Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 19, 2003, 11:09:45 AM
-
Exhibit 1 --
"Oil Loss Hits UN coffers" -- The United Nations is losing its only cash cow with the shutdown of Iraq's oil fields -- with profits of more than $300 million year. The UN has been making a tidy gain acting as a partner for Iraq for the past 11 years to sell its embargoed oil in exchange for food and medical supplies. "It was the only profitable thing at the UN", said one oil analyst. "It paid for a lot of programs and overhead there."
The UN controlled the sale of as much as $200 billion in Iraqi oil since the 1996 economic embargo started against Iraq . . . . "Everyone on the Security Council liked the arrangement because of the relief money it provided," said oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron, Hanover. He said the UN also arranged for the purchase of food and pharmaceuticals with the oil money.
Exhibit 2 --
Reuters -- (Paris) "Oil-scandal trial opens in France" -- Thirty-seven defendants will be asked to explain dirty dealings within France's political and business elite involving the embezzlement of some $200 million and former oil giant Elf at a trial that opened yesterday.
The fruit of an eight-year investigation, the trial will expose the use of cash sweeteners to secure contracts for the then state-owned Elf in oil-rich countries, and how some of that cash slipped inot the pockets of certain executives.
It will also rake up well-known sleaze like the kick-backs from an illegal arms deal secured via a now in-famous liaison between then Foreign Minister Roland Dumas and a woman who dubbed herself "The ***** of the Republic."
The trial will be keenly watched in France where the affair has stirred up charges of endemic corruption during the last years of the late President Francois Mitterrand.
Elf was controlled by the state at the time huge sums of cash were allegedly siphoned off into offshore bank accounts between 1989 and 1993. It is now part of French oil major TotalFinaElf, which is negotiating multi-billion-dollar deals with Iraq.
The trial, which is due to run for around four months, follows the longest investigation in French judicial history.
-
Not a surprise, exibhit 2, was guessing somthing similar since the France opposition.
As for evidence 1, I think is not a bad think, I dont see somthing negative in it.
Would be interesting to see what will change After the war.
-
naso... after the war the UN will simply ask for more money from the U.S. to pay the rent and keep the lights on.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Exhibit 1 --
"Oil Loss Hits UN coffers" -- The United Nations is losing its only cash cow with the shutdown of Iraq's oil fields -- with profits of more than $300 million year. The UN has been making a tidy gain acting as a partner for Iraq for the past 11 years to sell its embargoed oil in exchange for food and medical supplies. "It was the only profitable thing at the UN", said one oil analyst. "It paid for a lot of programs and overhead there."
The UN controlled the sale of as much as $200 billion in Iraqi oil since the 1996 economic embargo started against Iraq . . . . "Everyone on the Security Council liked the arrangement because of the relief money it provided," said oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron, Hanover. He said the UN also arranged for the purchase of food and pharmaceuticals with the oil money.
Exhibit 2 --
Reuters -- (Paris) "Oil-scandal trial opens in France" -- Thirty-seven defendants will be asked to explain dirty dealings within France's political and business elite involving the embezzlement of some $200 million and former oil giant Elf at a trial that opened yesterday.
The fruit of an eight-year investigation, the trial will expose the use of cash sweeteners to secure contracts for the then state-owned Elf in oil-rich countries, and how some of that cash slipped inot the pockets of certain executives.
It will also rake up well-known sleaze like the kick-backs from an illegal arms deal secured via a now in-famous liaison between then Foreign Minister Roland Dumas and a woman who dubbed herself "The ***** of the Republic."
The trial will be keenly watched in France where the affair has stirred up charges of endemic corruption during the last years of the late President Francois Mitterrand.
Elf was controlled by the state at the time huge sums of cash were allegedly siphoned off into offshore bank accounts between 1989 and 1993. It is now part of French oil major TotalFinaElf, which is negotiating multi-billion-dollar deals with Iraq.
The trial, which is due to run for around four months, follows the longest investigation in French judicial history.
So you are saying the US is going to war for oil, yet you post examples of the UN and France being affected by the loss of oil from Iraq? Neither France nor the UN are entering into this campaign.
-
zzzzzzzzzoooom!
-
It looks like Rip is saying that the utter failure of the UN to bring this situation to a peaceful end is due, in part (large part?), to oil.
MiG
-
I think Rip is saying the French politician's and UN's utter complete lack of a pair in enforcing their own resolutions is because of their own greed.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I think Rip is saying the French politician's and UN's utter complete lack of a pair in enforcing their own resolutions is because of their own greed.
-SW
SHACK for MiG and SW.
-
good toejam rip..salute
-
Sorry but exibit 2 is so mixed up that I doubt it's a real Reuter news.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sorry but exibit 2 is so mixed up that I doubt it's a real Reuter news.
Just do a google search on "Elf", you can get your news source of your choice, story is the same though.
-
I can do the same mixing 10 news and linking them together.
And the nice "Fléche du parthes" was the mention of Iraq at the end.
-
Lee Harvey Weazel has gone quiet :)
-
lolol lee Larvey weazel....lolo
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
lolol lee Larvey weazel....lolo
Typing is difficult for those with cloven hooves.
-
Someone else posted this somewhere:
Harper's Magazine
November 2002
Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction
By Joy Gordon.
"Since the U.N. adopted economic sanctions in 1945, in its charter, as a means of maintaining global order, it has used them fourteen times (twelve times since 1990). But only those sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions -- almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks."
-
Gee Puke, think if Saddam had used his vast sources of wealth from pillaging Iraq, to feed those children. Children were starving while Saddam built more palaces. Sanctions my ass... are you really that gullible? If Sddam gave one toejam about the supposed 500k dead, he'd have fed them.
-
Steve you mistook that, that excerpt shows how the UN's sanctions have killed of half a million Iraqi children and growing.
If the UN would be allowed to continue to impose these sanctions, the number would keep growing.
Hopefully when all is said and done, with hopefully a minimal loss of Iraqi civilian life (none if possible), no more children will have to die due to UN sanctions because there will no longer be a need with the current regime out of power.
-SW
-
(http://www.bartcop.com/pieman02a.jpg)
Right wing Neo-Nazis like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Tim Russert always talk about how the rich deserve to be rich because they work so hard.
Sure, that's gotta be true in some cases, but in many cases in just good old f*cking crime and greed.
Boots and Coots is part of Halliburton and the B.F.E.E..
Within the last year, their stock sold for as little as 6 cents a share.
Proof (http://www.smartmoney.com/eqsnaps/index.cfm?story=snapshot&symbol=WEL)
Now that Spurious George is dragging us into a war that nobody wants, and since our military is going to follow orders, Iraq's oil fields will soon be blazing....or at least enough of them so Boots and Coots can submit a trillion dollar repair bill to rape the American taxpayers.
This money will then be split amongst the B.F.E.E.
But they're smart enough to make money more than once.
Before the close of the market today, shares of Boots and Coots were going for $2.35 per share.
So if you're involved in the B.F.E.E., and you KNEW Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what the circumstances and no matter what Russia, China, France,Germany, or the U.N. said, you could've bought a million dollars worth of stock a year ago at 6 cents and if you cashed in today, according to my calculator, you would have $40,000,000 now.
Bush and his crooked evil friends will make FORTY TIMES their money by knowing the fix was in and the only cost will be a few hundred or a few thousand American soldiers.
Doesn't anybody give a f*ck?
The fix is in, our men will die and Bush's millionaire friends are now billionaires.
whoopee, I am pissed off about this.
Isn't anyone else pissed about this?
Bush's co-felons are making 40 times their money on this fake war and Boots & Coots haven't even presented their fake trillion dollar repair bill to your grandchildren yet.
-
The depths of your stupidity never cease to amaze me.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The depths of your stupidity never cease to amaze me.
The scarry thing is that this man votes.
-
Nice conspiracy theory, but the stock did not hit .06 until October. It was 600% higher than that a year ago.
-
The stock fluctuations couldn't be related to the B.F.E.E. manipulating it could it?
Nah...Couldn't Be. (http://majorbarbara.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_majorbarbara_archive.html)
Originally posted by Fatty
Nice conspiracy theory, but the stock did not hit .06 until October. It was 600% higher than that a year ago.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Boots and Coots is part of Halliburton and the B.F.E.E..
According to http://biz.yahoo.com/p/_energy-oilsrv.html (http://) Boots and Coots, (Symbol WEL) and Halliburton(Symbol WEL) are competitors.
Of course, Yahoo, Boots & Coots, Halliburton, and several hundred other companies in the financial, energy and defense sectors are all tied into the Bush Family Conspiracy through the Skull and Bones Society at Yale.
-
So the post earlier about buying the stock a year ago with knowledge of the war doesn't apply anymore, now it's stock price manipulation?
-
Steve, cool your nickers. AKSWulfe explained it well.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
So the post earlier about buying the stock a year ago with knowledge of the war doesn't apply anymore, now it's stock price manipulation?
*snicker* :)
-
Aww roadkill. you people really believe that? You read something in print so it MUST be true? Why is Saddam so well fed if there is no food in his country? Why was he building palaces with the county's money instead of buyin food? Are you guys really that obtuse? Do you think Saddam said," Oh gosh, no one will sell me food so I will spend 4 billion on a palace." You guys are clowns if you really believe that tripe.
-
Odd. When weazel says something, complete with links, albeit it being suggested rather than proved, the answer is 'he's an idiot'.
When cabby or someone like him does the same, minus supporting evidence, the response is 'HELL YEAH, GAWDAMN EVIL LIBERALS!'.
Inconsistent use of cognitive capacity and and critical judgment.
Wait. It isn't odd at all :)
-
Originally posted by Steve
Aww roadkill. you people really believe that? You read something in print so it MUST be true? Why is Saddam so well fed if there is no food in his country? Why was he building palaces with the county's money instead of buyin food? Are you guys really that obtuse? Do you think Saddam said," Oh gosh, no one will sell me food so I will spend 4 billion on a palace." You guys are clowns if you really believe that tripe.
I listen to Iraqi defectors who lived there tell their stories. Horses mouth...oh,but they MUST be spies of the CIA, right>?:rolleyes:
-
Where there's smoke there's fire.
Fatty, did you even read the 2nd link I posted?
Like Santa said there's no *hard* proof....but there is some pretty damning circumstantial evidence.
-
Japan attacked US because we were protecting the oil fields of the south pacific and manchuria....
Do you still think war for oil is a bad idea?
-
Ripsnort
Are you really stupid enough to blame whatever kids deaths on the U.N.? Food costs money. The Iraqi government has lots of money, it's just that Saddam chose to kepp it all for himself. Saddam could have bought all the food he could afford, if he chose to. Any ONE person that died didn't do so because of the U.N., they did so because Saddam chose not to feed his people. I'm somewhat shocked that there are people out there stupid enough to believe otherwise.
-
I read the second one Weazel, though I'm not suprised they are not giving the Canadian company the same availability as they are the US ones. Nor does it concern me.
Are you replacing your first conspiracy post with the second one? Because they contradict each other. Given the market value of the entire company is 94 million, its hard to make the 40 billion link.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Aww bull****. you people really believe that? You read something in print so it MUST be true? Why is Saddam so well fed if there is no food in his country? Why was he building palaces with the county's money instead of buyin food? Are you guys really that obtuse? Do you think Saddam said," Oh gosh, no one will sell me food so I will spend 4 billion on a palace." You guys are clowns if you really believe that tripe.
Steven have you seen the photos of his Palaces lately...
I guess photos of gold faucets, 3 swimming pools at one palaces, hundreds of frozen chickens,
As his people are starving,
Why would he spend 4 billion on palaces…..He’s a DICTAOR that’s why!
-
Steve, along with several Pre-war anti-war activists are no longer reading the BBS's. ;) If they are reading it, they aren't replying...too much crow for one sit down meal I guess.
-
Now that Spurious George is dragging us into a war that nobody wants, and since our military is going to follow orders, Iraq's oil fields will soon be blazing....or at least enough of them so Boots and Coots can submit a trillion dollar repair bill to rape the American taxpayers.
I get it...Weazel is one of them conspiracy whacko nut-jobs.
Weazel...you are right because CNN reports that "Only 70% of Americans support the war with Iraq"
And where are all of these oil fires? I have only heard of a few (as opposed to last war) and those are being reported by all press agencies as set by the Iraqis.
Keep up the good work ya loveable crazy person.
[edit]
I think it's rather amusing that 1/2 of the people who criticize GWB say he's an idiot and a bungler while the other 1/2 claim he's deviously intelligent so that he can profit from an unwanted war
[/edit]
-
Originally posted by JBA
Japan attacked US because we were protecting the oil fields of the south pacific and manchuria....
Not quiet right. Japan attacked because we stopped selling them oil in protest of there agression in Manchuria. They would run out in less than a year if they didn't capture the oil fields in Malaya.
That, plus there long desire to have an Empire in the Western Pacific.
(Remember, in 1941 the U.S. was an oil EXPORTING nation.
-
This war is about a lot of things, and different things to different players, but Oil is the major underlying feature. Without oil, nobody gives a crap about Iraq or the whole Middle East. It just becomes another economic void like Central Africa. Local and even "multinational" coalition companies in the oil biz will enjoy significant financial gains, and those of the "Axis of the unwilling" will suffer losses. Kinda hard to just see the "other guy's" selfish motivations without acknowledging that there are some people on our side who will come out quite ahead. The fact that this is an oil White House can't be overlooked either.
However, "stabilizing the region" seems to be the major oil related driver. Iraq is seen as serving as a much-needed oil reserves counter to Saudi Arabia (how many al-queada cells can you find within those borders?) and forms the cornerstone of the neo-conservative "Wolfowitz" doctrine for remaking the region from a position of power, and the willingness to use aggression to achieve those goals..
The questions that remain are:
1. Will Jeffersonian Democracy take hold, overcoming some significant territorial and religious obstacles, or will the new government need another Hussein to keep the state together. As happy as the Kurds are in the North, and the Shi’as are in the south, for the downfall of Hussein there are certainly those in both groups who see this as a golden opportunity to achieve their own goals, which are at odds with our vision. We'll just have to see how it works out.
2. If democracy doesn't take hold, how long will US peacekeeping forces be required to man checkpoints and run patrols in the face of snipers and suicide bombers? The anticipated 2 years? 10 Years? We can't just pull up and leave like in Beirut or Somalia. For one, we own the Iraqi future now and for another, well, there's that oil again. Hopefully, some form of cooperative and representative democracy will take hold.
3. Will the broader goals of the Wolfowitz doctrine to stabilize the region be realized without moving down the list of other "Axis of Evil" countries after Iraq? Will a wave of regional democracy follow the defeat of Iraq, or will the "Arab street" harden it's stance against the West. Will it matter if it does? Will we lose the existing moderate states to radicalism? Again, time will tell. One vision of the doctrine has Israel reaching peace with the Palestinian's on Sharon's terms (an extension of the "Iron Wall" concept). The Blair vision of this issue might be quite different. For that matter Bush may not be buying in to the full doctrine (as established by the neo-conservatives) and see the need for significant concessions from Israel. Again, only time will tell.
In the end, the war might be the easiest part of this action. But, hopefully, these guys in Washington will turn out to be as smart as they think they are. Only time will tell.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Otto
Not quiet right. Japan attacked because we stopped selling them oil in protest of there agression in Manchuria. They would run out in less than a year if they didn't capture the oil fields in Malaya.
That, plus there long desire to have an Empire in the Western Pacific.
(Remember, in 1941 the U.S. was an oil EXPORTING nation.
And don't forget to explain WHY we stopped selling them oil. ;) Can you say "Rape of Nanking"
-
All good questions Charon.
-
Again, if you clowns believe that any children died as a result of UN sanctions... you are complete love muffines. saddam chose to spend his money on private palaces and luxuries instead of feeding his people. To hold the UN responsible for any starvation deaths is complete folly. Why, tell me why Ripsnort, if there wasn't food going into Iraq, why were all the Iraqi leadership so well fed? The answer is because they were looking after themselves, spending all their oil profits on nice cars and palaces instead of feeding the people. Let me repeat it you moron: To blame any of the starvation deaths on the UN is to completely ignore the facts. Your stupidity absolutely astounds me.
-
First off, you lost any arguement or credibility Steve, name calling means, you lose.
Secondly, I posted this article with the feelings that the failure of the UN to bring this situation to a peaceful end is partly to blame due to keeping their coffers full.
-
If the shoe fits..... it may be name calling but seems dead on to me. Anyone who believes the UN sanction led to the death of anyone is a complete moron.
Why, tell me why Ripsnort, if there wasn't food going into Iraq, why were all the Iraqi leadership so well fed? The answer is because they were looking after themselves, spending all their oil profits on nice cars and palaces instead of feeding the people.
-
Its both ,...!!!as Steve puts it... YOU MORONS!!!!
Both are wrong..Yes Batth party is major problem with the UN rigth behind itbehind it..
Am i Wrong? NO
UN DEFNTLY PROFITS HEAVILY FROM IRAQ!!! NO doubt about it..
And btw..Airhead...get of My Jock....Player Hater
When I said Lee Larvey Weazel..it was a JOKE..LARVEY !! You know what a Larvey is? Get a dictionary...lmfao
Cloven Hoofs..yes i do type with my knuckels...my fukn secratary quit when after she found out about my other "secratary"
ahh what a waste of typing
-
My original post was directed at Puke, then you and that other fool AKswulfe joined in. I repeat:Anyone who believes the UN sanction led to the death of anyone is a complete moron.
-
BGB,, Rip's original post is certainly provocative and interesting..I do not dispute it in any way. Again,. my comments were directed at Puke, ,then the others who echoed his lunacy.
-
Originally posted by Steve
other ool AKswulfe joined in.
Other fool, huh? If you'll notice I was commenting only on the excerpt in this thread dip****.
The true moron here is you for not seeing that in the first place, tard.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Steve
Why, tell me why Ripsnort, if there wasn't food going into Iraq, why were all the Iraqi leadership so well fed? The answer is because they were looking after themselves, spending all their oil profits on nice cars and palaces instead of feeding the people.
I agree! As well as the UN coffers were nice and full. Everyone was happy (UN and Saddam) except the poor Iraqi people that were NOT Ba'ath party members.
Speaking of members, put yourself back in your pants. :D
-
ok im lost..Im looking for yogurt covered pretzels??
And anyone have problems with dusty fungus on their gardens?
-
Nope, I keep my garden trimmed. :D
-
Originally posted by Charon
However, "stabilizing the region" seems to be the major oil related driver. Iraq is seen as serving as a much-needed oil reserves counter to Saudi Arabia (how many al-queada cells can you find within those borders?) and forms the cornerstone of the neo-conservative "Wolfowitz" doctrine for remaking the region from a position of power, and the willingness to use aggression to achieve those goals..
Excellent post Charon...I'm glad someone else knows about the neo-con "Pax Americana" agenda. Kristol, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, and their enabler Karl Rove are the most dangerous folks to enter the Oval Office inner circle since the early '70s, IMHO.
Folks that don't know about the neo-cons need to read their most recent manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)...which actually even harkens back to several papers written by Wolfowitz starting back in the late '70s.
-
Wulfe.. you typed this:"If the UN would be allowed to continue to impose these sanctions, the number would keep growing."
didn't you?
-
Rip, I'm confused(I admit, it happens often)
Earlier you said UN sanctions caused the deaths of Iraqi folks. Now you agree that Saddam caused them.
Listen, your first post is fascinating stuff, and it causes some stuff to make sense, I'm talking about your post in response to My post re:Puke's post...lol.
I can see what you mean about the UN wanting their sanctions/relationship regarding Saddam to go in perpetuity.. like I said... interesting stuff. I just don't see how anyone could feel the UN caused any starvation deaths.
I have been out of line on the boards before, made a love muffin of myself. Believe me, if this is the case here, I'm ready with fork in hand to sample my plate full of crow.
-
Originally posted by Steve
I'm ready with fork in hand to sample my plate full of crow.
Get the fork away from me! ;)
-
Pass the BBQ sauce!!
-
Yes, based on that article.
Of course, when you resort to calling people idiots and morons then you've already lost the argument.
-SW
-
Well Wulfe, like I said:Anyone who believes the UN sanction led to the death of anyone is a complete moron.
-
You never thought that the UN sanctions placed all monetary funds and responsibility over the limited imports/exports monetary gains solely into the hands of Saddam?
Guess you're the moron.
-SW
-
Saddam caused the sanctions in the first place by invading Kuwait. No invasion, full co-operation, no sanctions. Obviously Saddam is responsible for the sanctions. The sanctions in NO way prevented Saddam from buying food. The UN is not responsible for feeding the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government is. The Iraqi government(Saddam) had plenty of money to buy food, they chose to spend it on palaces, SUV's. and other opulent trappings. Any even marginally reasonable person would understand that Saddam alone is responsible for the suffering of his people.
How is it that all of Saddam's associates were well fed? They weren't starving. Do you really believe that Saddam was unable to feed his people? If you do, you are a complete moron.
-
I never said Saddam wasn't the primary cause.
I can't say the UN isn't a secondary cause either.
-SW
-
No, you said this: that excerpt shows how the UN's sanctions have killed of half a million Iraqi children and growing.
If the UN would be allowed to continue to impose these sanctions, the number would keep growing.
You clearly are repeating that the UN is responsible and make no mention of Saddam. You're looking at the trees, see the forest. You're kinda missing where I'm going... I don't blame ya because my words seem hostile. (I shouldn't have called you a fool, I'm sorry.)
Let me rephrase it a little bit. You don't impress me as being anywhere near a moron so I find it hard to believe that you really feel the U.N. is responsible. There was no evidence of the Iraqi government being short of funds.. quite the contrary. With this in in mind, along with the fact that Saddam could have imported all the food he wanted, any truly reasonable person must conclude that Saddam chose not to feed his people, ergo he is at fault for their starvation.
-
Yes, and that was based on what that article said. Not what I believed.
I am clearly stating that I realize Saddam is the primary cause, but I do believe the UN sanctions are a "behind the scenes" cause.
Look at it this way: Without UN sanctions, would of there been an ability for independent groups of people to form their own monetary funds via use of exports and imports? Exporting their goods and making money, importing goods and selling them for a slightly higher price thusly making money.
Before the UN sanctions, did Saddam have complete control over all monetary funds throughout the country? Or did it happen after the UN sanctions when Saddam realized he would now be forced to keep control of all the countries money to pay for him and his to ensure their loyalty?
That's what I'm getting at. Not that I believe Saddam is a big ol' innocent nice guy who's only problems are the UN, but did the UN have a hand in putting all the country's money underneath Saddam's control?
-SW
-
Quote:Without UN sanctions, would of there been an ability for independent groups of people to form their own monetary funds via use of exports and imports? Exporting their goods and making money, importing goods and selling them for a slightly higher price thusly making money.
I dunno, were they allowed to do that by the regime, then restricted from doing so by the UN?
Quote:but did the UN have a hand in putting all the country's money underneath Saddam's control?
I dunno.. did they? These arew things I don't know about.
I DO know that the oil profits always went to the government and I thought it was some of these profits that the UN was helping themselves to... is this incorrect?
-
It's that the regime was making tons of profit on oils from the getgo, then when the UN put a strangle hold on it- the profit dropped and I believe the regime ran out of the massive overspill of profits it had before. This then led to less trickle down to the bottom rung of the Iraqi population. It wasn't that Saddam ran low on money to show off his power and riches, and make monument after monument- it's that there wasn't so much money that Saddam allowed it to get further down the line. Of course, it all depends on who the Iraqi children are who were dying. If they were of a particular people, then they would of been dying off anyway because Saddam didn't care about certain people. Anyway, I don't have the time to delve into this further tonite.
Oil wasn't the only thing restricted, but I have to search to find the list... can't do it tonite, have lots of stuff to get done.
Last post for tonite, I'll get the list of restricted exports/imports tommorrow or thursday and cover in more detail what I mean.
-SW
-
Fatty did you misscount the zeros in your last post.
isnt 40,000,000 40 million? not 40 billion?
weazel. Its just a coincincidence.