Reply With Quote
Dictatorship is usually better than the alternative.
But don't let me get in the way of your chastisement of your fellow American liberals.
I'm sick and tired of your talk radio rhetoric. Do you want to know why Slick Willy cut the defense and intel budget? Maybe becuase of the Cold War ending? Our military at time was bloated and becoming outdated. Even your chickenhawk hero Cheney was voting to cut weapons and equipment. I believe was into making our military smaller and more mobile... but,but,but that means cut the defense and intel budget... get a clue whott. stop insulting us with these pathetically weak arguments that you wrap around yourself.
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 04-07-2007 at 04:28 PM.
Dictatorship is usually better than the alternative.
But don't let me get in the way of your chastisement of your fellow American liberals.
Dictatorship is better than majority rule?
Not if you don't like opressive governments...there's no way for a minority to rule a majory without discrimination and oppression. It's never been done.
Ok fine...Whatever..as long you as admit it was Clinton that cut it...thereore any intelligence failures immediately following his administration lie at his feet...you damn sure can't blame Bush II for them. And I don't really see how can you blame him for not trusting ours...it's called erring on the side of caution.
If Saddam was near getting them then better to remove him then wait for him to get them, given his lack of respect for international ins utions and law, as well as his known willingness to use them.
The faulty logic of your liberal agitating aside, I have no problem with repressive governance.
LMAO fair enough...at least you are honest. Which is more than Ic an say for our board libs.
I am always willing to respect the opinion of another as long as it's not inherently stupid, contracidtory and misguided....and citing falseities as facts.
whottt he made a hedge bet involving the lives of young americans, the future of our empire's global reputation, and was damn bull headed about it, i dont get what you're trying to prove
you act as if he asked and asked and asked; this was a blatant unilateral decision and if it was such a compelling argument why did 99% of our allies snuff us when we needed help in such a supposed worthy endeavor?
Short memory? Remember the oil for food program and
France and Germany's deals that they had and didn't want to
lose.........guess not or just selective memory.
RAY.
Not one bit of evidence that anyone in either goverment benefited from the oil for food program. Not one governmental official has ever been accused of benefiting from the oil for food deal. Maybe, just maybe, they were not convinced Iraq was an imminent threat to mankind? Maybe they valued their blood and treasure a little more than we did?
I don't think it's that simple.
Because 2 members of the Security Council were saying they would veto any resolution that involved removing Saddam from power militarily.you act as if he asked and asked and asked; this was a blatant unilateral decision
They were the ones that cut the discussion short.
and if it was such a compelling argument why did 99% of our allies snuff us when we needed help in such a supposed worthy endeavor?
What makes you think our allies are our allies?
They tend to be our allies, when they need us, and not when we need them...which is fair enough, I just don't understand why no one sees that.
They needed us during the coldwar, that's over now, and all the people living behind walls back then are now cut loose in Europe, and it's changed Europe, at least the traditional powers in Europe....all the Eastern Bloc ones are pretty Pro-Democracy comparitively, unfortunately, they are't a powerful EU force yet.
The cold war is over, old alliances mean nothing, it's a capitalist world now and it's just not good business sense to them, to support us. Business is business, and they'd like nothing more, that to see us go down economically, militarily, every way...because they don't see us as counterbalance to the Soviet Untion any more, they see us as a business compe or. Naively, in this case.
And truthfully, it would not have made any difference had they(Well maybe Russia) supported us militarily, but other than the Brits, the rest of Europe has Jack for military.
I mean we're the ones that carry out all the Major UN and Nato Military Action.
Our biggest opponent was ChIraq...this guy is just about the dirtiest politician in the Europe or North America, go read his background sometime. He had long standing ties.
Other countries have national, economic and political agendas too...but you look at their footprints and you look at ours, and there essentially no comparison as to who has left countries more screwed up and been less culturally sensitive.
No...there is not a drop of Oil in France and Germany, they are much more dependent on it than we are...and furthermore, the companies that were tied into the OFF scandal, were state owned.
Russian and France both have nationalized pretroleum industries...as does China...probably Germany.
Which governments are into big oil again?
Naive.
As does Venezuela, as does Iran....seeing a trend?
There are some other trends...like mass emmigration numbers, that are revealing as well. Emmigration numbers are pretty good indicator of a governments worthiness.
For example, Iran...it sits on huge Oil Reseves, has Nationalized that industry, yet it still has high unemployment, 15%, and mass emmigration ongoing...40% of the population lives below the poverty line.
I mean come on...it sits on more Oil than any country in the World except for 2 or 3 and it's doesn't have a huge population...yet it's got rampant unemployment and no one wants to live there.
Just wait if we go to war with them...
That 15% unemployment, and that 40% below poverty?
That's the terrorists pipeline...and IRan has better numbers than Saudi and Syria...
Nah...you just see, Bush=Bad, that's all you know.
Last edited by whottt; 04-09-2007 at 03:50 AM.
So your admitting the notion that the oil for food scandal is not correct? Just another baseless talking point?
Naive? I guess you woulod be considered a 'dead ender'.
In March 2003, the UN inspectors said they were beginning to receive more cooperation and do ents from the Iraqis and asked for more time.
But the decision to invade Iraq was evidence-free and several years old at that point, the neo- s/oilcos saw that Iraqi oil there for the slam-dunk taking, the military had put the invasion logistics in place, and Rove had a "president" to re-elect as "war president".
dubya, not Saddam, shut down the UN inspectors by starting the invasion.
The Iraq war and all of the neo- /Faux News/Limbaugh echo/slime machine are based on 100s of small and big lies repeated 1000s of times for years. Whott/yoni/clanny are nothing minuscle screw-jobs and nut-cases in that that lie machine.
Last edited by boutons_; 04-09-2007 at 10:27 AM.
This is from an individual who has a trouble putting
together two sentences without using reference to body
parts of a human in the most common of terms.
NOT a good week to talk about the US government not being on the "oppressive" side of the ledger - two trees worth of paper in my tax return.
^^And just think about what the original purpose of taxes. And
think about what we use them for today. That will really, really,
make your day.
Whottt, I quickly resorted to skimming mode a few responses into this thread, so perhaps I missed your acknowledgement elsewhere, BUT, George W. Bush is completely and utterly full of , which leads to absolute futility trying to discuss all of this rationally.
Reality TV
Pathological Liar
He's the decider
And what politician isn't?
I think Bush has oozing from every sweat pore on his body, which does distinguish him from the pack.
I could be wrong.
Thanks but...more info than I needed.
Way, way, way, way, way....way...more info than I needed.
way way way....
Here is a little refresher course for you GGA. Have a nice
day.
Iraq's Oil for Food Revisited
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
It is payback time. The United States has every intention of sidelining France, Germany and Russia in the lucrative reconstruction of a war-ravaged Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said, last Wednesday, that Washington is bent on "streamlining" the 8 years old U.N. oil-for-food program, now on hold since last Monday.
Money from Iraqi oil sales currently flows to an escrow account, co-managed by the Security Council's Office of the Iraq Program (OIP) and the Iraqi government. More than $42 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been signed since December 1996.
The U.N. states that "supplies and equipment worth almost $26 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $11.2 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline". Of these, reports the Washington Post, $8.9 billion in humanitarian goods, including $2.4 billion worth of food, are "ready to be imported into Iraq". The program's budget is c. $10 billion a year.
America and Britain wish to make Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the sole custodian of the program, exclusively empowered to approve applications and disburse funds - as he has hitherto been doing in north Iraq. According to their proposals and the Secretary General's 8-page letter, the program's remit will be extended to cover war refugees as well.
Other novelties: Annan would be authorized to renegotiate contracts - for instance, with Russian, French and Chinese energy behemoths - and prioritize purchases. Additional routes and sites - both inside and outside the besieged country - would be approved for Iraq's energy exports and for the delivery and inspection of humanitarian supplies.
Stratfor, the strategic forecasting consultancy, explains why this stratagem is anti-Russian and, more so, anti-French:
"The process would greatly speed up the aid disbursement process and cut out the middlemen who profit from the contractual go-betweens ... (which) have been almost exclusively French and Russian companies ... French and Russian banks usually have channeled the funds to the appropriate places ... The contracts were bribes to Paris and Moscow to secure French and Russian support for Iraq within the United Nations."
The non-disbursed portion of the fund has now ballooned to equal 2-3 years of Iraqi oil revenues, or more than $40 billion. Iraqi Vice President, Taha Yassin Ramadan, scathingly criticized Annan yesterday for seeking to expand the exclusive role of the U.N. in administering the oil-for-food program. He said the proposal was "based on a colonialist, racist and de able illusion that pushes the despot oppressors in Washington and London towards eliminating the state of Iraq from existence".
The increasingly cantankerous Mohammed Al-Douri, Iraq's disheveled Ambassador to the U.N., invoked the inevitable conspiracy theory. Iraq, he seethed, is to be eliminated and transformed "into colonies under the control of the world American and Zionist oil mafia". It is "a great insult to the United Nations". Annan's scheme "calls for the forfeiting of the oil of the Iraqi state and implementing the colonial illusion of the removal of the State of Iraq." - he thundered.
The Washington Post quotes a "confidential U.N. paper" as saying that "the U.N. image is already tarnished among the Iraqi people. It will be further damaged if the question of Iraq's oil resources is not managed in a transparent manner that clearly brings benefit to the Iraqi people."
The stalemate costs the under-nourished and disease-plagued people of Iraq dearly. More than three fifths of them - some 14 million souls - rely on the program for daily necessities. Over the weekend, experts from the 15 members of the Council, presided over by Germany, met to iron out the details. They were aided by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette, Benon Sevan, Executive Director of the OIP, UN Legal Counsel Hans Corell and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Kenzo Oshima.
Negroponte reiterated Washington's mantra that the United States "will ensure that Iraq's natural resources, including its oil, are used entirely for the benefit of the Iraqi people". But Annan did not sound convinced when he exhorted the USA and the United Kingdom in the letter he delivered last week to the Security Council:
"The primary responsibility for ensuring that the Iraqi population is provided with adequate medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs will rest with the authority exercising effective control in the country ... (But) without in any way assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, we, in the United Nations, will do whatever we can to help."
Thus, continues Annan's missive, money in the U.N. account, originally earmarked for equipment and infrastructure, would be diverted to purchase food and medicine "on a reimbursable basis". Who would reimburse the fund he left unsaid. Nor did he limit the newfangled "interim" oil-for-food regime in time.
Whatever the outcome of the recent tussle, the U.N. would still have to rely on the Iraqi government to distribute goods and provide services in the southern and central parts of this California-sized polity. The United Nations' own staff has been withdrawn upon the commencement of hostilities. Annan already conceded that "the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization should be allowed to continue to retain ... the authority to conclude oil contracts with national purchasers".
But Saddam Hussein's regime fails to see the urgency. Baghdad said last Monday that it had distributed food to the populace to last them through August. Even non-governmental organizations in the field claim that no shortages are to be expected until May. So, what's the hurry? - wonder the authorities aloud, as they cower in their offices, awaiting the next, inevitable, blast.
* This article was written on March 23, 2003. Re-reading it the other day gave me an eerie feeling of deja-vu.
Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com You can download 22 of his free ebooks in our bookstore
Ray have you even read this? No where is there any evidence that the govt.'s had anything to do with the food for oil program. I know ray it's nice being retired. Time for your nap yet?
That's it? your evidence?Stratfor, the strategic forecasting consultancy, explains why this stratagem is anti-Russian and, more so, anti-French:
"The process would greatly speed up the aid disbursement process and cut out the middlemen who profit from the contractual go-betweens ... (which) have been almost exclusively French and Russian companies ... French and Russian banks usually have channeled the funds to the appropriate places ... The contracts were bribes to Paris and Moscow
The US/UK oil-grab war always was, is now intended to benefit US/UK oilcos, primarily, even exclusively.
The US/UK oil-grab war excludes any other countries' oilcos only as a side-effect, not a primary, punitive/vindictive goal.
Iraq oil a zero-sum greed game where US/UK scores 1, everybody else scores 0.
After the Repugs lose Iraq, I expect Iran, China, and Russia to be the big oil winners, with US/UK being the big whiners.
This is the first whott thread I have ever read that he didnt call everyone idiots/assholes/etc.
And I actually enjoyed the entire thread and gained some new perspective.
Good thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions