Ian....after 1300 posts it's a tad late...

Joe...there IS only ONE 'truth', just many interpretations...

and those interpretations turn into parallel truths right??

If parellel truths is anything like parellel lines then it will lead to the same place.

I do agree though, there is only one truth. To bad it isn't seen or noticed all the time.



BTW, is there any way to change tomarrow in the title thread to 'tomorrow'?

bakerstreet dunno, but whom ever does it, the oil fires do need putting out so someones going to end up doing it, though I think that CBC International did state that someone is already capping the few that were set ablaze. So if they have the contract it must be them is what I figure. But they are some of the best in the world, top notch so why wouldn't they be doing it?

Of course that is without taking the question of opn biding into consideration, which was not really conneted to the context of the response on my part.

lol joe

IPlural: true. I wish they would have at least taken bids for the rebuilding from the rest of the coalition. I'm all for the war, and I don't think it is being waged because of economics, but it makes for bad press, especially when easily confused people are trying to find an excuse to call us 'invaders'.

If money *is* shifted under the table at least we can say it is coming from US tax dollars and not the Iraqi people. Oil and arms deals that rely on Saddam staying in power also rely on the poverty of the Iraqi people. Two birds with one stone, oui?

lmao...*cough* *gasp*

Iraq has expelled a Al-Jazeera journalist from baghdad and now Al-Jazeera is miffed and not gonna report from there. Dig it, though:

"The network executive in Doha said the Iraqis have also called Al Jazeera "pro-American."

Gah, I'd hate to see what they would consider anti-american.

The only thing about it that kind of gives me the chills is perhaps they don't want *any* objective press there to see what they are gonna do. If they start destroying all the cameras set up there it will not bode well. Call me paranoid, but I still think all that gas they said they didn't have is gonna turn up soon, if for no other reason than to claim the US used it. Only radical Arab elements will believe it, but once Baghdad has fallen who else really needs to?

There is no such thing as "objective press".

By the way, were you bullied by some French kid when you were young or something? You make it sound like France is out to "Control The World For Their Evil Purposes!".

I've been pondering a bit since post #1307. I was trying to play the devil's advocate as to why we would deny England the opportunity to bid for contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq. While I was nuking my pizza, i was trying to remember what year the British lost control of Iraq.

When i hit some of my old books I realized that Iraq had been occupied by the British after every world conflict in the last century. They got control of it after WW1, occupied it when Iraq took the Nazi side in WW2, and had set up the hated Hashemite monarchy that Saddam eventually helped overthrow. I knew that they had a bumpy past, but I had overlooked the repetitive nature of British occupation.

Given that, it is really better that Britain doesn't have a hand in rebuilding it, right? Would anything smack of occupation to an Iraqi more than British forces wandering around afterward?

I dunno, I think a lot of Brits are mad about not getting to bid on contracts, but to me it seems prudent.

no, crea, i don't think they want to control the world. Why would they? Too much accountability and not a lot of profit.

a couple of facts for ya:

French exports to Iraq increased from 300 million to 1 billion dollars from 2000-03.

'Total Fina Elf' had inked deals with Iraq to share in the oil production of two fields, the output being enough to fulfill French oil needs for *30* years.

From 1981-2001 France, China and Russia supplied 81% of Iraq's military imports, the US was 11th on the list during that period.

Here's a report that originally appeared on the Al-Jazeera website:

http://memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/oekonomie/eco_irak_27_03_03.html

another good list of statistics is here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

If you find those links suspect, I can find numerous others that share that view. These are the nations who are anti-war and yet somehow up to their necks in Iraq. Peace-loving nations that financially support a regime that has murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people.

France spends a great deal of time and effort fencing economically with the US and anyone else that threatens their supposed 'culture'. I can go and make you a list of times France has had 'reservations' when people around the world have begged for military assistance if you need me to. I doubt you do. Add to that the numerous times they have refused to classify terrorist organizations as 'terrorist' and allowed them to run store-front operations.

No, I am not a big fan of France, crea. I don't have any more respect in this case for Germany than I do for France. Russia and China should be no-brainers to anyone with any concept of 'human rights'. An odd crew to be so pro-peace, wouldn't ya think?

P.S. and I also take exception with the idea that it is wrong to boycott a nation's products because of what that nation's government decides to do.

Proceeds from the sale of such products end up in the hands of that government in the form of taxes. When that happens, I have helped in small way to enact their policies. I'm positive that some small part of all that Brie and Bitburger I have consumed in the last 10 years has gone to support Saddam Hussein, even if it is a tenth of a cent. Spread out over millions of purchases, that becomes a sizable vote of confidence, and it is a vote I no longer wish to cast.

If the nation freely elects its government, then the people are responsible for the next election. I can't vote there, but I can make my opinion known. I dunno if it will matter, but it will matter to me.

Let me reiterate what I see:
1. those links state that France does a lot of business with Iraq (including weaponry) and has large interests in it. As do other nations.
2. coincidentally a lot of these same nations are against the war

So there is a high correlation between the countries that have economical interests in Iraq and those that are against the war.

Ergo, these articles conclude that, 1 + 2 = 3:
3. France (and others) are against the war to protect their economic interests

Right?

About the boycot thing, that's about the same as that "people that drive SUV's support Bin Laden" campaign. A bit too simple.

I'll have to get back on the rest when my boss stops looking over my shoulder, but I find it all a bit too simple. Plus the pot/kettle/black symptoms of it all.

Crea: number 3 could also be stated as "France (and others) are protecting Saddam Hussein to protect their economic interests" Fact is, once the regime is gone, so are their agreements.

Granted, they may make new ones, but an evil bird in hand...

( lol, and the award for 'Most egregious misuse of an old saying' goes to... )

I never bought into the bin Laden thing. I'm not a fan of the Saudis, though, so with some alterations I could make it work

Good luck ducking the boss. I'm pooped and bleary-eyed from working on my little girl's birthday present and wasting time here, lol. g'nite.

Well that won't work because they owe millions if not more to US corporations and Banks along with others from around the world. Ari balked and sputtered when asked about this same thing yesterday..

backerstreet,
talking about deals with irak, you should read that article from the washington post (dated Nov, 2001) :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm

You'll always find informations and its counter-part over the net. Now, to discern true from false, that's the hardest part. I'm not saying that france did not any business with irak, it must be true (after all, total-fina-elf is not a company much appreciated by the french population), but you can find several informations in a lot of places saying that usa made also big deals (chemicals weapons and more) with irak.

Oh, as the joke goes, we (the US government) knows for a fact Iraq has WMD, we kept the recipets.
Right or wrongly we did support and supply Iraq when they fought a war with Iran which we wanted
very deeply.

Iplural: huh? who cares what they owe us, we are the ones making war. We aren't trying to protect those debts by leaving him in place. The point isn't what Iraq owes these other countries, it is the fact that they are desperately trying to keep Saddam Hussein in power so they can do business with him.

Thibaud: I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are saying "Sure, he's evil, but since you sold something to him 30 years ago you can't touch him now." People keep saying stuff like that, mentioning that the US helped Hussein during the cold war. My opinion is "So?". What sort of world would this be if you couldn't re-assess relations with other nations. Anti-war Europe seems to have no trouble doing so.

When this is over Saddam Hussein's regime will be gone. Ask yourself what kind of people could be upset about that.

my last post was in reference to IPlural's #1316. Hadn't seen the newest one. File it under my reply to Thibaud

backerstreet,
did you read the article ? it wasn't 30 years ago but only some years ago : 1997 to 2000 does not really correspond to the cold war period.

Anyway, you didn't understand what i said : i've never said that since country x (whether it would be france, usa etc..) had/has a deal with hussein, then it would let him quiet. We all agree that hussein is a terrible dictator who must be removed. All i'm just saying here, is that you think that france/germany/china/russia (and a lot of other countries) didn't want that war only because of interests with irak.
What i just meant in my previous post is that a lot more countries (usa included) had/have deals with irak.

It's too basic assuming that "if you don't want war, then it means that you support saddam hussein".
Really ? I didn't want that war. Is that because I have a special interest to hussein ? come on. Anti-war Governement opinions/populations opinion are greatly different. It reminds me what Powell or Rumsfeld (I can't remember who did) said : "you're with us or against us". Arg, that's stupid ! It's not because we disagree on something that we're automatically against the usa. It's not the case at all.
Though we also have some stupid guys here who would try to destroy a McDonald, I can assure you that the majority of the french population has always been in favor of the usa and they never tried to boycott nor rename US words ('freedom fries/toast' makes me laugh).

Anyway, i just hope now that this war will end soon (with a US success of course) then, let see how it'll go for irak, democracy, middle-east region. I'm not sure that democracy in irak will work, but well, time will tell (let's hope I'm wrong).

excuse meee for the commercial here...
but I'm still trying to recover from this latest news of that 19 yo GI Jane POW, I heard she was shooting the enemy before being captured (I cannot get this nasty image out of my head)
what in the world is a girl playing army for???
oh boy!!!!!
(I think it's a miracle she is alive and if she was not raped well that's just another miracle (girls to not belong in the army they belong behind machines!) hehe

there's always games we can play on a machine when we feel the urge to blow things up! (and it's muchhhh safer) hehe

okay sorry you guys can continue your army talk now...

Girl was playing Army to pay for her college. Or that could be an other girl. Or in other words, it's a job like any other, with some twists.

And go Thibaud!

Just because France has a) interests in Iraq and opposes the war (or more precisely: it opposes (or opposed) it because it thinks it's too soon to take that route right now) does not mean that France is trying to keep Saddam firmly seated in order to protect those interests.

It would be along the same lines to say that the US has (potential) interests in Iraq as well, but finds itself thwarted by Saddam thus has to remove him in order to protect said interests.

Thibaud: The 30 year reference was to the occasional 'The US sold WMD to Iraq" comments that appear. To be frank, I don't like Dick Cheney. I didn't like him as a choice for a running mate and I don't like him as a vice president. I don't think G.B. would have been allowed to run without him, though. To be honest I could make a fairly long list of people I would rather have than G.B. in the office of President.

I can't vouch for Halliburton's business practices either. Usually when they get caught in something it ends up being a 'subsidiary' they recently liquidated. I dunno. I have two main concerns for this war. Is removing Hussein something that will better Iraq and the world as a whole, and is anyone taking advantage of the Iraqi people in the process?

Considering the contracts for rebuilding Iraq are gonna be paid by US tax dollars, or UN, or whatever they decide, I can't say the Iraqi people would be harmed, no matter the subcontractor shenanigans. There will be a great deal of work done to rebuild their nation. I don't have any doubt in my mind that the world will be a better place without Hussein.

I agree that many more countries have deals with Iraq, but the most-vocal of the anti-war crowd have the biggest deals, and that is way too much of a coincidence to me. I believe that they aren't pro-peace, they just don't want to lose their lucrative business deals.

As I said before, all Saddam Hussein needs is to be left in power. Preventing this war would have given him that. That was my point. I don't have any hard feelings against you. I respect your opinion. This is just talk.

and now everybody will post that the US gets it´s oil from Southern America, from the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

it´s far too complicated to understand that the US have an interested in controlling the oil resources of other countries as well ... so stop being so logic ...

was directed to craeonic´s post.