Which companies will get the work in rebuilding Iraq?

[Swamp Fox]

The winners will not be exclusively American and British. First of all, there are lots of foreigners who own stocks in American and British companies - including French citizens and French multinationals. Second, and, by the same token, if the French companies are excluded, their American and British shareholders - individuals and corporate alike - will suffer.

I don't want to do the French any favors, but I don't see how we can exclude them and not hurt ourselves.

Lots of money to be made in Iraq after the war (http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1649479)

[turntablist]

this is sad,

How easy is it to talk of the exploitation of another nation.
Surely, if UK or USA had the same kinda oil supply as iraq and saudi, they would not be handing out the contracts to foreign companies.

Surely, what the Iraqis have been put through, from Saddam Hussain, and the US and UK Gov's , it must be about time when they can benefit from their OWN NATURAL resource.

[ethics]

I am sure they will, actually, a lot more than they were under Hussain.

[turntablist]

I actually disagree,

When you research on George Bush and Dick Cheney, and you read into haliburton oil company, and then you read more...eg about the talebans trip to TEXAS in the 1990's. why? to discuss the construction of a pipeline. Its in the news archives, eg check out the BBC website.
when you read about these men, and their oil connections, its very hard to assume that the oil is going to go to the iraqis.

Dont forget, it was the US and the UK that supplied Sadaam the chemicals. When the actual attack happened it was not seen as a barbaric move, infact UK and US supplied him before and after the attack.
So, even though he did commit those attrocities, they were funded by UK and US chemicals. Why else did they give it to him, to have fun with?????

Iraq will be a war zone for many years to come. Even after the US installs whatever 'puppet'/Gov it wants, their will still be a lot of hatred, simply due to americas attitude towards its foreign policy.
That same policy would be tried in a court of law had it been any other nation on earth.

Iraq will be a war zone for many years to come..

Dont forget, Were going after Iraq because we think they might have weapons of mass destruction..., yeah, but what about all of the US's aresnal of nuclear weapons..oh, I forgot, they dont count. (not to mention Israels 'large' aresnal)
Considering much of the worlds oil resources are in the caspian basin, these regions will always be unstable, due to the US's Lust and greed for ownership of the oil resources.
These areas have many muslims populated within it, and they will continually fight for many years to come.


peace,
turntablist

[ethics]

Originally posted by turntablist
When you research on George Bush and Dick Cheney, and you read into haliburton oil company, and then you read more...eg about the talebans trip to TEXAS in the 1990's. why? to discuss the construction of a pipeline. Its in the news archives, eg check out the BBC website.
when you read about these men, and their oil connections, its very hard to assume that the oil is going to go to the iraqis.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Bush and Cheney's terms are up in a year, they could be ousted. I seriously doubt that this war is about Bush and Cheney's lust for money and oil.

And my favorite statement would apply here, extraordinary accusations demand extraordinary evidence.

Dont forget, it was the US and the UK that supplied Sadaam the chemicals. When the actual attack happened it was not seen as a barbaric move, infact UK and US supplied him before and after the attack.

If there was one incident I've read about more than the Iraq/Iran war, I doubt a topic exists. The above is semi-truth, taken out of context and it would state exactly what you do above. Yes, the US supplied Iraq on the chemicals, but they didn't supply them to be used on people, any people. The US also supplied Israel, and yet two countries are vastly different in the way they are lead.

I honestly do not know how chemicals came in to play in this discussion, since my assertion was that the Iraqis would be benefitting from their oil a lot more after this war than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Dont forget, Were going after Iraq because we think they might have weapons of mass destruction..., yeah, but what about all of the US's aresnal of nuclear weapons..oh, I forgot, they dont count. (not to mention Israels 'large' aresnal)

Remind me when Israel used it not only on their enemies but their own people? Thanks.

War,

ethics.

[Stiofán]

turnablist, these are the same tired arguments bandied about here for the last year. I'm losing the energy to do battle anymore with the US Government haters. Let's just say <i>all</i> nations have governments that act in their own interests and leave it at that.

One point of clarification, though. Halliburton is not an oil company, it is what's known as an oil services company, i.e., they help other companies drill by providing equiptment and construction services. They don't control any reserves themselves.

[turntablist]

Yeah, weve went off the oil money issue, but this actual issue arises because the US and the UK have a certain control already in the Oil market in a region where niether of the countries are present in the region of the oil.

Only Israel and America is allowed to have nuclear weapons. All others have sanctions placed against them if they try to produce nuclear capability..that initself is double standards, wouldnt you agree?

Even the UN acknowledges the US's flagrant abuse of power, and when the US was to be tried, the US simply didnt accept it.
People are angry in the middle east becuase this is obvious disregard to having a world international authority, meaning ALL countries are treated equally. If the US can get away with it, no-one else can, because, the US makes sure they cant mass nuclear capabilites like itself. Through foreign policy and its sanctions, it can maintain its military might.

After all, the only reason Israel hasn't been in court for its occupation, and treatment of the palestinians which has went on for many years is because of the US. Also, the only reason the UN inspectors arent allowed in Israel is because of the US.
If the majority of the world got their way, both would be dis-armed.

You see, if the oil was in Uk or the US, then we wouldnt be letting the Iraqis and the Saudi's to be gaining the majority of the oil contracts and they wouldnt be saudi companies in our region, running the show of our oil..
is this not true?

Yes, the iraqi people might benefit from the oil in the short run. But imagine if they had full control of their own oil, and the Un also overlooked them, dont you think they would be able to recover faster than trying to use any other 'aid packages' or government loans which would be offered to them?

[turntablist]

InsAgt,

By owning the equipment they garauntee themselves part of the on going oil extraction process in that region, which the US will benefit from, not the Iraqis.
It will be the US's equipment that has the worlds largest reserves of oil filtering through it. SO, in essence, it is them who can control the price of the oil. They WILL have their supply, regardless of consideration of others.

Also I am sorry, I made haliburton sound like a oil company, yes its provides a construction service. Something which Osama Bin LAden has put money into himself, with regards to setting up companies with Bush and cheney involved.
He is known world wide for his construction services, that is fact.


But never mind, weve heard it all before,
Old stale arguments against the US.
Even although no-one finds it odd, that dick cheney is the same guy who has shook saddams hand himself with a cheerful smile on his face less than 30 years ago, is now conducting a war against the man.

Even though the Uk and the US supply Saudi with weapons and arms, it is known to have a brutal regimes oppressing the people of the country. All oil profits go direct to the elite un-islamic royal family or London or New York. Not the people of the country.
Hmm, what about alll those beheadings and public executions, their not just hype, they actually occur on the streets.
I dont hear complaints of why we deal with them when they commit such acts???

[mikeky]

Originally posted by turntablist
...Even the UN acknowledges the US's flagrant abuse of power, and when the US was to be tried, the US simply didnt accept it.
People are angry in the middle east becuase this is obvious disregard to having a world international authority, meaning ALL countries are treated equally. If the US can get away with it, no-one else can, because, the US makes sure they cant mass nuclear capabilites like itself. Through foreign policy and its sanctions, it can maintain its military might...
Let me ask a question for you to seriously consider: Would you feel safer in a world where the U.S. and U.K. totally disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons, but other countries (China, Russia, India, Pakistan) did not?

[mikeky]

Originally posted by turntablist
...By owning the equipment they garauntee themselves part of the on going oil extraction process in that region, which the US will benefit from, not the Iraqis.
It will be the US's equipment that has the worlds largest reserves of oil filtering through it. SO, in essence, it is them who can control the price of the oil. They WILL have their supply, regardless of consideration of others.
If the Iraqis receive the money from the oil, will it not benefit them? Even if the price is lower, the quantities sold will be much more when sanctions are lifted, boosting the flow of cash to their economy.

Also I am sorry, I made haliburton sound like a oil company, yes its provides a construction service. Something which Osama Bin LAden has put money into himself, with regards to setting up companies with Bush and cheney involved.
He is known world wide for his construction services, that is fact.
Bin Laden's family is involved in construction services and has had some dealings with some Bush companies, but there was no direct connection to Osama, unless we've regressed to the attitude where his family is held accountable for his actions.

[Coot]

But never mind, weve heard it all before,
Old stale arguments against the US.
Even although no-one finds it odd, that dick cheney is the same guy who has shook saddams hand himself with a cheerful smile on his face less than 30 years ago, is now conducting a war against the man.

Actually, that would be Donald Rumsfeld, and no I don't find it odd at all.

Even though the Uk and the US supply Saudi with weapons and arms, it is known to have a brutal regimes oppressing the people of the country. All oil profits go direct to the elite un-islamic royal family or London or New York. Not the people of the country.
Hmm, what about alll those beheadings and public executions, their not just hype, they actually occur on the streets.
I dont hear complaints of why we deal with them when they commit such acts???

Saudi Arabia is under Sharia law. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/621126.stm) By our standards, it may be brutal, but it is not even in the same class as Saddam's Ba'ath Party. The kind of statements you're making are indicative of a head filled with skewed facts and an inability to see a bigger picture.

To understand the Arabs, as best we westerners can, you have to look at what Riyadh was 50 years ago. It was a camel dung mud and tent overgrown village that was populated by bedouins part of the year and largely deserted the other part as the bedouins moved their sheep and camels along the desert trade routes. Today, Riyadh is a modern city of 4-5 million people. To say that Saudi Arabia is a culture in transition would be a huge understatement. It is a culture that is having huge difficulties squaring its cultural past with its present day realities.

As harsh as the Sharia is, Saudi Arabia is making some substantive strides in its modernization. Regional and citywide government elections are taking place. It remains to be seen whether both the ruling royalty and the people themselves choose the path of democratization. So, yes we arm the Saudis, but the Saudis are not wholesale slaughtering their dissidents either.

[Sierra Mike]

I thought I would jump into this thread and, in true air cavalry style, shoot the hell out of everything...but I'm too busy laughing at the fact that, after all this time, we're now back to Conspiracy Theories 1 and 2.

If nothing else, the left needs some new theories. The old ones are being disproven pretty quickly.

SM

[Stiofán]

Originally posted by turntablist
By owning the equipment they garauntee themselves part of the on going oil extraction process in that region, which the US will benefit from, not the Iraqis.

Foreign countries provide all the equipment and the oil extraction in all the ME region. They pay royalties to the host countries, which has made these countries fabulously rich. Unfortunately, most of the money goes to the ruling class/royals/dictator in charge and not to the people. This is not the fault of the oil companies or the foreign countries. As far as Iraq, they will be better off if even a portion of the oil wealth Saddam siphoned off will now actually get to the people, regardless of who drills for it, and the only change there is likely to be is that it will be drilled by the US and Britain instead of by France and Russia.


It will be the US's equipment that has the worlds largest reserves of oil filtering through it. SO, in essence, it is them who can control the price of the oil. They WILL have their supply, regardless of consideration of others.

No, the host country controls the price at the well. The US companies can only control how much they directly charge the American consumer, and indirectly how much other nations pay as we compete on the spot market. These companies will make a nice profit, which is what they are in business to do, the same as Al Jezzera.



Also I am sorry, I made haliburton sound like a oil company, yes its provides a construction service. Something which Osama Bin LAden has put money into himself, with regards to setting up companies with Bush and cheney involved.
He is known world wide for his construction services, that is fact.

And Britain pushed the Turks out of Iraq, then ruled until 1932, however they didn't fully leave until 1955, but I wouldn't blame the sorry state of modern Iraq on them either.


All oil profits go direct to the elite un-islamic royal family or London or New York. Not the people of the country.

Agreed, and who's fault is that? Some poor mail clerk working in the world trade center, who suddenly finds he has to fly 70 stories to stay alive? Hardly. Let's give some credit to those that deserve it, like the rich sheiks or the mullahs who retain their power by brainwashing the ignorant unfortunates.


<small>edit to clean up my crappy code</small>

[turntablist]

let me ask you a question,

Wouldnt you feel safer if NO POWER on earth had the capability wage nuclear war?
Wouldnt the world be EVEN safer then?

Personally, I would not like any government to hold nuclear weapons that is in breach of UN laws, such as Iraq under Saddam, and the US- under Bush.

You ask would I feel safer if UK and the US disarmed whilst the others refused to do so
we CANNOT SAY WHAT WILL HAPPEN, IF THE US WOULD AGREE TO DISARM THIS WOULD BE A BREAKTHROUGH IN-ITSELF. That has NEVER occured in history.That situation has not arisen, and probably will not be allowed to reach that stage, because that would result in the world being dis-armed, and the US would not be able to expliot people/countries as easily, nor would Israel.
Ok, for sake of argument lets pretend that EVERYONE agrees to disarm.
Now remember, were still in this imaginary world of peace---Because of world peace, the biggest providers of weapons etc would dramatically decrease its sales revenues worldwide, and peace would prevail. Just this peace alone would hit the US, because they are the WORLDS LARGEST SUPPLIER OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT.
So really, its pays the US to have wars on this planet, because then the arms and military contracts keep flowing in.
Another way to look at it is- if the world was an aggressive and unpeaceful place, where war was commonplace, and people were in FEAR of being attacked, an organisation who specialises in the production of high-tech military supplies is bound to be a profitable organisation. The description I gave of the world really sounds like the present climate, with fear, wars, terrorists.

The only people opposing world wide disarming is america and isreal. That is fact. All the other countries may have weapons,but then it is only the US that has carried out all 3 types of attacks: Nuclear, Chemical and Biological.

Also note, if you consider the countries you gave, India, Pakistan, China andRussia, if you add up the whole populations of the areas, that is a large percentage of the worlds population. Now lets tally-up our 'allies', Uk, US and even Israel for good will!
Now the allies dont even make anywhere near that of the worlds population compared to the others mentioned, so then why should they not have a right to nuclear capability like us?
Why should they not be able to own their own oil pipelines, and let their own countries flourish? Considering most of the worlds population is on that side of the globe, why should they not be able to defend themselves against people who try and steal their wealth or land, just as we expect to do so, if we were attacked?
Why should not the wealth be distributed more equally around the Middle East, where the oil is coming from?

I just seen the extra posts,

PEOPLE MUST UNDERSTAND SAUDI IS NOT UNDER SHARIA LAW.
It may be portrayed as a sharia law, but islamic is it most definately not.
The majority of people hate the royal family, and are oppressed.
I worked in Dubai airport, where young girls from russia and pakistan were brought for the pleasure of the shiekhs kids.Something to practise and play on...
It is not allowed the opportunity of election, which under the sharia states must be enforced if the population are unhappy with the present state. The distribution of Wealth is not in accordance with Shariah, therfore not making it a Shariah Law system.
Even Osama made it publically known that the Saudi government was on his 'sell-outs' list, and to make sure their was no overthrow of Government in Saudi (which allowed US contracts have/keep their oil secure), American bases were installed in Saud.

Islamic Law is not what the TV shows you. The women covered up head to toe, man with a gun, no TV, no Fun. Get shot for this or that. Discriminating women.
No, its like any other law system that tries to ensure a good quality of life for its followers.

I would like to hear from ANYBODY that thinks I am wrong about Saudi and Shariah LAw. Obviously, any MUSLIMS should be able to lend their own valuable opinions aswell. But I want to hear from anyone that understands Shariah Law.



InsAgt, you say its not oil companies or the US's fault that the wealth isnt distributed properly within the country.
Well, look at the Saudi government that has been 'placed' in charge. Not exactly freely elected, nor have they been allowed or encouraged to change in many years.
Look at Iraq, Sadaam held his Power by the US and the UK backing he recieved, and also sitting on the second largest oil supply. He was brutal to his own people aswell, yet we still got oil from him, and did business with him.
Both Groups, Iraqi and Saudi governments, have been regimes that have seeked to benefit themselves at the expense of their populations.
What a coincidence that both have been backed by the US.

Its a sorry thing to Admit, but its in Americas Interests to make sure these kind of governments/regimes exist, because if a democratically elected government in those areas appeared and they decided not to deal with the US until its other foreign policies had been sorted out, or even because the US had violated UN laws which it has done, then where does that leave the western worlds oil supply?Thats when Bush's nuclear weapons would be required.

[ShinyTop]

No, I would not feel safer if no power had nuclear weapons. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. There is enough hatred in the world that somebody, somewhere would build nuclear weapons and hold the rest of the world hostage.

Saddam has gone to war twice before this one. And you see nothing wrong with him having nukes. Sorry, that kind of thinking kind of says it all.

[turntablist]

Sorry,

I think I gave you the impression I dont mind saddam if he has nukes...no, I totally object to Iraq having weapons, just as much as I object to all the other coutries handling them. But you have to acknowledge that also includes the US.
By far, the US has the most nuclear capability, and also has in previous history, used them the most.
Is this not true?

[ShinyTop]

What's your point? The lives saved by the use of the two bombs in WWII justified their use. And remember, before you keep pointing a finger, the effects of nuclear weapons were not near as well known as now.

The US was second in nuclear weapons by far at the peak of the cold war. Where it stands now, I do not know and I don't think anybody knows how many exist in the states of the USSR or China.

But again, what's your point? I trust us with the weapons. I know our people and the people will eventually decide the government. I do not believe in pacifism and I believe any country that allows the pacifists to take over will just be on the way out. Until the day when all people are peaceful I will continue backing my country being the strongest around.

Oh, and arms supplier, I really don't know if we are the biggest around. Again, we don't know about Russia and China. If we are, it is definitely a title earned only recently. Russia and China have supplied far more arms around the world than we have. Hell, we almost got rid of a government for not following the wishes of the people in arms distribution.

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by turntablist
I actually disagree,

When you research on George Bush and Dick Cheney, and you read into haliburton oil company, and then you read more...eg about the talebans trip to TEXAS in the 1990's. why? to discuss the construction of a pipeline. Its in the news archives, eg check out the BBC website.
when you read about these men, and their oil connections, its very hard to assume that the oil is going to go to the iraqis.

Dont forget, it was the US and the UK that supplied Sadaam the chemicals. When the actual attack happened it was not seen as a barbaric move, infact UK and US supplied him before and after the attack.
So, even though he did commit those attrocities, they were funded by UK and US chemicals. Why else did they give it to him, to have fun with?????

Iraq will be a war zone for many years to come. Even after the US installs whatever 'puppet'/Gov it wants, their will still be a lot of hatred, simply due to americas attitude towards its foreign policy.
That same policy would be tried in a court of law had it been any other nation on earth.

Iraq will be a war zone for many years to come..

Dont forget, Were going after Iraq because we think they might have weapons of mass destruction..., yeah, but what about all of the US's aresnal of nuclear weapons..oh, I forgot, they dont count. (not to mention Israels 'large' aresnal)
Considering much of the worlds oil resources are in the caspian basin, these regions will always be unstable, due to the US's Lust and greed for ownership of the oil resources.
These areas have many muslims populated within it, and they will continually fight for many years to come.


peace,
turntablist Christ almighty! :rolleyes: -Ken <b><u><i>DID</u></i></b> come back! :violin:

[turntablist]

Hi,

....The US was second in nuclear weapons by far at the peak of the cold war. Where it stands now, I do not know and I don't think anybody knows how many exist in the states of the USSR or China.......NOR DO WE ABOUT THE US's Nuclear weapons.


.....But again, what's your point? I trust us with the weapons . I know our people and the people will eventually decide the government. I do not believe in pacifism and I believe any country that allows the pacifists to take over will just be on the way out. Until the day when all people are peaceful I will continue backing my country being the strongest around.

So just as you back trust your country and its beliefs, im sure normal people over their, like ureself, feel that their government/country might be right in protecting/preparing itself.

I mean, it boils down to who has the right to decide if a regime is wrong and should be replaced.
Unfortunatley, for long enough the US has claimed that role.

Why lets look at those pretty facts:


1953: US overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran; US installs Shah as dictator

1954: US overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala; 200,000 civilians killed

1963: US backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in South East Asia

September 11, 1973: US stages coup in Chile; Democratically-elected president Salvador Allende assassinated; Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed; 5000 Chileans murdered

1977: US backs military rulers of El Salvador; 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed

1980's: US trains Osama bin Laden and Mujahideen to kill Soviets; CIA gives them 3 billion

1981: Reagen administration trains and funds 'Contras'; 30,000 Nicaraguans die

1982: US provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manul Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington; US invades Panama and removes Noriega; 3000 Panamanian civilian casualties

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from US

1991: US enters Iraq; Bush reinstates dictator in Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs 'weapons factory' in Sudan; factory turns out to be making aspirin

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis; UN estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions

2000-01: US gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid"

2001-02-03: US declares 'war on terror', sacks Afghanistan, attacks Iraq, tells their armed forces 'you are the world's hope for peace'



Well thats some of its conduct, and theres loads more reading available!

[Biker]

And your government is squeaky clean? Parliament there has had its share of shady deals and questionable actions as well. Those in glass houses............... ;)

[ethics]

Yet another one quoting the <a href="http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/sudan.php">ignorant Michael Moore. </a> I am so glad I am not even in this thread.

Folks, if you are going to quote anyone, at the very least cite the source.

[Cariad]

Originally posted by Biker
And your government is squeaky clean? Parliament there has had its share of shady deals and questionable actions as well. Those in glass houses............... ;)

I don't recall.

[mikeky]

turntablist, I suggest an exercise for you, that rather than looking at only sites like those of Michael Moore, you search for those that give you an opposite perspective on the events you cited. It might serve as an indicator that such events were seldom black and white. With the benefit of hindsight and tunnel vision, everything can be twisted to indict the U.S. No doubt mistakes were made and some actions were just plain wrong, but that doesn't make the U.S. any worse than many other nations executing what they thought at the time was the best foreign policy approach.

[turntablist]

Mikeky,

I suggest an exercise for you.
rather than looking at only those sites like that of the News, why not approach it from a different angle.
After all, everone is entitled to their opinion.


I mean, lets face it, the west is sorted. Nobody can deny that places such as the US and UK have the most advances in the past century, THAT HAS BEEN AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.
Slavery being a perfect example.
Nobody can deny that, a certain people explioted others for its own gains.
Even if other Govs have been involved in it, by far the main consumer of slavery was the American White man. FACT


Now lets consider the rest of the world. Maybe you dont realise but their is more population in the 'rest of the world' than the US and UK allies.
So maybe they have a right to arm?
I mean their is MORE of them than of you.
Shouldnt they be allowed to voice their opinions, and troubles with US government foreign policy?
HOW CAN WE CHANGE THE POLICY
the US makes sure it doesnt have to. Without having proper discussions the issues cant be challenged, which in essence benefits the white man in the US, at the expense of others.

No government is squeky clean, I never said that was the case.
BUT THE US HAS MADE IT ITS OBJECTIVE to control certain areas of the world.
You cannot deny the US has been a major part in wars that have been carried out in the past, in imposing sanctions on children in Irag, which dont directly affect the leader....abd so many others.



After all, if the west has exploited the rest of the world in the past, then why shouldnt that change NOW?

The US needs these kind of foreign policies it hands out, because that is how it holds it POWER.

Man, this isnt about Michael Moore, Its way above that.

What one must remember is that the majority of the Worlds Population is NOT WHITE, NOR AMERICAN.
Everyday this fact grows....time passes and this still continues.
Now you reach a stage where the rest of the world has had enough of the bullying, and is prepared to fight.
ONLY WITH WEAPONS CAN THE US EVER WIN. POPULATION CONSIDERED, THEY CANNOT FIGHT A FAIR WAR.

[Robert Harris]

YAWN.

[turntablist]

I mean, the US will always have to use foreign policy and wars as a way of keeping its status.

That in itself is bullying and expoliting others for your own gain.
exact same if a classroom if full of students, and one is a bully with muscles. now, he may not have to hit anyone because he can influence them through fear. So ineffect, the bully cant be caught for bullying, but can control the over-all majoirty of the Classroom due to his FEAR factor control.

[Coot]

Ho Hum...turntablist, here's another dose of reality for you....you might wish to read up on modern slavery in the middle east. (http://www.anti-slavery.org/global/worldevil.html)

[Twingo]

Turntablist, I haven't been able to understand a single one of your rants. Maybe my bullshit meter is set a little too high, but nothing you've said even resembles facts, just taking things off into random tangents. I agree with Robert ... *Yawn*

[mikeky]

turntablist, I'm always willing to listen to different ideas, but prefer those that aren't based on stretched facts. In any event, leaving prior actions in the past, what is the appropriate path forward for the US/UK? How should they deal with the Middle East, China, NK, and others?

[ShinyTop]

And what path should be taken to your utopian world of disarmament? Who first, who inspects?

[Sierra Mike]

Turntablist,

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from US

Funny, when I was there, I only saw a lot of Soviet-era stuff. Please provide me with an attributable list of American-made weaponry that were used on Kuwait, because last I checked, the US did not manufacture T-55/62/72/80 tanks and any of the BTR/BMP family of APCs. They also did not make the S-60, SA-7, SA-14, etc., etc.

Waiting for your evidence.

SM

[Sierra Mike]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
And what path should be taken to your utopian world of disarmament? Who first, who inspects?

Why, clearly Saddam and bin Laden should be able to inspect and ensure the US is completely defanged.

SM

[Sierra Mike]

Oh, and Turntablist:

For your edification:

Who Armed Iraq? (http://www.xanga.com/item.asp?user=dissidentfrogman&tab=weblogs&uid=14915553)

And in case you can't click a link, I offer forth the following to cut-n-paste into your browser, because I'm sure you really, really wanted to see this:

http://www.xanga.com/item.asp?user=dissidentfrogman&tab=weblogs&uid=14915553

Kudos to David (halldor) for making this available.

SM

[ShinyTop]

Don't let facts interrupt him and Moore, they just interfere with a good rant.

[Sierra Mike]

I know, but this particular leftist guerrilla is spouting nothing by rhetoric and conspiracy theories that are just way too old and tired.

Am still awaiting answers from him on this particular issue, though.

SM

[ethics]

http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif

[ethics]

Would sort of explain those AK-47. Lest, people feel we started making those?

[mikeky]

LOL, bloodthirsty warmongers. The frogman does nice graphs!

[Fiona]

Lord have mercy! The scary thing is somebody might listen to this "view" and believe it... CRIPES!

I'd argue, but it's hard to defend against propaganda smears... "you can't reason someone out of someting they werent reasoned into" I think it was Einstein or Twain... (?)

[Sierra Mike]

Originally posted by mikeky
LOL, bloodthirsty warmongers. The frogman does nice graphs!

Nice sense of sarcastic humor, too. Gotta love that.

SM

[Sierra Mike]

Still awaiting your response to my question, Turntablist. Given the tenor of your claims, you have airtight evidence already at hand to prove your point.

Pull it out and put it on the table, pal.

SM

[Stiofán]

Hell, I'm still waiting for him to answer my post from last night. He spouts assertions, but when refuted pont by point, he disregards them and moves on to even more unbelievable tripe.

[Sierra Mike]

Golly, not like that's ever happened before. :rolleyes:

Nothing like clamping one's hands over one's ears to avoid hearing anything unpleasant, like maybe something factual and true.

SM

[wafen]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
who inspects?

France of course you silly.:nut: