|
|
 |
| |
|
| |
|
Sayzak
Chimerical Visionary
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 09:55 PM
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3868
|
Sayzak are you under the impression that Halliburton is the only contractor qualified to do the job in Iraq?
No. I was asking why you think Halliburton's involvment is such a shocking horror.
As for bombing Iraq for its oil, you have to see deeper than the surface when this allegation is being made. Let me try and make it a little clearer without being lengthy if possible 
Oh..... boy.
Over the last 4 decades, the US has become very heavily dependant on oil. The embargo in the 70's pointed to a weakness this country has in its dependency. As a result, our government knew we had a real problem on our hands, one that could devastate this country.
Enter: OPEC
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, it was presumed that they were going after the oil in that region. They were our major enemy then and tensions were high because of the cold war and communism vs. democracy. Jimmy Carter then said he would defend this countries interests to its fullest, even militarily if necessary because he knew the impact this would have here should Russia control the worlds oil reserves.
Yes, Russia = evil (at the time). For them to distribute the world's economic "blood" is a terrifying and horrible thought.
Wasn't it in our very best interest to make sure Russia wasn't in control of the oil?
Since the 70?s we?ve forged political relationships with the Arab world, mainly the oil reserved states. We did not want a repeat of the early 70?s.
'course not.
Iraq was our ally then because we had a common foe, Iran. This is when Saddam acquired his knowledge of chemical weapons manufacturing because we provided him with the knowledge on how to do it, knowing he would use them against Iran, but that?s another story.
No, it's relevent in my opinion. Show me how you believe Saddam got those weapons. Don't just say it, show it. 
The US has become over the next 2 decades the most oil consuming country in the world. Instead of us learning from the 70?s, greed went after the dollar and oil companies made billions.
Isn't it smart to regulate a dissapearing recourse?
It deepened our dependency on oil. Because of this, we have to at all cost keep the world flowing naturally with oil. This is why we forged relationships with both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The only other oil rich country was Iraq, and they were not US friendly by the late 80?s because Saddam was betrayed by the US during the war with Iran. Because Iraq?s ability to upset the balance of the world due to its resources, and because of ever increasing strains in our relationships, this was a major concern for the US.
Oh, so we betrayed our friend, Mr. Saddam. Hmm... where's this going?
Now cutting to the chase.
We needed Saddam out because he would undoubtedly hurt us if he ever was in position to do so. This is why the US pressed the issue with Iraq from the 90?s on. We were the forging force behind every resolution against Iraq to date. It wasn?t a matter of simply buying oil from Iraq, because Saddam was not trustworthy Before the last war, he promise oil in abundance to France Russia and China for their support against the US invasion. Does this suggest that we could do business or trust a government like that?
So we couldn't trust him because we stabbed him in the back? Is that the chase?
During the Gulf war, companies were lined up trying to get contracts from the US to rebuild Kuwait after the war. They knew they stood to make billions. Same here with the recent invasion. Companies were salivating at the opportunities to get into Iraq.
Which companies? I just want to know, that's all.
Bush had to secure Iraq for numerous reasons, none of which were second to ?fighting terrorism?. First we had to secure the world oil flow for our good. Secondly, there were billions to be made in the rebuilding process. Corporations were contributing Bush?s interest to the tune of millions. They knew he wanted to invade that country long before 9/11 which made it easier for him to do so. How do we worry about Saddam and chemicals in which he had no capacity to deliver them to the US, and we completely ignore N. Korea who kicked out UN Inspectors and has admitted it has nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US coastline? Many think our next invasion would happen in either Syria or Iran. Tell me, does this even make sense to you?
Which part? Potentially attacking Syria or Iran? Or are you talking about neglecting *other* mass murder-weapon-harboring nations?
I think attacking Syria or Iran is smart. They need a make-over.
As for the North Korean thing: N. Korea is like a kid. They are whining and screaming because they want us to reward them for waisting all their resources. They need free money. The message:
"Quietly, and diplomatically, give us energy. Or we will continue to stir up your ignorant citizen populous, until they make you do something." (Black mail)
What happens? Well if Bill Clinton (or the like) was president, we'd probably never even heard about N. Korea's Nuclear program. Hell, we'd probably help them build it so they'd shut the hell up. false security.
Enter George Bush. N. Korea says "Hey, in the wake of a troubling time, while your citizens are aware of the potential destruction and murder that can be caused by a nation over seas, why don't you quietly appease to our demands so that we don't encite a revolt in your country. Thanks"
Bush says: "Blow it out your a**."
(Sorry that got long-winded  )
Consequently, Halliburton received the no bid contract to handle the Iraq?s oil situation. This administration said that they didn?t have time for the bidding process and awarded the contract to Halliburton before we even invaded Iraq prompting the need for explanation even among other republicans in Congress.
First, did they really say they didn't have time? Second, explain to me how that was a false statement. Third, why shouldn't halliburton get the contract?
Halliburton has made to date 1.59 billion in the process. Now at the end of their contract, Bush extends it saying that because of rebels in Iraq, they don?t have time to award the contract to someone else. Halliburton stands to clear $2 billion easily before this is over with.
Sounds good to me... What's the point?
There?s much more, but now do you at least get the picture?
Yeah. We needed oil in the 70's so we made friends with nations with oil, including Iraq. Some time later, we stabbed Saddam in the back, so he didn't trust us ever again. Then, to secure more oil, we bombed the hell out of Saddam. 12 years later we did it again. Right? And all for oil.
We are not fighting terror in Iraq more than fighting for the dollars. This is why this war is about the oil in that region. It?s not about hauling it off on ships bound for the US. We?re under too many watchful eyes to do that, but it?s definitely about securing the oil flow to this country and making billions in the process while doing so.
I had no trouble fallowing your explaination of why you (and many others) believe the U.S. is an oil-hungry capitalistic back-stabbing nation.
My response is this:
-Show me how crucial Iraq's oil was/is to the U.S.
-Show me why halliburton shouldn't get the contract, as well as which other companies wanted the contracts both in '91 and in '03.
-Explain why attacking Iraq when we did was strategically wrong in fighting against terrorism.
-Explain what J. Carter meant by this statement: "...defend this countries interests to its fullest". Which interests, exactly?
-Explain, rather show me how Saddam got those weapons.
To everyone reading this: Please feel free to jump in and gather this information, and post it here if you want to -- I'm interested in the answers. Be as elaborate as you need to (i.e. graphs, dates, sources, interviews etc).
Thanks.
ps -- sorry I didn't respond to this earlier I somehow looked over it!
Last edited by Sayzak on 12-07-2003 at 06:31 AM |
|
12-07-2003 06:26 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
oneofpeace
INReview Maven
offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 10:55 PM
Location: United States
Posts: 3972
|
| quote: |
sayzak21 said this in post #33 :
[B]Sayzak are you under the impression that Halliburton is the only contractor qualified to do the job in Iraq?
No. I was asking why you think Halliburton's involvment is such a shocking horror.....etc
|
Sayzak, if you expect me to point you to a source on every point I make that would take up half the forum. You can easily find some much of this yourself. I?ll respond only to some key points, but some things are just common sense.
| quote: |
| No. I was asking why you think Halliburton's involvment is such a shocking horror. |
First, I don?t think that Halliburton?s involvement is horror. What I think it does is gives the appearance that something here is conflicting in interests. You do know that Halliburton and other corporations contributed heavily to the Bush campaign don?t you? Now why do you think that is? Is this the norm on the hill? Absolutely, but when you have an employee or ex employee of that company, then the company gets the contract without any public bids, you have to understand that it appears sneaky at best.
| quote: |
| Wasn't it in our very best interest to make sure Russia wasn't in control of the oil? |
Sure it was. This was just explanation, not criticism Say. I?m just showing how the US interest in that region isn?t about freeing citizens or fighting horrible dictators. The US never label what they do in that region as oil interest, though it?s clearly what it is.
| quote: |
| Show me how you believe Saddam got those weapons. Don't just say it, show it. |
Sayzak, I don?t know how old you were during the 80?s, but this isn?t disputed by the US at all. Iran is suing the US now because of this.
http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives...3/20030309.html
US supplies Iraq with chemical weapons here
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/time.html
Just do a search on the web. You?ll find numerous things about this.
| quote: |
| Isn't it smart to regulate a dissapearing recourse? |
Not sure what you mean by this, but it isn?t smart to become more dependant on a resource your enemy used to cripple you earlier. Especially when your enemy controls the resource.
| quote: |
| Oh, so we betrayed our friend, Mr. Saddam. Hmm... where's this going? |
Say, try and look beyond the biased ok? Saddam was our ally at first. We supplied him with these weapons, then while leading him to believe we were his friend, we betrayed him in the Iran / Iraq war. You don?t see the relevance here?
| quote: |
| I think attacking Syria or Iran is smart. They need a make-over. |
I?m not sure how to respond to this Say other than to say that isn?t a wise course of action right now. Besides, no Arab nation in that region can reach the US with any weapons it has. N. Korea says it has nukes!!!! And they can reach the US with them too. Do you not know that N. Korean dictator has the same horrible record of torturing their own citizens as Iraq? Do you not know that Kim Jong executed and tortured thousands in that country, and still does to this day with his subhuman conditions, labor colonies & prison camps?
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/ri...orth-korea.html
And you wonder how the Arab world could get the impression this is a crusade against Islam? How is it that you and others like you keep saying this is Clinton?s fault as is Saddam and his terror reign? Although I don?t blame Bush Sr. for Saddam, how is it that you all look past Daddy Bush?s mistake of not continuing into Iraq during the Gulf war in 1991 and taking him out then? It?s ridiculous to keep blaming Clinton for this mess. It sounds like a batch of republican rhetoric.
| quote: |
| First, did they really say they didn't have time? Second, explain to me how that was a false statement. |
Yes this administration said they didn?t have enough time to go through the bidding process and hire another contractor. And in light of everything else going on, it is easy to see that these statements are suspect as well.
| quote: |
| Yeah. We needed oil in the 70's so we made friends with nations with oil, including Iraq. Some time later, we stabbed Saddam in the back, so he didn't trust us ever again. Then, to secure more oil, we bombed the hell out of Saddam. 12 years later we did it again. Right? And all for oil. |
Yes that?s the just of it. Only in your sarcasm, you sound like you either dismiss it or simply do not believe it. That is your right to do so.
In your latter post with explain this and explain that, I just did. If you cannot see that oil is the main initiative for presence in Iraq and that region, then simply you?ve bought into the Bush storyline of why we?re fighting terror in Iraq. I simply do not know why you dismiss the fact that Bush said he had clear and convincing evidence, and now he?s in Iraq searching for it. You don?t even question it and dismiss it as Saddam hiding them so well.
Well, all I can say is that you?re living in a dream Say. We?ve been lied to simple as that. Your asking me to prove it simply mean that you?re unwilling to accept any other explanation for us coming up empty over there. I don?t think there?s much more to say.
|
12-08-2003 05:29 PM
|
|
|
| |
<
>
Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.05664611 seconds (86.59% PHP - 13.41% MySQL) with 41 queries.
|
|
|
|
