Convince me (part2)

[Toad]

Weazel, I'm probably one of the few here that actually considers what you write anymore but I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific before I can make anything out of that.

And it'll help if you write like an adult and drop the childish name calling and diminutives.

I can, in fact, be persuaded of some things with reasoned argument, logic and facts. However, you severely prejudice your case in a negative way with all this "Unka" and "Chimpy" childishness.

Thanks for your courtesy in advance.

[weazel]

Contempt for the embargo.

Bush and Cheney changed the saying "The buck stops here" to the buck passes through here.

Originally posted by Toad
Following the rules?

There's the problem, eh? Surely they wouldn't smuggle stuff to Iraq or try to deceive the UN... surely not.

[Toad]

OK, help me out here Weazel.

I read it. These are the salient points to me:

The trade was perfectly legal. Indeed, it is a case study of how U.S. firms routinely use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid the opprobrium of doing business with Baghdad, which does not violate U.S. law as long as it occurs within the "oil-for-food" program run by the United Nations.

Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."

They returned to dealing with Iraq after the council established the "oil-for-food" program in December 1996, permitting Iraq to export oil under U.N. supervision and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and humanitarian goods. The program was expanded in 1998 to allow Iraq to import spare parts for its oil facilities.

The Halliburton subsidiaries joined dozens of American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000. Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40 billion.

The proceeds funded a sharp increase in the country's nutritional standards, nearly doubling the food rations distributed to Iraq's poor.

So?

[weazel]

They were trading with the enemy...and using the french as their lap dog while doing it.


"And even if Cheney was not told about the business with Baghdad before the purchase, Perrella said, the CEO almost certainly would have learned about it after the acquisition. "Oh, definitely, he was aware of the business," Perrella said, although Perrella conceded that this was an assumption based on knowledge of how the company worked, not a fact to which he could personally attest because he never discussed the Iraqi contracts with Cheney.

A long-time critic of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he has argued penalize American companies while failing to punish the targeted regimes, Cheney has pushed for a review of U.S. policy toward countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya.

In the first expression of that new thinking, the Bush administration is campaigning in the U.N. Security Council to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil-related equipment, to Iraq."

[Toad]

I think it's a long reach Weazel. In fact, your charge just doesn't stick.

You have to admit that all of these exports from the US, like exports from all the other countries have to go through the UN Security Council.

These Halliburton deals went through. At a time when Clinton was President and his representative to the UN Security Council did not object to the exports.

So... who was "trading with the enemy" in that case?

[RRAM]

Simple question, as I don't know the answer.


Was Iran under a UN weapon trade embargo in the 80's?.


If it was, then stop accusing others of doing the same, as you did just the same.

If it wasn't I'll shut up on this matter. in any case I think Toad's sources pretty much prove French weapon sales to Iraq after 1991, so Straffo, I think you should open your eyes a little bit...that you don't aprove it doesn't mean it didn't happen



As a spanish, I'm part of a nation that's backing US' intention to attack Irak. As a spanish, I must say that a calculated 91% of my people is AGAINST that attack, and thus JM Aznar's government is acting AGAINST our nation's will.




As much as I hate S.H., this war will be (and it's intended to be) a massive-scale robbery of Irak's natural resources -namely oil- under a fake excuse of throwing a dictator out of his seat.

Dictator who could've been trhowed out of that seat just about 12 years ago, and wasn't because -someone- in Washington decided not to do it. If you were so genuinelly interested by democracy you'd have put a free government in Baghdad then, but you didn't. Why? economic and political reasons said that having Saddam in that seat was "better" for YOU, than trying to kick him out of power and calling for elections. That was (that IS) your compromise with democracy in the world: as long as YOU -YOU, not the people in the nation you're about to attack- are bennefitted with it, so be it. If you don't think its worth it for the US, you DON'T do it.



So congrats, america, because if you stand where you are now is because you decided it 12 years ago. And please stop using stupid excuses about WMD, dictators, or Saddam's evil. The only thing your president wants is that black oily thing pumped out of those deserts. Not democracy.



P.D. While Saddam was using chemical weapons over Kurds, I never heard you yell so loud as you do it today. How ironic, coming from people who's caring "so much" about all the world's freedom and right to live.


P.D.2 this is a very sarcastic, acid post. Take it as you want, but if you go to war on your own ,or alone with UK (Because, read this, even if Spanish diplomats on the UN back up your intention to steal Iraq's oil, 90% OF THE SPANISH PEOPLE DOESN'T), from that point onwards don't ask why the rest of the world doesn't like you anymore. You're answering that question lately, day after day.

[Toad]

Originally posted by RRAM
Dictator who could've been trhowed out of that seat just about 12 years ago, and wasn't because -someone- in Washington decided not to do it.  

While much of your post offers opportunity for discussion, this one part leaps out.

Since it's late, I'll address just that one for now.

Please go back and read the headlines and world opinions right at the end of the 100 hours of the first war.

Focus on the worldwide reporting of the "Highway of Death". Note the cries to "stop the slaughter".

Then you'll have a more balanced and more accurate understanding of why Saddam is still in power.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Toad
While much of your post offers opportunity for discussion, this one part leaps out.

Since it's late, I'll address just that one for now.

Please go back and read the headlines and world opinions right at the end of the 100 hours of the first war.

Focus on the worldwide reporting of the "Highway of Death". Note the cries to "stop the slaughter".

Then you'll have a more balanced and more accurate understanding of why Saddam is still in power.

I can understand that media pressed for stopping the war. But I don't buy that was the reason Saddam was not overtrhown. In 1991 Irak's army was as much as wasted as a nation's military can be, I can think of several ways to force Saddam out of power in that situation (starting from keeping the attack on, telling the media the objective is to kick Saddam Hussein out of his seat, not just Kuwait's liberation; to offering a halt of fire and a time limit for Hussein to be overtrhown by the Iraqis themselfs.).

You did neither of those. US forces stopped the attack, and after the UN established a couple of air exclusion zones (the northern one never was properly enforced, which allowed Saddam to commit genocide against the kurds), you pumped most of your foreces out of the zone and crossed your arms waiting for...what?.



Sorry, Toad, that is a simple excuse. If you wanted to kick Hussein out, you could've done it with almost no cost for USA, politically talking. You didn't do it, and that was because other reasons were more important for your nation at the time, than forzing the end of the dictator.

[Toad]

Obviously, you also need to go back and read the UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in Desert Storm. Also do some research into the French position back then. It wasn't only the French then either.

There simply was no mandate to remove Saddam. Had there been, they'd have never gotten the resolution to use force.

You're a smart guy, Ram. Read your history though.

[RRAM]

I haven't read too many resolutions of the UN regarding Irak, but I do remember 678....

Point 2 of resolution 678, passed by UN SC in november, 1990 says:


2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area


Resolution 660 mostly called for total withdrawal of Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Up to that point, you'd have the reason, Toad...



But focus on that "and to restore international peace and security in the area". I do think that asking  for Saddam being kicked out by any means possible, was something desperately needed to restore peace and security in the area, after the same guy had started one war against Iran, and invaded and annexed a Sovereign nation in 10 years of time frame.



Point 3 of that resolution said:

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution


Point that could've been used to freeze any oposition coming from France, or anyone for that matter. France voted "YES" to this resolution. They couldn't have backed down later if US had asked for pressing for Saddam being overthrown.


You simply never pressed for this matter in the UN;  there was no REAL try from the US to kick Saddam out before, during or after the war, Toad. And strictly reading that point, UN implicitly allowed it. At least the way I read it

[Toad]

I'm not doing your homework for you this time Ram.

Check on what it took to get France and Russia to vote "yes" on 678 and to get China to abstain.

Particularly, look at their positions with respect to removing S.H.

Additionally, there were other countries that stated they wouldn't join the coalition if S.H. was a target. Notably some important Arab nations.

Again, we couldn't have removed him as you say. Militarily, yes; quite easily I agree. Politically? No possible way.

It's history. It's there for your reading.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm not doing your homework for you this time Ram.

Check on what it took to get France and Russia to vote "yes" on 678 and to get China to abstain.

sorry to say that,as I was just a kid back then (I was 13), my knowledge of politics at that time comes mostly from what I've read afterwards (a 13-year-old kid doesn't understand watermelon about politics, and doens't read that part of the newspaper either ). And nothing on France's and Russian stances, because what I use for source is mostly UN webpage -and they don't list each nation's reasons for voting "yes" or "no"


I will dig in internet to find what you're talking about , and post later about what I've found and what do I think about it. Any links you might give me will be welcome (hint ,hint )

[straffo]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Just pointing out some 'clever foreign policy' stuff from the French straffo.

Some of us won't forget. I despise the greenies myself. I believe Greenpeace is just another corporate parasite.

However, that doesn't excuse the terrorist activities and murder against unarmed civilians France has committed on my nations soil. And everytime France stands up and screams 'morals and ethics' I'll haul one of these pictures onto the BBS.

Its France's right to decline to be part of this war. But calling American's cowboys, comparing Bush with Hitler, well thats just ironic isn't it?

Don't get me started on nouvelle Caledonie.

[GRUNHERZ]

Straffo you suck. You asked for proof and when they gave it to you just said I dont belevie it because it makes me feel bad.

Why did you even ask in the first place?

[straffo]

well ... the probelm is the definition

This is a "pistolet" :


This is a "pistolet" too :




There is the same link between Explosive and fertilizer don't you think ?