Halliburton: Life can be very convienient [Archive]

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 04:16 PM

Halliburton has wider Iraq role

Army letter says oil driller unit got distribution rights in noncompetitive oil well fire contract.
May 7, 2003: 10:44 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Army Corps of Engineers has said a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton Co. basically gives the company the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry.

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who asked for more details on the Halliburton contract, said, "It now appears ... that the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil."

Officials previously had said the multimillion-dollar contract only dealt with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed.

But responding to Waxman, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers said the company would: put out oil well fires and assess the facilities; clean up oil spills or other environmental dangers at the sites; repair or reconstruct damaged infrastructure; operate facilities; and distribute products.

The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, including Waxman, to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract -- charges the White House has denied.

And the Army has promised it will eventually issue a new contract, subject to an open bidding process, for longer-term work in Iraq. That may be why Halliburton's competitors haven't joined the chorus of criticism about the contract; they're likely hoping for a piece of the action.

Vice President **** Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000. Cheney sold all his shares of Halliburton during the presidential election of 2000, and he has promised to give to charity any profit from Halliburton stock options he still owns. He is still paid a set amount by Halliburton every year, but he's guaranteed that money even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

"[Cheney] has nothing at all to do with awarding these contracts, the bidding process or the current work orders," a Cheney spokeswoman said.

Waxman had written Flowers seeking answers as to why the contract has "no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer." Waxman has said the contract to Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) could be worth up to $7 billion over two years.

In his response, Flowers said that sum was based on the "worst scenario" that a large proportion of Iraq's 1,500 wells would be set ablaze, and that there would be "massive intentional oil spills and pollution resulting from the fires." It turned out only a few oil wells were set ablaze during the war.

Flowers said "task orders are placed only for work that is required in the near term."

"For each order, the government establishes the scope of work and estimated cost. The scope of work is presented to the contractor, who prepares its technical and cost proposal for accomplishing the work," wrote Flowers.

He did not give an overall dollar amount on the contract.

Halliburton has said accusations that it received preferential treatment were off-base. It has said KBR is the only contractor that could implement the complex contingency plan.

In a March press release, Halliburton said once the oil well fires were put out, it would "provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure."

This article can be found at your usual shamelessly liberal web site:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/index.htm

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 04:16 PM

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 04:18 PM

Let's also bear in mind that there are two giants here in the field - Halliburton and Schlumberger. The latter is a French company. And since the current adminstration is not so happy with France, Schlumberger was completely cut out.

It is not the same to talk of bulls as it is to be in the bullring.
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 04:30 PM

MDS_Geist wrote:
- Let's also bear in mind that there are two giants
- here in the field - Halliburton and Schlumberger.
- The latter is a French company. And since the
- current adminstration is not so happy with France,
- Schlumberger was completely cut out.

Halliburton is probably the best company to do the job.

It only shows what this war was all about.

<script>var a=document.body.getElementsByTagName("u");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if [a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["buccaneer")!=-1) a[i].style.color="orange"}</script>

<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 04:45 PM

Ah, I see we are making associations again, I like associations /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Can I play?

Statistics show that over 80% of criminals confined in a prison have tattoos. So I guess that concludes that tattoos cause crime! *gasp* we better ban tattoos!

OK, if the stupid (but technically true statistically) joke doesn't bare a resemblance to the current situation, let me explain.

Even if this article is completely 100% inclusive and true, which the fact that Geist already has more information on it in his mind, shows that it isn't completely, but even if it is, this does not prove in any way that it was the motivation for the war.

This could simply be a little side benefit, or a result of the war. Frankly, how much money did we spend fighting this war? I'm sure the liberals' answer for getting money for the government is always by taxing the people. The successful people who actually earned their money to be exact. But that's only the politicians, the actual liberal people still want lower taxes (contradictory anyone?)

So basically, if we try to settle our debts from this war by taxing people, people will complain that Bush is stealing our money. If we get capital gain from the abundance of oil, then the people complain. I don't think there's a third option, and even if there is, I'm sure the people will find a way to complain about that too.

I still don't see any good suggestions, just complaining.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 05:54 PM

Fascinating rebuttal demon, if you werent such a blatant zealot one might be inclined to concede you may indeed have an interesting point/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (cept for that tattoo crap)/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
So in that spirit:
Cmon MNG, you know we cant conduct these liberation actions for free!
Power requires funding, exertion of power even more so. One cannot conquer the world in an economic vacuum/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 06:04 PM

I'm a zealot? For what exactly?

Edit: BTW, my tattoo comparison is less a comparison between tattoos and crime and more of a comparison of the way people use events to correlate to each other. This oil and war thing can very well be a simple backward association victim like the silly tattoo idea. Funny enough Gandalf, there was an actual study with criminals and tattoos and the idiot who did the study actually, sincerely, concluded what I said as a joke, haha. So the next time you blow something off thinking it's just a silly joke, consider the fact that there really may be someone stupid enough to believe it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

Message Edited on 05/07/0302:09PM by Demon_Mustang

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 06:33 PM

buccaneer wrote:
- Halliburton is probably the best company to do the
- job.

Based on what I have seen and heard, this certainly seems to the case.

- It only shows what this war was all about.

How so? This is simply one aspect of dealing with post-war Iraq. It does not prove anything.

It is not the same to talk of bulls as it is to be in the bullring.
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 06:38 PM

"How so? This is simply one aspect of dealing with post-war Iraq. It does not prove anything."

Woohoo, I managed to say something before Geist beat me to it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

But I'll leave the rest up to him, he's so much better at it than I. I'll start referring everything to law sooner or later, and that would bore everyone to death.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 06:49 PM

MDS_Geist wrote:

- How so? This is simply one aspect of dealing with
- post-war Iraq. It does not prove anything.

No it doesn't prove anything. But I thought the Bush administration proclaimed that it was up to the Iraqi to shape their future. How come that this newly "liberated" country didn't have anything to say about who is controling their main economic rescource?

Doesn't seem to be very democratic, does it?

<script>var a=document.body.getElementsByTagName("u");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if [a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["buccaneer")!=-1) a[i].style.color="orange"}</script>

<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 07:04 PM

buccaneer wrote:
- No it doesn't prove anything. But I thought the Bush
- administration proclaimed that it was up to the
- Iraqi to shape their future. How come that this
- newly "liberated" country didn't have anything to
- say about who is controling their main economic
- rescource?

And I'm sure that the new Iraqi government, composed of Iraqis will be the ones who shape their future. But at present, there are no Iraqis in place to do so. Were you expecting them to poll all of the Iraqis about this? Halliburton will ensure that everything is up, running an modernized for whenever there is an Iraqi administration.

- Doesn't seem to be very democratic, does it?

Bidding processes for contracts rarely are, particularly when there is not such a plethora of qualified candidates. There really wasn't much choice involved here, and the most suitable candidate was awarded the contract.

It is not the same to talk of bulls as it is to be in the bullring.
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 07:10 PM

buccaneer wrote:
- -
- No it doesn't prove anything. But I thought the Bush
- administration proclaimed that it was up to the
- Iraqi to shape their future. How come that this
- newly "liberated" country didn't have anything to
- say about who is controling their main economic
- rescource?

Pardon me buc for buttin in but does the term newly liberated country mean anything to you?
Right now they are having problems dealing with the garbage collection do you think they are ready to take over the oil fields? be patient and see if your prediction comes out true.I think it wont.
-
- Doesn't seem to be very democratic, does it?

When the money goes to rebuild Iraq it sure would be a democratic system.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 07:26 PM

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- "How so? This is simply one aspect of dealing with
- post-war Iraq. It does not prove anything."
-
- Woohoo, I managed to say something before Geist beat
- me to it!

You know, Demon, Geist's nuts must be very sore with you hanging off them all the time.
-
- But I'll leave the rest up to him, he's so much
- better at it than I. I'll start referring everything
- to law sooner or later, and that would bore everyone
- to death.

Dear boy, you could never bore. Let's hear your interpretation of the law.

Now getting back to the subject at hand, to award a contract with no bidding process smacks of cronyism. How can you determine with no analysis at all that company A is the best one to do the job? You cannot. I have been involved in the bidding process for contracts and if I suggested picking Company A because "they're the best" I would soon be on my way out the door. No rational organization works in such a manner unless there are other motivations.

Now I do not believe all of this is simply about oil. It is far more complex and far-reaching than that. But in truth, if the present administration wanted to convince everyone it was all about oil they couldn't have done a better job.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 08:57 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- Now I do not believe all of this is simply about
- oil. It is far more complex and far-reaching than
- that. But in truth, if the present administration
- wanted to convince everyone it was all about oil
- they couldn't have done a better job.

Quite frankly, I have to say that anyone who thinks that 'everyone' is convinced the war was about oil needs to get their heads examined. Would we be here debating this issue if that was the case?

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 09:23 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- You know, Demon, Geist's nuts must be very sore with
- you hanging off them all the time.

lmao

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 11:05 PM

xanderleo wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- You know, Demon, Geist's nuts must be very sore with
-- you hanging off them all the time.
-
-
-
- lmao

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-07-2003, 11:50 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- xanderleo wrote:
--
-- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--- You know, Demon, Geist's nuts must be very sore with
--- you hanging off them all the time.
--
--
--
-- lmao
-
-/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LMAO /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

(who's next? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 12:37 AM

i didn't get any faces in there...so it's my turn:

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 12:55 AM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- You know, Demon, Geist's nuts must be very sore with
- you hanging off them all the time.

I also would LMAO, but I can't. Thanks to years of exercise, mainly due to squats, my A is fairly solid and heavy. We I to L it O, I would not have the necessary counterbalance to my nuts, particularly if someone is hanging on to them, and would fall on my face. And that would just be uncomfortable. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It is not the same to talk of bulls as it is to be in the bullring.
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 01:29 AM

Xander, you're supposed to quote all the previous laughing and then add your own laughing. Duh, didn't you read my editorial on that earlier? Geez, you ruined it all... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 01:51 AM

http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp

this company is only one of a very few that could even approch iraq. As it pertains to the job at hand and the job that may have had to be done.

halliburton: is #1 in the world cementing and well control (mighty handy for well fires)

Halliburton: built a majority of iraqs oil inferstructure thus they have the plans and the information rights other than the previous gov of iraq.

the other choice was french (ewww)shlumberger

halliburton: has the mass enginerring know how to accoplish the task at hand. this includes the building of refineries, roads, biuldings, dams, etc (brown and root is a halliburton subsid)

bechtel: same as halliburton best for the job

never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm

I am 49 years old and havent lived a day...i am living from now on: Iraqi Citizen after fall of Bagdad

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 01:57 AM

No cas, this is a conspiracy just like the crowd when they took down the statue.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 03:57 AM

Holy smokes, I just pictured Demon Hanging off Geists nuts.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 04:07 AM

Demon, I came to accept that there is someone stupid ebough to believe just about anything a long long time ago/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
And as regards your 'zeal', you have firmly established yourself as an unapologetic warhwk, for better or worse. Which is fine, as I'm not exactly a dove myself, but conviction such as yours is a double-edged sword all its own.
Me, I like the chaos.
Just got back from a Ted Nugent concert (actually ZZtop was the headliner but they were pathetic) and not only did he ROCK but he had a few words for the dixie chicks, you mighta enjoyed it/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 06:10 AM

Really? In who's eyes? Your's and Nick's?

Yep, completely unbiased opinion, then it must be fact, dang. *snaps fingers in disappointment*

As much as your opinions of me means and all...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 10:05 AM

Last night I saw on TV an interview with an ex CIA agent.
He was of the general opinion of myself and MNG.

He stated the reason for this war was that the American economy was highly dependant on oil and recent shaky relations with Saudi Arabia put that in jeopardy.

The Iraq incursion was a way to keep influence in the Middle East, as soon friendly Saudi US relations would be non existant.

He also stated he was aware of the 'Conspiracy theory' label but it was just the truth.

MNG, you may be more knowlegale than I of Saudi US relations but it made a lot of sense to me. Post info or your take on this if you can.
Geist you will know more of this than I, what is your take on Relations between the two countries?

Thanks

"You think youre pretty good huh?

LETS KUNG-FU!!!"

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 11:49 AM

nt

Message Edited on 05/08/0308:39AM by Gandalf_is_dead

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 12:48 PM

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Really? In who's eyes? Your's and Nick's?
-
- Yep, completely unbiased opinion, then it must be
- fact, dang. *snaps fingers in disappointment*
-
- As much as your opinions of me means and all...
-
Why always so rude demon? Exactly what was it I said that offends so much? You don't think you're hawkish regarding recent events? Okay, fine, excuuuuuse me.
Refuted with a snap of the fingers, dang, so clever, so charming.
Who's Nick?
And my opinion of you does matter, cmon, admit it, you crave the attention, your home away from home in these forums, every little exchange warms your clusters, be honest now.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 01:37 PM

Mudbudda wrote:
- Last night I saw on TV an interview with an ex CIA
- agent.
- He was of the general opinion of myself and MNG.
-
- He stated the reason for this war was that the
- American economy was highly dependant on oil and
- recent shaky relations with Saudi Arabia put that in
- jeopardy.
-
- The Iraq incursion was a way to keep influence in
- the Middle East, as soon friendly Saudi US relations
- would be non existant.

so honestly, you think there was no reasoning in bush's head that he felt the iraqi people needed to finally be free and that he sincerely believed iraq was a threat?

- He also stated he was aware of the 'Conspiracy
- theory' label but it was just the truth.
-
- MNG, you may be more knowlegale than I of Saudi US
- relations but it made a lot of sense to me. Post
- info or your take on this if you can.
- Geist you will know more of this than I, what is
- your take on Relations between the two countries?
-
- Thanks

i'm actually quite moderate myself. i reacted so strongly to the last thread on the statue mainly because i see alot of people (no one take this personally) that can't accept the reality of something...or reality contradicts their political views so strongly that they must create some elaborate and typically improbable grand scheme to justify their position. that grand scheme is a conspiracy theory. alot of anti-war and anti-u.s. people were very taken aback and upset that the iraqi people seemed so happy when we got there....in fact, on the very day the statue fell...many arabs, who couldn't accept that other arabs were actually happy to see the coalition come, came up with the whole "paid actors" theory. that's how they consoled themselves and managed to keep their anti-u.s. or anti-war position. they, however, are more understandable than people in a country that hasn't been brought up to hate the west regardless of it's actions.
that sort of narrow mindedness aggravates me. so many are only willing to lambast the u.s. for any effort...and would die before they gave them credit for anything. even the smallest accomplishement.

i'm well aware of the legitamate reasons many have to hate the u.s. or it's policies (varying in their validity)...there are also quite a few i suspect that form thier opinions mainly to have something to complain about or because they need an enemy, someone to blame for... -insert any event here-

just my two, rambling, cents.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 02:01 PM

xanderleo wrote:
-
- so honestly, you think there was no reasoning in
- bush's head that he felt the iraqi people needed to
- finally be free and that he sincerely believed iraq
- was a threat?

I don't think he gives a damn about the Iraqi people. I think we have seen already how much of a threat Iraq was...

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 02:09 PM

"so honestly, you think there was no reasoning in bush's head that he felt the iraqi people needed to finally be free and that he sincerely believed iraq was a threat?"

I think he was happy the Iraq ppeople would end up with better lifestyles because of this. Id be Naive to think this was the real reason, this was the reason for the cameras and the voters, it wasnt the sole purpose.

Out of all the countries in the world that had bad Leaders/Dictators he chose a country rich in oil and then had to fabricate reasons to attack.
There was no link to 9/11, all reports of documents found etc are as reliable as the UN evidence presentation which was phony.

I feel the news you get in your country while not being pro US ra ra it isnt as objective as it should be. Every barrell of chemical found is labelled a chemical weapon and when they are tested and not found to be chems there is little publicized about it. That 18 wheeler truck is on our news and described 'a mobile laboratory that may be the much needed smoking gun for the US has had no traces of illegal chems found in it'. We in Australia hear both sides openly, it seems you get a 'US friendly' account of events.

The world knows what is going on but very few nations officially speak up as they value their ties with the US.

"i see alot of people (no one take this
- personally) that can't accept the reality of
- something...or reality contradicts their political
- views so strongly that they must create some
- elaborate and typically improbable grand scheme to
- justify their position"

This applies to yourself.
Its not an elaborate or grand scheme to doubt the motives of the US. From day 1 there has been suspicious behaviour, ignoring of Nuetral official bodies, masses of PR and rhetoric and so on...

I hate to keep repeating the UN evidence presentation but if it really was the French and UN corrupting the process it would have been MASSIVE news, there has been barely a mention of these things as the information was only PR.

In a court of law the US would be very much on thin ice if it came to defending herself against the accusations of going to war for oil.
eg
Q"Mr Bush, you were never really interested in a peaceful resolution were you? regardless what was happening with the UN weapons inspectors you kept massing your troops and when you had sufficient numbers you went straight in. You have presented phony evidence to the UN council, why if you are innocent did you attempt to mislead the UN?"

A"We will free the people of IRAQ, Saddam is like Hitler, The American people will unite against tyranny, we will prevail......"

"Mr Bush, what are you talking about? PR and Rhetoric have no standing in a court of Law, statements like that will only keep you patriotic citizens on side. Now please address the questions"

"Can I consult my speechwriters?"

"You think youre pretty good huh?

LETS KUNG-FU!!!"

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 02:33 PM

Mudbudda wrote:

- I think he was happy the Iraq ppeople would end up
- with better lifestyles because of this. Id be Naive
- to think this was the real reason, this was the
- reason for the cameras and the voters, it wasnt the
- sole purpose.

i too believe that these were not on the top of the list....to spend billions of dollars on a war...there would need to me many reasons i would think. i also think he has a personal grudge against saddam.

- Out of all the countries in the world that had bad
- Leaders/Dictators he chose a country rich in oil and
- then had to fabricate reasons to attack.
- There was no link to 9/11, all reports of documents
- found etc are as reliable as the UN evidence
- presentation which was phony.

sadaam has long been in breach of numerous resolutions. i think that might be one of the reasons.

- I feel the news you get in your country while not
- being pro US ra ra it isnt as objective as it should
- be. Every barrell of chemical found is labelled a
- chemical weapon and when they are tested and not
- found to be chems there is little publicized about
- it. That 18 wheeler truck is on our news and
- described 'a mobile laboratory that may be the much
- needed smoking gun for the US has had no traces of
- illegal chems found in it'. We in Australia hear
- both sides openly, it seems you get a 'US friendly'
- account of events.

i tend to read the bbc alot and the canadian globe and mail. i think there are certain news sources here in the u.s. that are, let's say, less than reliable.
i haven't read any australian sources.

part of the problem of bad reporting is things coming right from the field...the media jumping the gun on "hot news..hear it here fist" before all the facts are confirmed.

- The world knows what is going on but very few
- nations officially speak up as they value their ties
- with the US.

the world knows what is going on...but we don't? so you're saying that americans have no idea what is actually happening because of our media? it would take quite a twisting of facts to have us that clueless.

- This applies to yourself.
- Its not an elaborate or grand scheme to doubt the
- motives of the US. From day 1 there has been
- suspicious behaviour, ignoring of Nuetral official
- bodies, masses of PR and rhetoric and so on...

i have not suggested or created any conspiracy theories to defend u.s. views...so how would it apply?

as far as nuetral offical bodies. the u.n. may be official but it isn't neutral.
pr and rhetoric? welcome to the world of politics. point out one country that doesn't partake in this.

pr and rhetoric are not synomous with 'coverup'.

- I hate to keep repeating the UN evidence
- presentation but if it really was the French and UN
- corrupting the process it would have been MASSIVE
- news, there has been barely a mention of these
- things as the information was only PR.

good point...it's hard to know what goes on behind closed doors at the u.n. you won't find me coming up with conspiracy theories to reinforce my ill opinion of the them however.

- In a court of law the US would be very much on thin
- ice if it came to defending herself against the
- accusations of going to war for oil.
- eg
- Q"Mr Bush, you were never really interested in a
- peaceful resolution were you? regardless what was
- happening with the UN weapons inspectors you kept
- massing your troops and when you had sufficient
- numbers you went straight in. You have presented
- phony evidence to the UN council, why if you are
- innocent did you attempt to mislead the UN?"
-
- A"We will free the people of IRAQ, Saddam is like
- Hitler, The American people will unite against
- tyranny, we will prevail......"
-
- "Mr Bush, what are you talking about? PR and
- Rhetoric have no standing in a court of Law,
- statements like that will only keep you patriotic
- citizens on side. Now please address the questions"
-
- "Can I consult my speechwriters?"

"statements like that will only keep you patriotic citizens on side."

we're not sheep you know.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 02:45 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- I don't think he gives a damn about the Iraqi
- people. I think we have seen already how much of a
- threat Iraq was...

i think he gives a damn...but as i said...probably not at the top of his list. i don't think iraq was so much a threat. a think saddam had the potential to be though.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 02:56 PM

"-- This applies to yourself.
-- Its not an elaborate or grand scheme to doubt the
-- motives of the US. From day 1 there has been
-- suspicious behaviour, ignoring of Nuetral official
-- bodies, masses of PR and rhetoric and so on...
-
- i have not suggested or created any conspiracy
- theories to defend u.s. views...so how would it
- apply? "

Labelling any argument which doubts the US integrity as a Conspiracy theory without even addressing the facts in said argument is just a 'Conspriacy theory on conspiracy theories'. hope you know what I mean, its late.

"-- The world knows what is going on but very few
-- nations officially speak up as they value their ties
-- with the US.
-
- the world knows what is going on...but we don't? so
- you're saying that americans have no idea what is
- actually happening because of our media? it would
- take quite a twisting of facts to have us that
- clueless. "

Many Americans I have seen/heard on tv in debates dicussions
share my view. I saying you certainly have an idea of whats going on but give the benefeit of the doubt to your own countries Administration/President.

"pr and rhetoric? welcome to the world of politics.
- point out one country that doesn't partake in this.
-
- pr and rhetoric are not synomous with 'coverup'"

but when they take the place of facts and honest discussion it says a lot about the real agenda. eg in Gulf War 1 there was very little PR baloney as the real reason was honourable and not corrupt. GW2 prettty much all the US admins information is PR and rhetoric, very little facts and very shaky defences against accusations which would be very easy to disprove if there was nothing corrupt in the first place.

If all these claims against the US were false (or conspiracy theories) the US would easily be able to defend against them, but their defence is shaky and evasive at best.

"You think youre pretty good huh?

LETS KUNG-FU!!!"

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 03:08 PM

Mudbudda wrote:

- Labelling any argument which doubts the US integrity
- as a Conspiracy theory without even addressing the
- facts in said argument is just a 'Conspriacy theory
- on conspiracy theories'. hope you know what I mean,
- its late.

that seems a bit of a generalization. i've not even hinted that everything anti-u.s. or anti-war is a conspiracy theory. perhaps my reasoning came across wrong. i was referring to particular instances.

- If all these claims against the US were false (or
- conspiracy theories) the US would easily be able to
- defend against them, but their defence is shaky and
- evasive at best.

same deal as above. i'm certainly not of the mind that the u.s. is infallible.

with great power comes great responsibility /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-Many Americans I have seen/heard on tv in debates dicussions share my view. I saying you certainly have an idea of whats going on but give the benefeit of the doubt to your own countries Administration/President.

i think that can come from trust in your administration ...or blind patriotism. obviously we alot of both in the u.s.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

Message Edited on 05/08/0311:11AM by xanderleo

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 03:45 PM

Madbudda,

Unfortunately I know very little of Saudi/American relations. Can't help you there mate! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 04:02 PM

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- You know, Demon, Geist's nuts must be very sore with
-- you hanging off them all the time.
-
- I also would LMAO, but I can't. Thanks to years of
- exercise, mainly due to squats, my A is fairly solid
- and heavy. We I to L it O, I would not have the
- necessary counterbalance to my nuts, particularly if
- someone is hanging on to them, and would fall on my
- face. And that would just be uncomfortable.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You see the dilemmas you cause Demon?

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 04:04 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- I don't think he gives a damn about the Iraqi
- people. I think we have seen already how much of a
- threat Iraq was...

MNG, I think George Bush gives a damn much more then you obviously do.

On the other hand we never questioned the fact that we can beat the living daylights out of Saddam. But the threat was that IF we dont do something now Saddam will find a way to hit us and hit us hard. And you MNG know damn well he would do it. Although you sound like you will never admit it.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 04:15 PM

Mudbudda wrote:
- He stated the reason for this war was that the
- American economy was highly dependant on oil and
- recent shaky relations with Saudi Arabia put that in
- jeopardy.

This comment is neither particularly insightful or indicative of any expertise. All industrialized nations have oil-based economies. As a large industrialized nation, we are of course dependent upon oil. However, since the US does have a substantial strategic reserve, we are less dependent on oil than many other industrialzied nations if the government should feel the need to dip into those reserves and ration them.

Our relations with Saudi Arabia are always problematic. Simply put, they are not our friends or our allies. They are however, a business partner with a huge appetite for American goods. We do not share common beliefs, values or goals with them, but they do control OPEC and oil is pretty useful. While we and they both recognize the fact that OPEC is very weak right now, they can cause substantial damage to the world economic situation.

- The Iraq incursion was a way to keep influence in
- the Middle East, as soon friendly Saudi US relations
- would be non existant.
-
- He also stated he was aware of the 'Conspiracy
- theory' label but it was just the truth.

I'm sure that he feels his opinion is gospel truth, but the fact is that it is a conspiracy theory. The current US administration is not favorably disposed to Saudi Arabai, and they have no reason to be. The Saudis do support terrorism, give aid and comfort to our enemies, have been obstructing our investigations and tried to blackmail us into not going to war with Iraq.

But the Saudis do need us. While they may hate us, like all good Wahabist do, they need our protection and our technology. They resent the fact that our companies no longer extend them credit (they're quite broke), but will need to keep doing business with us. After all, you can't fit Russian missiles on the rails of an F-15.

With Iraq no longer an issue, they will have to spend more time working on domestic issues, and we will likely begin to hear more and more reports about more repressive crackdowns. They're a corupt regime, and they keep their people focussed on the evils of the West to divert them from their own poor situation. Sooner or later, it will come to a head.

It is not the same to talk of bulls as it is to be in the bullring.
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 05:23 PM

a very good article on eu and u.s. relations from time:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/blair/story2.html

"RUSSIA According to several Kremlin officials, Putin's outburst at Blair was partly due to the profound sulk into which he has fallen after making a spectacularly wrong bet about the Iraq war. His diplomats and spies advised that the coalition would get bogged down in a Vietnam-like quagmire; he expected then to ride to the rescue as a "concerned friend," says a former intimate, thus earning gratitude in Washington, stature among Arabs and contracts in Iraq for Russian firms.

A Russian diplomat says Putin's inner circle is now trying to shift blame for this miscalculation onto Washington, of all places, claiming it waged a sophisticated misinformation campaign to trap and humiliate Russia."

this is exactly the type of thing i'm referring to when people get proved wrong. they create conspiracies to try and bail themselves out.

the rest of the article is more broad-based...but i think a good read.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 05:31 PM

Gandalf wrote:
"Okay, fine, excuuuuuse me."

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Man, you should hear how I imagined you saying that, lmao.

MNG wrote:
"I don't think he gives a damn about the Iraqi people."

I don't think you, or anyone else who opposes this war, gives a damn about the Iraqi people. If people are going to accuse Bush of having their own personal agenda governing their actions, they should question that in themselves too...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

Message Edited on 05/08/0301:33PM by Demon_Mustang

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 08:40 PM

That was my best Steve Martin/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 09:34 PM

Demon_Mustang wrote:
-
- MNG wrote:
- "I don't think he gives a damn about the Iraqi
- people."
-
- I don't think you, or anyone else who opposes this
- war, gives a damn about the Iraqi people. If people
- are going to accuse Bush of having their own
- personal agenda governing their actions, they should
- question that in themselves too...

Come on gentlemen, lets not play games. Bush did not start this war to help the poor Iraqis or anyone else. He is not Mother Teresa. Like most politicians he is in this for himself and his constituents.

I'll say this. I saw Bush crying when 3000 Americans died. I have not seen him shed a single tear for the 3000 or so Iraqis who have died.

Everyone has their own personal agenda governing their actions. Some of us, like politicians, need to dress it up to appeal to others. The rest of us usually do not and we make our own selfish decisions regarding our own individual interests.

Do I care about the Iraqis? Apparently not enough to kill thousands of them.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 10:02 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- Come on gentlemen, lets not play games. Bush did
- not start this war to help the poor Iraqis or anyone
- else. He is not Mother Teresa. Like most
- politicians he is in this for himself and his
- constituents.

I did'nt hear of anyone eversaying that this war was intended to only free the Iraqi people but the primary goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein and his Regiem.....which was so magnificently done. Now we are continuing to do what we set out to do find the WMD and see to it that the New Iraqi goverment can continue on their own. (sort of physical therapy) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . I havent heard of any tankers filling up the oil and hauling it away, have you?

- I'll say this. I saw Bush crying when 3000
- Americans died. I have not seen him shed a single
- tear for the 3000 or so Iraqis who have died.

first:

He cried because these where Americans that never expected to get killed going to work.

second:

Just because you didnt see him dont mean he didnt cry or even if he did'nt cry what does it proove that he dont give a flying rats *** about the Iraqi people?

- Do I care about the Iraqis? Apparently not enough
- to kill thousands of them.

So you would rather have Saddam kill millions?

....and here I though you where a Nice Guy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
-
-
-

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 10:10 PM

Unfortunately, the war will fuel the hatred that millions of people feel against the US.

The future does look awfully bright, doesn't it?

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 10:19 PM

eltermo wrote:

- Unfortunately, the war will fuel the hatred that
- millions of people feel against the US.

How so?
-
- The future does look awfully bright, doesn't it?

When I came to the US in 1969 I remember my father telling me that exact sentence.

There's no reason to believe that the future for the US is dim.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX

05-08-2003, 10:38 PM

How so?

Some people see the result of the war as a liberation of the Iraqi people.
(I for one am glad that Saddam is gone)
Others think it is somehow related to oil and some see it as part of a US world-domination plot or something like that.
No matter what the motives really are, millions of people are convinced that the enemy is the US and its allies, and there's probably nothing that they can say or do to change this.

I don't really see how to solve this...
I guess I'm just a pessimist...

No time to discuss any more now though, I have to get up early tomorrow and code...

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 12:48 AM

Hornet57 wrote:

- So you would rather have Saddam kill millions?

Sorry mate can't resist this but... we helped him kill millions. All of us, the French, the Germans, the US and and the British. And we killed about a million ourselves. We are every bit as complicit in the misery of Iraqis as Saddam.

So lets not get silly and act like the politicians shed a single tear for the several thousand killed this time around.

I care about humans and I do not condone or follow the logic that it is ethical to kill some people to save some others.

I am an old fashioned conservative (not a liberal), which means I think national interests end at the border, the military should only be used for DEFENSE, and individuals have the right of self-determination. Specifically, that means it is up to the Iraqis to deal with their situation not for us to arrogate it to ourselves simply because we think we know better. Futher, it means trade over war. Meaning if we want to see some of these countries get better we should trade with them rather than bomb them.

Come on Hornet doesn't that sound like a nice guy/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ?

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 01:45 AM

Oh please, don't sit here and act like the people who come up with these reasons why Bush is wrong is doing so out of the goodness of their heart and because they care so much about what's right. This is the way it works with politics. One side does something, the other side finds every way to discredit it. And anyone supporting the opposing side would jump in and help.

And please don't try to fool anyone, you're only lying to yourself because none of us are buying into it. You act like you're opposing this for great reasons, and that it has nothing to do with your obvious opposition with the president. I keep bringing up Clinton only to show the disparity of support that seems motivated only by who started the war.

I still hear people claiming it was a "humanitarian war" and I have to laugh at myself. Because Bush is being conclusively accused by circ*mstantial (you ******ed lazy asses still haven't fixed it huh? morons) evidence alone, yet the timing was PRECISE with the other person in question, yet, there is less suspician with that person, hm, I wonder what is so different between the two.

Don't kid yourself, it's ok to oppose someone, just be honest about it.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

Message Edited on 05/08/0309:45PM by Demon_Mustang

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 01:00 PM

Uh Demon. What are you talking about?

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 01:26 PM

Hes pointing out your lack of self reflection in understanding the inherent bias and ulterior motives that undermine your (and anyone elses) credibility regarding any stance with which he disagrees.
Isnt it obvious/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 01:50 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Sorry mate can't resist this but... we helped him
- kill millions. All of us, the French, the Germans,
- the US and and the British. And we killed about a
- million ourselves. We are every bit as complicit in
- the misery of Iraqis as Saddam.
-
- So lets not get silly and act like the politicians
- shed a single tear for the several thousand killed
- this time around.
-
- I care about humans and I do not condone or follow
- the logic that it is ethical to kill some people to
- save some others.
-
- I am an old fashioned conservative (not a liberal),
- which means I think national interests end at the
- border, the military should only be used for
- DEFENSE, and individuals have the right of
- self-determination. Specifically, that means it is
- up to the Iraqis to deal with their situation not
- for us to arrogate it to ourselves simply because we
- think we know better. Futher, it means trade over
- war. Meaning if we want to see some of these
- countries get better we should trade with them
- rather than bomb them.

this is and interesting post....so i want to give you a few hypothetical (not entirely analogous) situations referring to what you said.

if national interests lie at the border...we would have a world full of isolationists..right?

if national interests end their respective the borders...no one would need a military.

a man that stands by and watches someone mugged does not have the victim's interests in mind...even if he gives the muggee a wad of cash after to help ease his now dire financial situation.

by stepping up and physically stopping the attacker....he isn't an arrogator...rather someone who is helping another....even if he did it for moral reasons as well as hopes of a reward from the victim. even if because he had watched someone else get mugged..or he himself had been mugged in the past and had done nothing to stop it and this intervention was meant as a sort of self-absolution.

nonetheless...he stopped one person from hurting another.
is this bad?

more directly..if we had traded with saddam...none of it would have seen the people. sadaam would never have willingly left power and he was a blight on that country...can you tell me different? would it be better to leave him in place until he dies so one of his more brutal sons can take the reins for the next 50 years...while we stand idly by? his people can't rise up because they are broken and starved by sadaam for the very reason of preventing an uprising.

the "right thing to do" in my opinion is not always absent of some degree of violence. "peaceful" means can sometimes cause more death and destruction.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 02:24 PM

well said xan

never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm

I am 49 years old and havent lived a day...i am living from now on: Iraqi Citizen after fall of Bagdad

XyZspineZyX

05-09-2003, 05:00 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Sorry mate can't resist this but... we helped him
- kill millions. All of us, the French, the Germans,
- the US and and the British. And we killed about a
- million ourselves. We are every bit as complicit in
- the misery of Iraqis as Saddam.

I dont know how we help kill millions of Iraqis but what ever it was then be it a mistake or otherwise, now we have a new leader with a good reason to be there.
-
- So lets not get silly and act like the politicians
- shed a single tear for the several thousand killed
- this time around.

Not everyone cries when they are sad.
-
- I care about humans and I do not condone or follow
- the logic that it is ethical to kill some people to
- save some others.

You mean you would let some people to kill other people? by torturing, starving and then killing them?

...and you think that this logic is correct?
-
- I am an old fashioned conservative (not a liberal),
- which means I think national interests end at the
- border.

I am a Capitalist and I think the whole world should be mine.....and yours by the way.

the military should only be used for
- DEFENSE, and individuals have the right of
- self-determination.

That's True....

And you are witnessing the defense that our military is providing right now.

The only difference is that at the same time we also freed the Iraqi people from a Tyrrant.

Specifically, that means it is
- up to the Iraqis to deal with their situation not
- for us to arrogate it to ourselves simply because we
- think we know better.

So you think because the Iraqi people didnt try to free themselves from Saddam they dont want us to free them?

Futher, it means trade over
- war. Meaning if we want to see some of these
- countries get better we should trade with them
- rather than bomb them.
-
Absolutely true...as long as they trade and leave in peace.

- Come on Hornet doesn't that sound like a nice
- guy

Sounds like a nice guy !?

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

If I want your Opinion I'll beat it out of you.

XyZspineZyX

05-10-2003, 02:20 AM

xanderleo wrote:

- if national interests lie at the border...we would
- have a world full of isolationists..right?
-
- if national interests end their respective the
- borders...no one would need a military.

I disagree as would Jefferson and Bismarck. Nationalist interests are a pretext to war with a foreign power. For example, like every other empire (Rome, Britain etc.) the US constantly finds its interests threatened throughout the globe. Really national interests mean military interests vis a vis interfering with the domestic affairs of another national in an attempt to change them in a way that is beneficial to the protagonist.

So having national interests end at the border means the military is only used to protect those borders. By definition, outside the border lie foreign interests, to be protected by the foreigners.

This does not mean you become an isolationist - that is quite a leap. Just that your dealings with other nations concerns free trade only. Nations that trade rarely go to war with each other. Furthermore, as nations become richer they become more liberal. We have seen this in the West and we are starting to see it in places like China.

The problem with your example of the mugging is that it requires you to ignore due process and take the law into your own hands. How do you know the man is being mugged or that the man attacking him is not taking back his rightful property that the other took from him? Even if I grant you that he is indeed being mugged, why is it your responsibility to help him? But lets add more to your example. Lets say you use a machine gun to stop the mugger and as a result you maim the muggee and kill an innocent bystander as well as the mugger.. Are your crimes excused because of your high moral goals?

Well at least you have stopped the mugger and he will not hurt anyone else again. But look at the devastation you have caused. Is this acceptable?

As for Saddam, he would have tried to keep as much as possible. But dictators do not live forever. He would eventually die or be deposed. All despots fall eventually. Look at the Romainian tyrant (I forget his name) - he was dealt with by his own population.

The "stand idly by" argument is very weak. For example, why is Bush standing idly by while China oppresses Tibet? Or while Mugabe oppresses Zimbabwe? Or a thousand other crimes? The fact it is none of our business.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-10-2003, 02:52 AM

"Futher, it means trade over
- war. Meaning if we want to see some of these
- countries get better we should trade with them
- rather than bomb them.
-
Absolutely true...as long as they trade and leave in peace."

The US will trade with them, Im not sure how much control the Iraqis will have over their oil though. That American oil boss put in charge will run the oil sales. I want to see the reaction of the Iraqis when they realise they will not have control over their prize resource.
They will not even have proper control over their elected leaders. The US selects cantidates (who are friendly US, not even nuetral) and the Iraqis will vote from them.

Every new development in Iraq only re enforces my points, or what some call 'conspiracies', nothing has taken place to show the US handing control to the Iraqis. No WMDs. Phony evidence. Sidelineing the UN. Shaky reasons to go. etc

BTW, if Saddam was going to get America he has had how many years to do it? After GW1 he had practically no Military and no history of terrorist attacks, protecting the US from Saddam is BS with a capital B.

"You think youre pretty good huh?

LETS KUNG-FU!!!"

"You think youre pretty good huh?

LETS KUNG-FU!!!"

XyZspineZyX

05-10-2003, 09:47 PM

Mudbudda wrote:
- "Futher, it means trade over
-- war. Meaning if we want to see some of these
-- countries get better we should trade with them
-- rather than bomb them.
--
- Absolutely true...as long as they trade and leave in
- peace."
-
- The US will trade with them, Im not sure how much
- control the Iraqis will have over their oil though.
- That American oil boss put in charge will run the
- oil sales. I want to see the reaction of the Iraqis
- when they realise they will not have control over
- their prize resource.
- They will not even have proper control over their
- elected leaders. The US selects cantidates (who are
- friendly US, not even nuetral) and the Iraqis will
- vote from them.

That is quite right. The invading power will always choose rulers that it thinks are best. However, what the invading power views as optimal will not likely mesh with the population thinks. This will create antagonism between the newly "liberated" and the "liberator". We are already starting to see this tension.

This is the fundamental problem with "helping" people. When you choose to involve yourself with the internal affairs of another nation you are making value judgements about what the proper state of affairs should be in that country. How do you know you are right?

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-11-2003, 12:16 AM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- That is quite right. The invading power will always
- choose rulers that it thinks are best. However,
- what the invading power views as optimal will not
- likely mesh with the population thinks. This will
- create antagonism between the newly "liberated" and
- the "liberator". We are already starting to see
- this tension.

It's a really a rather simple lesson learned from Aesop - "You can't satisfy all of the people all of the time." The "invading power" may have the "correct" view that may or may not be immediately apparent to the indigs. However, it is a very complicated issue involving satisfying the needs of as many parties as possible with a compromise candidate who will be the least offensive.

- This is the fundamental problem with "helping"
- people. When you choose to involve yourself with
- the internal affairs of another nation you are
- making value judgements about what the proper state
- of affairs should be in that country. How do you
- know you are right?

You never "know" (although you may use this term and believe it to be true) if you are right until after the fact in such situations. However, there are certain value judgements which can accurately be made across all situations. The challenge is to present to them to people who are not used to such things, much less having any role in their own governance. When actual freedom is a foreign concept to someone, it is very difficult to prove to them how it is not as terrifying as it appears, and that their eagerness to have another master's yoke on their neck may be detrimental. Certain choices can only be made once without great suffering.

It is not the same to talk of bulls as it is to be in the bullring.
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-11-2003, 01:47 AM

- Mudbudda wrote:
-- The US will trade with them, Im not sure how much
-- control the Iraqis will have over their oil though.
-- That American oil boss put in charge will run the
-- oil sales. I want to see the reaction of the Iraqis
-- when they realise they will not have control over
-- their prize resource.

uh hello iraq will still buy and sell though OPEC so its not an american but opec and the market that will determin the price of oil. As for the iraqis and the control of ther "prize" they havent had any control of it or its earning in 25 years of saddam rule. Anything they get now will be a substantual and marked improvement. The iraqi ppl will see more of their countries wealth than they have in decades. Well until the stupid iraqis establish their own leadership who will repress them again.

- That is quite right. The invading power will always
- choose rulers that it thinks are best. However,
- what the invading power views as optimal will not
- likely mesh with the population thinks. This will
- create antagonism between the newly "liberated" and
- the "liberator". We are already starting to see
- this tension.

We are seeing the successful public campain by the iranians, and syrian governemts to esstablish anything but a democratic state anywhere near their comfy dictatorships. The bathist and the russians also have lots to lose with a democratic state in the middle east.

You have to remember that since these ppl have been born the schools the clerics, the government have feed the populuce a steady diet of america is evil. That amount of distrust will be hard to overcome.

Mudbudda wrote:
-nothing has taken place to show the US handing control to the Iraqis. No WMDs. Phony evidence. Sidelineing the UN. Shaky reasons to go. etc

Mudd tisk tisk you dont beleive this do you?
they have found wmd's!! in the terrorist training camp in the north. Some chem artillery warheads, and those big freakin chem lab trucks!

Oh i am sorry all of this is phony evidence if it doesnt support your point of veiw.

Sidelining the UN: GOOD!! the UN has shown itself to be worthless and currupt.

Shaky reasons to go: shaky to you ...pretty darn solid to me.

never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm

I am 49 years old and havent lived a day...i am living from now on: Iraqi Citizen after fall of Bagdad

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 03:46 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- xanderleo wrote:
-
-- if national interests lie at the border...we would
-- have a world full of isolationists..right?
--
-- if national interests end their respective the
-- borders...no one would need a military.
-
- I disagree as would Jefferson and Bismarck.
- Nationalist interests are a pretext to war with a
- foreign power. For example, like every other empire
- (Rome, Britain etc.) the US constantly finds its
- interests threatened throughout the globe. Really
- national interests mean military interests

aha...that's where i went wrong. i misunderstood what you meant by national interests.

- The problem with your example of the mugging is that
- it requires you to ignore due process and take the
- law into your own hands.

stopping someone from being hurt is taking the law into your own hands? due process? you're jumping the gun here. are you going to call a judge i assume while the guy is getting mugged and needs your help?
and what it was a worse situation? what if it was life and death, which squarely puts the fate of the muggee in my hands? if i do nothing and watch him knifed and killed...i'm as good as an accomplice.

- How do you know the man is
- being mugged or that the man attacking him is not
- taking back his rightful property that the other
- took from him?

if he is taking back his property then he would be ignoring due process and taking law into his own hands. and how do you know he's a mugger? he has a knife out and is forcefully asking for the muggee's money.

- Even if I grant you that he is
- indeed being mugged, why is it your responsibility
- to help him?

it's your responsibily as a moral human being....because no one else will help him. there is no diffusion of responsibilty here. you can't turn your head and console your conscience that someone else will help him. there's no one else on the street...either you step up and do the right thing...or you skulk off into the shadows and try to forget that you let something terrible happen to someone else when it was within your power to stop it.

i'd be hope someone would help me if i were in the same situation

- But lets add more to your example.
- Lets say you use a machine gun to stop the mugger
- and as a result you maim the muggee and kill an
- innocent bystander as well as the mugger.. Are your
- crimes excused because of your high moral goals?

well i see where we've been going with this analogy. but at least put it in correct terms...it's more like killing the mugger...and wounding the muggee. and by the way...this mugger has mugged and killed 10 people over the last ten years.

- Well at least you have stopped the mugger and he
- will not hurt anyone else again. But look at the
- devastation you have caused. Is this acceptable?

does the end justify the means? not entirely...but when you wait long enough...and even help create something evil...it gets to the point where destroying it without hurting others is impossible.

- As for Saddam, he would have tried to keep as much
- as possible. But dictators do not live forever. He
- would eventually die or be deposed.

and how many thousands would have died while we waited?

- All despots fall eventually.

yes...and then his sons take his place. nice. they're worse than he is.

- Look at the Romainian tyrant (I
- forget his name) - he was dealt with by his own
- population.

some people have been living under his rule for thier whole lives and they haven't risen up to free themselves. some have tried but have been slaughtered...and then their families. dictators are quite good at staying in power. iraq is a perfect example.

- The "stand idly by" argument is very weak. For
- example, why is Bush standing idly by while China
- oppresses Tibet? Or while Mugabe oppresses
- Zimbabwe? Or a thousand other crimes?

idly by? he's doing more in this world for good right now than anyone gives him credit for.

- The fact it
- is none of our business.

i'm sure if you were one of the oppressed you'd wish someone would make it their business. according to that line of thinking the holocaust was none of our business either. should we have left that alone?
none of our business is another way of saying "i don't want to deal with it"

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

Message Edited on 05/12/0312:26PM by xanderleo

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 03:54 PM

We pretty much did leave the holocaust alone Xan. Liberating the extermination and concentration camps was nowhere near a priority for any of the allied forces, but more of a "when we get there, we'll get there" policy. And everyone put on their best "how shocking, who could believe this was going on" routine when the full extent was revealed, from the US to the Pope. Black eyes all around.

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 04:33 PM

yes...while the jews were being slaughtered daily it was making a small paragraph of news on 12th and 13th pages of newspapers.

that's the idea. the u.s. was thought it "was none of our business". that ideology got humanity real far.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 05:01 PM

MDS_Geist wrote:

- It's a really a rather simple lesson learned from
- Aesop - "You can't satisfy all of the people all of
- the time." The "invading power" may have the
- "correct" view that may or may not be immediately
- apparent to the indigs. However, it is a very
- complicated issue involving satisfying the needs of
- as many parties as possible with a compromise
- candidate who will be the least offensive.
-
-
-- This is the fundamental problem with "helping"
-- people. When you choose to involve yourself with
-- the internal affairs of another nation you are
-- making value judgements about what the proper state
-- of affairs should be in that country. How do you
-- know you are right?
-
- You never "know" (although you may use this term and
- believe it to be true) if you are right until after
- the fact in such situations. However, there are
- certain value judgements which can accurately be
- made across all situations. The challenge is to
- present to them to people who are not used to such
- things, much less having any role in their own
- governance. When actual freedom is a foreign
- concept to someone, it is very difficult to prove to
- them how it is not as terrifying as it appears, and
- that their eagerness to have another master's yoke
- on their neck may be detrimental. Certain choices
- can only be made once without great suffering.

The point is it doesn't matter whether you are "right" or "wrong". You will always be "wrong" as far as the "indigs" are concerned.

For example, imagine if I came into your house and started reorganizing everthing because I knew a "better" way to do it - moving your furniture around and feeding your kids healthier meals. You would probably be quite annoyed, even if I was "right". The fact is people have pride and they want to do things their own way, even if they're "wrong". That is human nature.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

Message Edited on 05/12/0301:46PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 05:03 PM

casauboneco wrote:

- You have to remember that since these ppl have been
- born the schools the clerics, the government have
- feed the populuce a steady diet of america is evil.

Well I don't know about you but I love a healthy helping of evil every morning for breakfast.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 05:11 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- casauboneco wrote:
-
-- You have to remember that since these ppl have been
-- born the schools the clerics, the government have
-- feed the populuce a steady diet of america is evil.
-
- Well I don't know about you but I love a healthy
- helping of evil every morning for breakfast.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

met too! what a coincidence. it's much better with a heaping side of fresh baby.

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/halojpg.jpg

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 05:32 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- The point is it doesn't matter whether you are
- "right" or "wrong". You will always be "wrong" as
- far as the "indigs" are concerned.

No, you'll always be wrong as far as SOME people are concerned. By no means all, and the maxim does go both ways.

- For example, imagine if I came into your house and
- started reorganizing everthing because I knew a
- "better" way to do it - moving your furniture around
- and feeding your kids healthier meals. You would
- probably be quite annoyed, even if I was "right".

However, in some cases it is necessary, such as the recent case in New York where a child was irreparably damaged by its (pronoun used because I do not know the gender of the child, and the name of the child is "ice.") parents due to the diet. Most people would agree (such as the jury) that this was criminal neglect that should have been stopped. But the parents thought it was okay.

- The fact is people have pride and they want to do
- things their own way, even if they're "wrong". That
- is human nature.

Pride is fine. It generally isn't worth dying for, or standing by while others die.

"Be meticulous in study, for a careless misinterpretation is considered tantamount to a willful transgression."
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 06:23 PM

MDS_Geist wrote:

-
-- For example, imagine if I came into your house and
-- started reorganizing everthing because I knew a
-- "better" way to do it - moving your furniture around
-- and feeding your kids healthier meals. You would
-- probably be quite annoyed, even if I was "right".
-
- However, in some cases it is necessary, such as the
- recent case in New York where a child was
- irreparably damaged by its (pronoun used because I
- do not know the gender of the child, and the name of
- the child is "ice.") parents due to the diet. Most
- people would agree (such as the jury) that this was
- criminal neglect that should have been stopped. But
- the parents thought it was okay.

OK fine Geist I'll be right over. Don't worry, you'll soon learn to love wicker furniture and excessive floral arrangements.

Hmm, looks like they neglected good taste with that name. I see you are of the Jeremy Bentham school of thought, where it is the responsibility of the state to act for the greatest good. Personally I do not think the state should anything to do with the family. Did you know that the "authorities" need only alleged child abuse to come and take your child? Then you have to petition to get little "Ice" back. Neglect has a very fuzzy definition under the law.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-12-2003, 07:17 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- OK fine Geist I'll be right over. Don't worry,
- you'll soon learn to love wicker furniture and
- excessive floral arrangements.

Feel free to try and get past the security booth downstairs. And of course, you will need to show why this will be of benefite to me and those who I live with.

- Hmm, looks like they neglected good taste with that
- name. I see you are of the Jeremy Bentham school of
- thought, where it is the responsibility of the state
- to act for the greatest good.

Actually, I'm of the school of thought where murdering a child should be a capital offense. What these two idiots (and yes, the term is technically true here) were doing was killing the child. It lacked the strength to cry, weighed fifteen pounds, could barely move and has sufferred permanent brain damage.

Are you suggesting that nothing should have been done until their child died?

- Personally I do not
- think the state should anything to do with the
- family. Did you know that the "authorities" need
- only alleged child abuse to come and take your
- child? Then you have to petition to get little
- "Ice" back. Neglect has a very fuzzy definition
- under the law.

Actually, it is more complicated than that. There has to be a reasonable cause to actually take the child away. Opening an investigation does only require a single allegation.

These parents are actually imprisoned now, and they will likely never see Ice again. This is of course provided that Ice is able to survive. What they did to that child qualifies as more than just "neglect."

"Be meticulous in study, for a careless misinterpretation is considered tantamount to a willful transgression."
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-13-2003, 07:27 PM

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-13-2003, 07:38 PM

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- OK fine Geist I'll be right over. Don't worry,
-- you'll soon learn to love wicker furniture and
-- excessive floral arrangements.
-
- Feel free to try and get past the security booth
- downstairs. And of course, you will need to show
- why this will be of benefite to me and those who I
- live with.

The point is Geist I would not be able to. Not by force. I could come to your house and attempt to sell them to you and you would make your individual choice. But if I forced you at gun point you would never accept them no matter how pretty they made your house look. You would resent me for forcing a change upon you without your consent and would do anything to get rid of my hideous furniture and me.

This is the fundamental error of statists when they assume that all the government needs to do is explain the benefits of a plan and everyone will go along. Unfortunately there will always be those who disagree and want to do their own thing. The government is left with a choice: abandon the plan or liquidate the opposition and enforce misery on everyone equally.

We see this occurring now in Iraq where the "Indigs" are starting to get funny ideas about what to do with their own country.

As for the child neglect case, this presents an interesting philosophical question. Is it ethical to punish someone for not doing something (i.e. not feeding a child, saving a drowning man etc.)?

Either way I do not support the state becoming involved in family affairs. For every child saved there is another family destroyed by an over-zealous reaction to a baseless accusation.

Reasonable cause is arbitrary and at the descretion of the investigator. People have had their children taken away because of anonymous accusations in fact. And the parents are often treated as guilty before proving innocent. This attitude and action actually winds up harming the child and not helping.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-13-2003, 09:01 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- The point is Geist I would not be able to. Not by
- force. I could come to your house and attempt to
- sell them to you and you would make your individual
- choice. But if I forced you at gun point you would
- never accept them no matter how pretty they made
- your house look. You would resent me for forcing a
- change upon you without your consent and would do
- anything to get rid of my hideous furniture and me.

There is a rather large flaw in your analogy though. My interior decorations are not capable of harming or threatening anyone, unless of course you smash your shin on my coffee table - which would be your own doing. The existence of my couch is not predicated on its inherent superiority to my chairs, nor my table's superiority to my tv stand. However, a form of government which is predicated on the inferiority of outgroups is a problem.

- This is the fundamental error of statists when they
- assume that all the government needs to do is
- explain the benefits of a plan and everyone will go
- along. Unfortunately there will always be those who
- disagree and want to do their own thing. The
- government is left with a choice: abandon the plan
- or liquidate the opposition and enforce misery on
- everyone equally.

That's an absolutist position which does not take into account the reality of the situation. After all, no one is shooting communists in the US. Dissent can exist and thrive in an open political model. It cannot thrive in a dictatorial situation. Explaining the benefits is nice, but people who do not want to be convinced will not be convinced. Showing people the benefits may actually convince people. But any way you do it, there will still be people who want their views to prevail without any consideration for others.

- We see this occurring now in Iraq where the "Indigs"
- are starting to get funny ideas about what to do
- with their own country.

Do you now? Tell me, if you were to go and film in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a fairly affluent and liberal suburb of Minneapolis - do you really think that you would have an accurate sample of how all Minnesotans feel? Someone who has been living in Iran for 23 years is as compromised if not more so than someone like Chalabi, and Najaf is not all of Iraq. We're going to keep seeing a mess in Iraq for a while now, and we still won't be seeing the full picture from the press.

- As for the child neglect case, this presents an
- interesting philosophical question. Is it ethical
- to punish someone for not doing something (i.e. not
- feeding a child, saving a drowning man etc.)?

You're addressing the wrong issue here. The child was being fed. However it was being fed in such a fashion that did not meet any of the child's basic needs. Neglect is in fact an action, and it is a punishable one.

- Either way I do not support the state becoming
- involved in family affairs. For every child saved
- there is another family destroyed by an over-zealous
- reaction to a baseless accusation.

Then you are choosing to stand by as children die or are killed. That is simply unacceptable and abhorrent.

- Reasonable cause is arbitrary and at the descretion
- of the investigator. People have had their children
- taken away because of anonymous accusations in fact.
- And the parents are often treated as guilty before
- proving innocent. This attitude and action actually
- winds up harming the child and not helping.

There are standards for "reasonable cause" and they must be defended before a judge. It is not as arbitrary as you seem to think it is. Anonymous accusations are quite thoroughly investigated these days and are generally not considered grounds for probable cause without corroborating evidence.

"Be meticulous in study, for a careless misinterpretation is considered tantamount to a willful transgression."
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-13-2003, 10:01 PM

xanderleo wrote:

- stopping someone from being hurt is taking the law
- into your own hands? due process? you're jumping
- the gun here. are you going to call a judge i assume
- while the guy is getting mugged and needs your help?
- and what it was a worse situation? what if it was
- life and death, which squarely puts the fate of the
- muggee in my hands? if i do nothing and watch him
- knifed and killed...i'm as good as an accomplice.

You are not an accomplice if you did not do anything at all. You are merely a spectator. Life is hard but why is it your responsibility to help a man you do not know and involve yourself in a situation that you do not understand? But by definition, intervening in a perceived crime is taking the law into your own hands. If you turn out to be wrong then you will be the wrong being punished.

Who says it is my moral responsibility to help someone else? Why should I? I have problems of my own that no one is helping me with so why should I risk my life to help someone I do not know?

Involving yourself in other people's problems can have awful consequences. 180 US/UK deaths 3000 Iraqi civilians and 10 000 Iraqi soldiers dead and countless others maimed for life. Is anyone better off? That is not obvious but this war is extremely harmful to the US economy - a healthy economy is necessary to put food on the table for ordinary individuals.

Xanderleo, dealing with a serial mugger is one thing. You do not have to blow up the whole neighbourhood to do it. But trying to unseat a tyrant in a foreign is a totally different kettle of fish. Do you occupy the moral high ground where you can unilaterally make a decision that will involve the death of innocents because you think the end (which will not affect your life one way or another) is worth it?

This is the way Stalin thought. It is for their own good.

Now if I were being oppressed, sure, I would be happy if someone could do something about. But those are my selfish thoughts. This places no moral responsibility for anyone to help me. Further, no one would help in that situation unless there was something in it for them.

But Xanderleo I am confused. What makes you think "liberation" had anything to do with the war?

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-14-2003, 03:45 AM

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- There is a rather large flaw in your analogy though.
- My interior decorations are not capable of harming
- or threatening anyone, unless of course you smash
- your shin on my coffee table - which would be your
- own doing. The existence of my couch is not
- predicated on its inherent superiority to my chairs,
- nor my table's superiority to my tv stand. However,
- a form of government which is predicated on the
- inferiority of outgroups is a problem.

The analogy is not based on whether anybody is being hurt or not. That is not the point. The point is that it is extremely arrogant to force your view point at gun point on someone else. If the Iraqis are having a problem it is up to them to deal with it as they see fit. It is not obvious that democracy is the best of all possible worlds and it has historically led to the absolute worst, as you know only too well.

Trying to solve other people's problems your "right" way is a sure way to create tensions and tragedy. Thousands of Iraqis have already died doing it our way. Do you mean to tell me this is acceptable? People were hurt by Saddam and now they are being hurt by the US. You seriously think they are now better off?

What is more disingenuous however, is pretending that this was the pretext for war when you know full well this had nothing to do with it.

Dissent can exist and thrive in an open political
- model. It cannot thrive in a dictatorial situation.
- Explaining the benefits is nice, but people who do
- not want to be convinced will not be convinced.

Whether or not you are convinced is immaterial. It is whether you are being coerced or not and what the price of resistance versus obedience is. Further, in a nation of tens of millions one vote counts for nothing, particularly when there are only two parties. But this is the fundamental flaw of an unrestricted government working on a strictly democratic basis. Dissent is allowed but irrelevant.
-
-
-- We see this occurring now in Iraq where the "Indigs"
-- are starting to get funny ideas about what to do
-- with their own country.

Someone who has been living in
- Iran for 23 years is as compromised if not more so
- than someone like Chalabi, and Najaf is not all of
- Iraq. We're going to keep seeing a mess in Iraq for
- a while now, and we still won't be seeing the full
- picture from the press.

We will never know the full picture, we can only deal with the general facts. Dead bodies do not lie. As for Chalabi, are you suggesting that since he didn't live in Iraq for 50 years he has a better idea of what to do with it than the Iraqis themselves? I do understand your point in referencing Najaf.

My fundamental point is that you appear to completely discount the significance of the culture in Iraq. What works for us may not work for them and probably will not. They do not share the same values and will not appreciate our values being foisted upon them.

- You're addressing the wrong issue here. The child
- was being fed. However it was being fed in such a
- fashion that did not meet any of the child's basic
- needs.

Are you suggesting the parents were simply mad?
-
-- Either way I do not support the state becoming
-- involved in family affairs. For every child saved
-- there is another family destroyed by an over-zealous
-- reaction to a baseless accusation.
-
- Then you are choosing to stand by as children die or
- are killed. That is simply unacceptable and
- abhorrent.

Really? So I suppose you will be leading the first expedition to Sierra Leone to save the children from being maimed and murdered? Or will you stand by as children die? In any case I did not say the children should not be helped but that the state is not the agency to do it.

- There are standards for "reasonable cause" and they
- must be defended before a judge. It is not as
- arbitrary as you seem to think it is. Anonymous
- accusations are quite thoroughly investigated these
- days and are generally not considered grounds for
- probable cause without corroborating evidence.

Sometimes but there are famous cases in which accusations are not properly investigated. Or the children are removed from their families while the investigation is taking place.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-14-2003, 03:51 AM

Well, I guess in MNG's example, if I was on parole, and part of the terms was that I cannot drink alcohol or use drugs. The parole officers really suspect that I have drugs in the house, but it's only a suspicion. Well, if you read the laws, they have every right to enter your house to search, and even if they don't find any drugs, if they find anything else, such as empty bottles of alcoholic beverages, your *** is grass.

I guess if you want to use the going into your house example, it isn't really much of a comparison the way you put it since the inhabitants didn't really do anything unlawful, and the people rearranging the furniture had no business monitoring how you have your furniture in the first place. But nice try getting people to relate to your example anyway, it's a good way to get a point through, makes people think about having their privacy invaded. But let's keep it a little more like what's really going on in Iraq with my example, mmmkay?

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell<script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];} var SpeakEnglish='http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/speakenglish-rs2.gif'</script><script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=SpeakEnglish</script>

XyZspineZyX

05-15-2003, 07:16 PM

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Well, I guess in MNG's example, if I was on parole,
- and part of the terms was that I cannot drink
- alcohol or use drugs. The parole officers really
- suspect that I have drugs in the house, but it's
- only a suspicion. Well, if you read the laws, they
- have every right to enter your house to search, and
- even if they don't find any drugs, if they find
- anything else, such as empty bottles of alcoholic
- beverages, your *** is grass.
-
- I guess if you want to use the going into your house
- example, it isn't really much of a comparison the
- way you put it since the inhabitants didn't really
- do anything unlawful, and the people rearranging the
- furniture had no business monitoring how you have
- your furniture in the first place. But nice try
- getting people to relate to your example anyway,
- it's a good way to get a point through, makes people
- think about having their privacy invaded. But let's
- keep it a little more like what's really going on in
- Iraq with my example, mmmkay?

Lets not.

You're missing the point. And anyway by your example the Iraqis (civilians) were not doing anything unlawful either. But we still walked in their house with muddy footprints, raiding the fridge and smashing up their property.

And now for the point my slow friend. The point is that you cannot force someone to accept your point of view. For further evidence look at the success rate of changing people's minds on this forum.

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2003-02/6700841.jpg

Mike struggles in vain to wipe off his ridiculous tattoo. Meanwhile his young son eyes his father's ear hungrily.

XyZspineZyX

05-15-2003, 07:18 PM

"You're missing the point. And anyway by your example the Iraqis (civilians) were not doing anything unlawful either. But we still walked in their house with muddy footprints, raiding the fridge and smashing up their property."

Right, that's why my example is perfect. If the parolee was the head of the household, we can still storm into their house even if they have their family there who did not do anything wrong.

And why wouldn't you want to use my example? I think it's far more like what's going on than what you said.

"And now for the point my slow friend. The point is that you cannot force someone to accept your point of view. For further evidence look at the success rate of changing people's minds on this forum."

I don't think we are trying to force the citizens of Iraq to do anything, that is just a consequence. Saddam was under conditions set by the first Gulf War, violation of any one of those, which you can't argue he didn't, must have some kind of reaction or else what the hell are the rules there for? It's like a mother that only threatens to punish a child for doing wrong, but never does, I wonder what kind of message that sends to the kid...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell<script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];} var SpeakEnglish='http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/speakenglish-rs2.gif'</script><script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=SpeakEnglish</script>

Message Edited on 05/15/0305:12PM by Demon_Mustang

XyZspineZyX

05-15-2003, 09:02 PM

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- The analogy is not based on whether anybody is being
- hurt or not. That is not the point. The point is
- that it is extremely arrogant to force your view
- point at gun point on someone else. If the Iraqis
- are having a problem it is up to them to deal with
- it as they see fit.

Then you need to come up with an analogy that works in the situation, since redecorating my flat is not a valid comparisson. The argument that the Iraqis need to solve their own problems sounds lovely and all, but as the mass graves we keep finding clearly indicate, they needed help.

- It is not obvious that
- democracy is the best of all possible worlds and it
- has historically led to the absolute worst, as you
- know only too well.

I never made any such suggestion that it was.

- Trying to solve other people's problems your "right"
- way is a sure way to create tensions and tragedy.

As opposed to standing idly by while other tensions and tragedies exist? There is a difference of degree. Tell me, how many Iraqis have been fed into plastic shredders, had their ears cut off or dipped in acid since the Baathis regime fell?

- Thousands of Iraqis have already died doing it our
- way. Do you mean to tell me this is acceptable?
- People were hurt by Saddam and now they are being
- hurt by the US. You seriously think they are now
- better off?

Yes, they are better off. And the difference is more than just of degree in this case. We're not killing people as a matter of course, and we're not digging any mass grave or torturing people.

- What is more disingenuous however, is pretending
- that this was the pretext for war when you know full
- well this had nothing to do with it.

You now full well that you are presenting an opinion, so "knowing" is not an issue here.

- Whether or not you are convinced is immaterial. It
- is whether you are being coerced or not and what the
- price of resistance versus obedience is. Further,
- in a nation of tens of millions one vote counts for
- nothing, particularly when there are only two
- parties. But this is the fundamental flaw of an
- unrestricted government working on a strictly
- democratic basis. Dissent is allowed but
- irrelevant.

One vote can make a difference (particularly in the electoral college). And it had nothing to do with me being convinced since I was speaking far more generally.

- We will never know the full picture, we can only
- deal with the general facts. Dead bodies do not
- lie.

I'm sorry MNG, but while this is a lovely adage is it not at all accurate or true. Consider the situation in Israel, where the palestinians regularly use bodies to lie, sometimes ones that aren't even dead.

- As for Chalabi, are you suggesting that since
- he didn't live in Iraq for 50 years he has a better
- idea of what to do with it than the Iraqis
- themselves? I do understand your point in
- referencing Najaf.

As for Chalabi, I was saying no such thing. How are you attempting to derive that?

- My fundamental point is that you appear to
- completely discount the significance of the culture
- in Iraq. What works for us may not work for them
- and probably will not. They do not share the same
- values and will not appreciate our values being
- foisted upon them.

I'm surprised to hear that from you, since you are well aware of the fact that I am the last person here who would discount the significance of culture. This holds especially true in the Middle East. They are unlikely to ever have a form of government like ours, and are unlikely to ever share our values. However, they are likely to come to a middle ground, which is the best we can hope for. The last thing we or they need is more fundamentalism and recidivism.

- Are you suggesting the parents were simply mad?

As I said before, in this case they were simply idiots (tecnically speaking). They were unfit parents whou would have killed their child had the state not interceded.

- Really? So I suppose you will be leading the first
- expedition to Sierra Leone to save the children from
- being maimed and murdered? Or will you stand by as
- children die? In any case I did not say the
- children should not be helped but that the state is
- not the agency to do it.

Actually I went to Sudan and Indonesia where the situation is more dire, but thanks for asking. And no, I do not stand by as children die when I am capable of preventing it. And yes, that would and does include preventing a parent from striking a child when I can do so. Corporal punishment is one thing - a beating is another.

THen what agency should do this? After all, you and I can't be everywhere.

- Sometimes but there are famous cases in which
- accusations are not properly investigated. Or the
- children are removed from their families while the
- investigation is taking place.

Yes, and those cases are famous because of their unusual nature.

"Be meticulous in study, for a careless misinterpretation is considered tantamount to a willful transgression."
<script language='Javascript' src='http://home.columbus.rr.com/gnolan/Vic/gamers.js'></script>
<script>newIcon('single','http://animegifs.free.fr/games/ff9/page1/ff9-06.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX

07-30-2003, 04:57 PM

casauboneco wrote:
- <a href="http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp"
- target=_blank>http://www.halliburton.com/index.jsp
- </a>
-
- this company is only one of a very few that could
- even approch iraq. As it pertains to the job at hand
- and the job that may have had to be done.
-
- halliburton: is #1 in the world cementing and well
- control (mighty handy for well fires)
-
- Halliburton: built a majority of iraqs oil
- inferstructure thus they have the plans and the
- information rights other than the previous gov of
- iraq.
-
- the other choice was french (ewww)shlumberger
-
- halliburton: has the mass enginerring know how to
- accoplish the task at hand. this includes the
- building of refineries, roads, biuldings, dams, etc
- (brown and root is a halliburton subsid)
-
- bechtel: same as halliburton best for the job

Not lately...

Judge Looks at Cheney Fraud Lawsuit

Wednesday July 30, 2003 4:19 AM

By DAVID KOENIG

AP Business Writer

DALLAS (AP) - Halliburton Co. asked a federal judge Tuesday to throw out a lawsuit charging that the company and Vice President **** Cheney, its former chief executive, misled investors by changing the way it counted revenue from construction projects.

A lawyer for Judicial Watch, a public interest group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of three small investors, said the company tried to polish its financial reports beginning in 1998 by booking revenue on cost overruns before it was certain of getting paid.

Halliburton shares dropped sharply when the oilfield-services company's performance sagged in 2001. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the accounting change and the way Halliburton disclosed it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2968006,00.html

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>