqis, It would tell Iraqis, just as they prepare to risk their lives again to vote for the future, that the US may not be there to assist them."


"Congress did not authorize this war in order to topple a dictator and then let his shell-shocked populace fend for itself. The point was- and is-to create a free, peaceful ahd democratic Iraq that will play a leading positive role in the changing landspace of the Middle East"

end of quote

I will wait until the election on Dec. 15th. Then I will wait until the middle of summer just before the November elections in the US.

I am going to predict that the Iraqis will indeed be doing well at self-governance by that time and will have a large number of Iraqi forces in the field. At this time, the interim government controls 10 of 13 provinces. We shall see whether the control is extended to all of them by the middle of summer 2005.

It is useless to pretend that the left wingers are not praying for a US diplomatic and military defeat in Iraq.

John O' Sullivan in the Sun-Times today comments:

"The sad truth is that the Democrats are now the party of "counter-tribalists"--all those groups and individuals who are now disposed to think that the United States is in the wrong in ANY international dispute and who feel uncomfortable in taking America's side EVEN AGAINST fascist dictators such as Saddam and mad mullahs such as Osama bin Laden...."

"For what will happen if, in a year or six months the Iraq invasion looks like a success? What if the different Iraqi factions compromise in order to establish a secure democracy? What if Iraq's own forces get the upper hand over the terrorists? What if most US troops return home proud of having helped bring freedom to an oppressed people? And what if other Middle Eastern states follow Iraq's lead?

WOULD CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS THEN REVERSE THEMSELVES?? OR WOULD THAT BE TOO EMBARRASSING EVEN FOR HARDENED POLITICIANS"?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 02:52 pm
Mortkat wrote:
It is useless to pretend that the left wingers are not praying for a US diplomatic and military defeat in Iraq.

___________
Little you know about left wingers. And your prognostications about "success" in Iraq just shows how ignorant you are. But, hey, you're free to express your opinion about "Iraq success."

We continue to lose our men and women for a war that has been shown to be instigated by this administration that have operated on zero knowledge and effectiveness. We are also spending billions on this war that could well be used at home.

Your "Iraq success" is a wet dream.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 04:00 pm
Setanta wrote:
Why, them dirty Iraqis, they act as though they had been invaded without provocation by a foreign army bent on imposing its will on . . .


. . . oh wait . . . never mind . . .


Quote:
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.




oh really?

What I Knew Before the Invasion
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 04:01 pm
But Cicerone- reserve your ire for the Chicago Tribune editorialists and for John O'Sullivan. Better yet, show how they are mistaken in their statements.

I can wait!!!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 04:14 pm
Closed door meeting at the White House.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 04:35 pm
Mortkat, With your question at the end of the article "WOULD CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS THEN REVERSE THEMSELVES?? OR WOULD THAT BE TOO EMBARRASSING EVEN FOR HARDENED POLITICIANS"?, it just seems you support the editorialist's comments. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, and I'll apologize.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 06:22 pm
Are you absoultely dense, Cicerone, or just dissembling?

You do know what quotation marks are, don't you?

If you will really read the post, you will find that the line you object to was written by O' Sullivan. It is NOT MY QUESTION. It is O'Sullivan's question. Try to pay attention to quotation marks please.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Nov, 2005 06:34 pm
Mortkat, I'm an senile old man that misses many things. Sorry bout that!
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/19/2025 at 06:59:28