Let me get this straight

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

France's Chirac has called Hussein a good friend in the past, and gave him his first nuclear reactor.

 

Private Russian companies are selling Night-vision and GPS scramblers to Iraq, while Putin is frantically calling for an immediate end to action (hmm...).

 

And yesterday, a Chinese-made missile was fired at Kuwait in the direction of a military camp.

 

That's 3 of the big 4 (unless I missed any implication of Germany). Who else has a problem with this?

[Zorin Industries 0]

Private Russian companies are selling Night-vision and GPS scramblers to Iraq, while Putin is frantically calling for an immediate end to action (hmm...).

 

And yesterday, a Chinese missile was fired at Kuwait in the direction of a military camp.

Business is business.

 

It's not like the U.S would sell weapons to dubious governments.... oh wait.

[Guest SP-1]

The Chinese fired on us? Or was it just a strange, weird circumstance? Is it confirmed?

[Guest Brian]

Or reactors to say, North Korea.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

France's Chirac has called Hussein a good friend in the past, and gave him his first nuclear reactor.

Wow, talk about dragging out the past. You make it sound as if the US objected to an Iraqi nuclear reactor back in 1981. When Israel flew in and blew it up, the US backed the UN motion criticizing the attack. While some people might believe the 1984ish "The US is at war with Iraq, the US has always been at war with Iraq" spin, it's about as far from the truth as possible. Coming fresh of the 79 hostage crisis, who would you guess most Americans supported during the Iran-Iraq war?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Private Russian companies are selling Night-vision and GPS scramblers to Iraq, while Putin is frantically calling for an immediate end to action (hmm...).

 

And yesterday, a Chinese missile was fired at Kuwait in the direction of a military camp.

Business is business.

 

It's not like the U.S would sell weapons to dubious governments.... oh wait.

But I thought China, France and Russia insisted that more inspections were necessary.

 

Yet they arm him.

 

I say we let France protect itself and allow Russia's economy to go completely belly-up.

 

Why help those who oppose us?

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Because we're the "good guys", right?

 

We'd DEFINITELY be the biggest supervillains in the world if you were in charge.

 

-=Tyler, who thinks Mike is a huge hypocrite

[Guest SP-1]

I haven't found anything at CNN.com about China firing a missile. When did this happen?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

somebody fired a 'chinese-made' missile at a mall in Kuwait at 1am Kuwaiti time

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"somebody fired a 'chinese-made' missile at a mall in Kuwait at 1am Kuwaiti time"

 

So I guess after 30 minutes "somebody" will get the urge to fire another one...

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

France's Chirac has called Hussein a good friend in the past, and gave him his first nuclear reactor.

Wow, talk about dragging out the past. You make it sound as if the US objected to an Iraqi nuclear reactor back in 1981. When Israel flew in and blew it up, the US backed the UN motion criticizing the attack. While some people might believe the 1984ish "The US is at war with Iraq, the US has always been at war with Iraq" spin, it's about as far from the truth as possible. Coming fresh of the 79 hostage crisis, who would you guess most Americans supported during the Iran-Iraq war?

We sold arms in order to help defeat a military enemy... are we military enemies of France, China, and Russia?

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

France's Chirac has called Hussein a good friend in the past, and gave him his first nuclear reactor.

Wow, talk about dragging out the past. You make it sound as if the US objected to an Iraqi nuclear reactor back in 1981. When Israel flew in and blew it up, the US backed the UN motion criticizing the attack. While some people might believe the 1984ish "The US is at war with Iraq, the US has always been at war with Iraq" spin, it's about as far from the truth as possible. Coming fresh of the 79 hostage crisis, who would you guess most Americans supported during the Iran-Iraq war?

We sold arms in order to help defeat a military enemy... are we military enemies of France, China, and Russia?

I think you missed the point I was making. When France sold a reactor to Iraq, Iraq was not an enemy of any western country. Was France supposed to predict the Gulf War 10 years before it happened?

[Guest Vyce]

France's Chirac has called Hussein a good friend in the past, and gave him his first nuclear reactor.

Wow, talk about dragging out the past. You make it sound as if the US objected to an Iraqi nuclear reactor back in 1981. When Israel flew in and blew it up, the US backed the UN motion criticizing the attack. While some people might believe the 1984ish "The US is at war with Iraq, the US has always been at war with Iraq" spin, it's about as far from the truth as possible. Coming fresh of the 79 hostage crisis, who would you guess most Americans supported during the Iran-Iraq war?

We sold arms in order to help defeat a military enemy... are we military enemies of France, China, and Russia?

I think you missed the point I was making. When France sold a reactor to Iraq, Iraq was not an enemy of any western country. Was France supposed to predict the Gulf War 10 years before it happened?

And I think you're missing the point of this thread.

 

Tyler would get it too, if he wasn't too busy responding to everything Mike ever says in this folder.

 

Russia / China / France - all countries who pushed for more inspections.

 

All countries who have criticized us for waging this war.

 

And all countries who are continually, to this day it seems, supplying Saddam with military hardware, which I believe (though I could be wrong) violates the sanctions that their precious U.N. put in place.

 

Simply dismissing this by saying "business is business" is a cop-out. Trying to change the subject ro America selling arms is dodging the issue. Trying to argue that France or whomever didn't realize how fucking nuts Hussein was years ago is dodging the issue.

 

All of those countries are slamming us for waging this war, and are effectively (if not literally) taking a moral highground that is completely counterfeit, seeing as a) they're supplying the tyrant with the weaponry for this war and b) they're motivations for not wanting this war (more profit from arms deals, oil deals) are just as self-serving, if not more so, than they claim ours to be.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Tyler would get it too, if he wasn't too busy responding to everything Mike ever says in this folder.

lmao... too true.

 

I haven't read enough about this to make a real observation besides this:

 

If the weapons and supplies were given to Iraq a good while in the past (ala the nuclear reactor in the 80s), I think that's relatively fair to say we're overreacting. After all, we did the same thing back then. However, if they're still supplying them weapons and supplies in recent months (or within... let's say... two years), then it's likely something that needs to be worried about. However, we also have to look into what is being sent (and who, exactly, is sending it... is it the government or private contractors in the said governments, who are motivated by profits and NOT the country's wellbeing), how much of it is being sent, and why, exactly, this is coming out NOW.

 

Some of this is, surely, a response to these countries' opposition to this war. After all, we've always had a superiority complex as a nation and if someone isn't supporting us, they've GOT to have an ulterior motive. However, if it's truly legit... that's something to worry about, frankly.

 

Although, I sincerely doubt even the villainous French or those commie bastards in Russia would fund Iraq if they knew the country would use it against us or something. Let's be real here; even with our accusations, these countries have been, and still are, our allies.

[Guest phoenixrising]

Iraq has had Chinese-made Silkworm missiles since before the first Gulf War. They even fired one at the USS Wisconsin during the war but it was shot down by a missile fired by a British destroyer.

 

Another fact...Much of Iraq's military equipment was supplied by those three countries. They use Russian and Chinese armoured vehicles and aircraft, and the French sold them some Mirages in the 1980's that Iraq used to hit Iranian supertankers in the Gulf.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

but luckily, it doesn't seem like alot of the Iraqi equipment from Russia and France is really working.

 

Something tells me the Russians probably ripped off Hussein when it came to weapons deals.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Why worry about the military equipment coming from France and Russia? It isn't like they have moved past 1985 when it comes to war technology. The US is a good 2 generations ahead of 90% of the World, and a generation ahead of Britian and Canada. The only thing to worry about are biochem and neuclear weapons. But since no nation in Europe is dumb enough to sell that shit, no worries.

 

Also to point out, if military equipment from France is so important, how come they can't win a freaking war with it?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Russia would sell weapons to motherfucking Lucifer if they could get a pretty penny.

 

They've been doing this for quite some time; it's nothing new.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

France's Chirac has called Hussein a good friend in the past, and gave him his first nuclear reactor.

Wow, talk about dragging out the past. You make it sound as if the US objected to an Iraqi nuclear reactor back in 1981. When Israel flew in and blew it up, the US backed the UN motion criticizing the attack. While some people might believe the 1984ish "The US is at war with Iraq, the US has always been at war with Iraq" spin, it's about as far from the truth as possible. Coming fresh of the 79 hostage crisis, who would you guess most Americans supported during the Iran-Iraq war?

We sold arms in order to help defeat a military enemy... are we military enemies of France, China, and Russia?

I think you missed the point I was making. When France sold a reactor to Iraq, Iraq was not an enemy of any western country. Was France supposed to predict the Gulf War 10 years before it happened?

And I think you're missing the point of this thread.

 

Tyler would get it too, if he wasn't too busy responding to everything Mike ever says in this folder.

 

Russia / China / France - all countries who pushed for more inspections.

 

All countries who have criticized us for waging this war.

 

And all countries who are continually, to this day it seems, supplying Saddam with military hardware, which I believe (though I could be wrong) violates the sanctions that their precious U.N. put in place.

 

Simply dismissing this by saying "business is business" is a cop-out. Trying to change the subject ro America selling arms is dodging the issue. Trying to argue that France or whomever didn't realize how fucking nuts Hussein was years ago is dodging the issue.

 

All of those countries are slamming us for waging this war, and are effectively (if not literally) taking a moral highground that is completely counterfeit, seeing as a) they're supplying the tyrant with the weaponry for this war and b) they're motivations for not wanting this war (more profit from arms deals, oil deals) are just as self-serving, if not more so, than they claim ours to be.

1) The thing --- as I mention elsewhere --- is that the ONLY reason inspectors were back in Iraq was because we made it happen. France, China, Russia et al didn't make it happen. They never once forced the issue. So, again, why is it so hard to fathom that these countries, who didn't WANT inspections to any great degree, don't really care about what is found?

 

2) The weaponry came from these countries AFTER 1991, so they definitely violated the sanctions. Heck, I've read some pieces that hint that France helped Iraq violate the oil for food provisions, but they seem too sketchy to really mention --- though I don't DOUBT them.

 

3) All of our critics have far less moral reasons for their opposition than we have for our actions. France, China, and Russia are trying to protect their financial interests (when they ay "No Blood for Oil", they darned well MEAN it) while Germany is doing it because Schroeder wishes to remain in power.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Why worry about the military equipment coming from France and Russia? It isn't like they have moved past 1985 when it comes to war technology. The US is a good 2 generations ahead of 90% of the World, and a generation ahead of Britian and Canada. The only thing to worry about are biochem and neuclear weapons. But since no nation in Europe is dumb enough to sell that shit, no worries.

 

Also to point out, if military equipment from France is so important, how come they can't win a freaking war with it?

No European country is stupid enough to sell Iraq biochem weapons?

 

Hint: You'll never go broke underestimating the intellect of continental Europe.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

2) The weaponry came from these countries AFTER 1991, so they definitely violated the sanctions. Heck, I've read some pieces that hint that France helped Iraq violate the oil for food provisions, but they seem too sketchy to really mention --- though I don't DOUBT them.

 

Fuck, Mike, DICK CHENEY violated the sanctions. That's no big deal, apparently, since you haven't really spoken a word against this administration.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Proof.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Lalala.

 

Halliburton set up foriegn corporations under their hood to do business with post-Gulf War Iraq.

 

Well known fact, disputed by nobody.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said

NewsMax Wires

 

Monday, June 25, 2001

 

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

 

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

 

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

 

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

 

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.

 

If he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No,' " Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said.

 

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin told the Post. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

 

The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

 

The Post said U.N. records showed that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Cheney had acknowledged, however.

 

According to the report, the Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold material to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales lasted from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August.

 

"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

 

Cheney's spokeswoman, Juleanna Glover Weiss, referred the Post's calls to Halliburton, which in turn, directed them back to Cheney's office.

 

In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

 

Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

 

The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.

 

Cheney has long criticized of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya.

 

--

 

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

 

All rights reserved.

 

So Halliburton didn't break any laws, but Dick Cheney is guilty of being a hippocrit.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh, of course he didn't break any laws (he simply found a way around them), but think of the damned principle here. We're branding Iraq as the evil of the world, but they're not bad enough to make a profit from.

[Guest NoCalMike]

So in otherwords, to summarize that article: Dick Cheney is one crooked fuck!

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yeah, but then again, we already knew that

[Guest NoCalMike]

is it a coincidence Cheney is keeping such a low profile. I mean, you hardly EVER hear about what is doing or what he is up to.

[Guest EricMM]

So fine, if that's true then take Cheney to task. But don't NOT take France, Germany, and Russia to task as well. And while we're at it, at least Cheney and his administration is trying to minimize the danger he apparently created. At least he's not ignoring things.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Oh, of course he didn't break any laws (he simply found a way around them), but think of the damned principle here. We're branding Iraq as the evil of the world, but they're not bad enough to make a profit from.

Halliburton Won't Bid in Iraq

1 hour, 11 minutes ago

 

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s former company has decided not to enter a controversial bidding process open only to a few experienced and well-connected firms for major Iraq (news - web sites) reconstruction projects. Instead, Halliburton Co. will focus on becoming a secondary contractor.

 

Halliburton, where Cheney was chief executive officer from 1995-2000, said this week its KBR subsidiary "remains a potential subcontractor for this important work."

 

 

Officials of the Houston-based company would not say whether the decision was related to questions of favoritism and cronyism concerning the firm.

 

 

Meanwhile, the head of the State Department's Agency for International Development has defended the expedited procedure that invited only a small group of well-experienced — and politically active — companies to apply for prime reconstruction contracts.

 

 

Whether or not Halliburton receives work as a subcontractor, the KBR subsidiary (Kellogg, Brown & Root) already has business in Iraq under a previous Defense Department contract to extinguish oil well fires. The firm hired subcontractors Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. and Wild Well Control Inc., both also from Houston, to handle the firefighting work.

 

 

Contract controversy began before the fighting in Iraq started, when USAID sent a detailed "request for proposals" to a handful of companies for construction work that that could total up to $600 million over 21 months. The construction contract is one of eight solicitations for work in postwar Iraq.

 

 

Agency officials said they were prohibited by law from identifying the invited firms, but The Wall Street Journal said they included KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary; Bechtel Group Inc.; Parsons Corp.; Louis Berger Group and Fluor Corp., two companies that have joined together for this effort, and Washington Group International.

 

 

The Center for Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks political donations, said the companies and individuals associated with them have made $3.5 million in contributions from 1999 to 2000, with two-thirds going to Republicans.

 

 

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee (news - web sites), has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to explain the selection of KBR for the oil fires contract.

 

 

"The only rationale offered ... is that the contract work involves the implementation of a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires," Waxman wrote the Corps. "It is not clear, however, whether any other companies were asked to submit similar plans."

 

 

Bathsheba Crocker, who works on Iraq reconstruction at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "If you separate out the Cheney issue, it makes a lot of sense" to choose a firm with postwar reconstruction experience. "But at the same time, you can't separate out the Cheney issue as a political matter," she said. "It's obviously why they're in political hot water."

 

 

Andrew Natsios, the USAID administrator, has defended the fast-track contracting system that is designed to circumvent a normal bidding process that takes six months. He said speed was essential to rebuild deteriorated schools, water systems, hospitals and other buildings, and the invited bidders already possessed the necessary security clearances.

 

 

In a column Monday in USA Today, Natsios denied any cronyism or favoritism.

 

 

"If you need a surgeon, a lawn service, a real estate agent or a college, you seek out the names with the reputation for quality and the ability to get the job done," he wrote.

 

 

The multinational firms have handled reconstruction projects after conflicts in Bosnia and Haiti, Natsios said, contending the expedited system not only was legal but showed common sense for the United States' image abroad.

 

 

"We want to quickly show the world, especially Muslim countries, that we care about the Iraqi people and are ready to use our tax dollars to improve their lives," Natsios said.

 

 

He also addressed a budding controversy over whether the United States would hog the reconstruction work.

 

"Up to 50 percent of the work may be subcontracted to U.S. and foreign firms," he said. USAID signs primary contractors, who in turn choose the subcontractors.

 

The role of non-U.S. firms in rebuilding Iraq has generated its own controversy.

 

President Bush (news - web sites) and others in his administration believe there should be a U.S.-run military and administrative transition toward democracy.

 

France and Russia are championing a U.N. role, and the French — worried they could be shut out of postwar business deals — are drawing up plans to win their firms some of the reconstruction business.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...liburton_iraq_4