NationStates Jolt Archive

Docments found in Iraq and i Belive the U.N. as well have exposed russia france's real motive for trying to stop the US from invading Iraq becuase Saddam was one heck of a cash cow for them. Since the 1990's they were constintly find excuses to let saddam sell more oil and eventually make it easy for saddam to fund anything he wanted probebly weapon programs. (every one with a brain could tell he was tring to get WMD's if he ever got them only time will tell) If you ask me that would call for sanctions wouldnt it? I mean the PRESIDENT of russia was in on it and the french prime minister i believe was in on it as well both wich should be impeached or something. The coalition of the willing is also the Coalition of the honest.

Information from the Tampa tribune(so dont flame me for plagerism!)

Docments found in Iraq and i Belive the U.N. as well have exposed russia france's real motive for trying to stop the US from invading Iraq becuase Saddam was one heck of a cash cow for them. Since the 1990's they were constintly find excuses to let saddam sell more oil and eventually make it easy for saddam to fund anything he wanted probebly weapon programs. (every one with a brain could tell he was tring to get WMD's if he ever got them only time will tell) If you ask me that would call for sanctions wouldnt it? I mean the PRESIDENT of russia was in on it and the french prime minister i believe was in on it as well both wich should be impeached or something. The coalition of the willing is also the Coalition of the honest.

Information from the Tampa tribune(so dont flame me for plagerism!)

Given that France told Bush that they would not object to the invasion if he stayed away from trying to get another resolution from the UN which would force them to respond - the argument is clearly incorrect.

-Z-

I think it depends.

If the people of the country don't squawk, let the American bitch and whine about it. If the people of France and Russia object, its their place to do something. not America's. Too often has America interfered with another country's internal affairs.

Well, most of the oil being pumped out of Iraq was done so by French or Russian pumps if I remember correctly, that's no big secret. Hell, neither vetoed the UN resolution ultimately used as justification.

I don't see how France or Russia have done anything wrong, here. A little iffy, sure, but nothing wrong... hell, France wasn't shooting up Faluja a couple of days ago.

And now all the oil's going to Halliburton. Your point?

This again completely misses the point. Those ties to France and Russia were well known prior to the conflict and they were never secret. France and Russia as well as most members of the UN agreed that Saddam had to go, it was just that they objected to the US rush to action with no plan, backing or evidence. Nice way to try and hide the issues, though.

Yes yes yes, Russia and France to name but two nations have had dealing with Saddam in recent years, just like the US before them. If you're going to argue that Russia and France opposed the war because of oil then you might as well also argue that this was the reason why the US decided to go to war. This is nothing new and all parties involved must accept some of the responsibility. To attempt to entirely absolve the US from blame whilst placing it entirely upon the heads of France and Russia is clearly ludicrous and I won't indulge this thread any further.

Ancient history and even if true, the judgement is invalid by the fact we let our vice-presidents ex-company get a ton of money out of there.

Hmmmm didn't this administration say they were going to stamp out corprate fraud? :roll:

OH NO THE RUSSIAN AND FRENCH ARE SCUM!

Hmmmm didn't this administration say they were going to stamp out corprate fraud? :roll:

Are...are...are you implying that the Bush Administration BROKE A PROMISE?

I need to go and lie down for awhile...

[/sarcasm]

Ancient history and even if true, the judgement is invalid by the fact we let our vice-presidents ex-company get a ton of money out of there.

Hmmmm didn't this administration say they were going to stamp out corprate fraud? :roll:

Ahmmm...not nitpicking...Haliburton isn't Cheney's personal fiefdom, he was one member of it's operating board..and he gave up his position on that board before his acceptance as Vice President and I belive he sold off his stock as well to avoid a conflict of interest.

This isn't new news. I heard things like this when Clinton bombed the crap out of Iraq in 1998 or 1999 or whenever that was.

Ahmmm...not nitpicking...Haliburton isn't Cheney's personal fiefdom, he was one member of it's operating board..and he gave up his position on that board before his acceptance as Vice President and I belive he sold off his stock as well to avoid a conflict of interest.

Actually, Cheney still has "retained ties" to Halliburton, including deferred salary and unexercised stock options (3 batches containing over 433,333 shares). The Congressional Research Service, without naming either Cheney or Halliburton, concluded that deferred payment and these stock options do constitute "retained ties". This is in direct conflict with his statement that he'd sundered all ties. So Bush isn't the only one in the administration fond of playing fast and loose with the facts.

Additionally, Cheney has ignored conflicts of interest before. While serving as defense secretary, the Pentagon chose a Halliburton subsidiary, Brown and Root, to study cost effectiveness of outsourcing certain military operations to private contractors. Based on their findings, the Pentagon then hired Brown and Root to implement an outsourcing plan.

Ahmmm...not nitpicking...Haliburton isn't Cheney's personal fiefdom, he was one member of it's operating board..and he gave up his position on that board before his acceptance as Vice President and I belive he sold off his stock as well to avoid a conflict of interest.

Actually, Cheney still has "retained ties" to Halliburton, including deferred salary and unexercised stock options (3 batches containing over 433,333 shares). The Congressional Research Service, without naming either Cheney or Halliburton, concluded that deferred payment and these stock options do constitute "retained ties". This is in direct conflict with his statement that he'd sundered all ties. So Bush isn't the only one in the administration fond of playing fast and loose with the facts.

Additionally, Cheney has ignored conflicts of interest before. While serving as defense secretary, the Pentagon chose a Halliburton subsidiary, Brown and Root, to study cost effectiveness of outsourcing certain military operations to private contractors. Based on their findings, the Pentagon then hired Brown and Root to implement an outsourcing plan.


Perhaps it's a difference of opinion over what constitutes "severed"...I know if I quit a company and have no more say so in the day to day running of a company...that pretty well sums up severed..

And as far as Brown and Root..few companies can excel better at their various tasks that Brown and Root are engaged in...

Perhaps it's a difference of opinion over what constitutes "severed"...I know if I quit a company and have no more say so in the day to day running of a company...that pretty well sums up severed..

Yes, perhaps, but if you still retained fiscal ties to the company, which Cheney clearly does, and stand to make a huge profit from continued success for the company, which, again, Cheney clearly does, then it seems slightly odd that, due to the contracts Halliburton managed to gain in post-war Iraq, it stands to make over $1.7 billion as well as hundreds of millions more from no-bid contracts. I'm not saying it's definitely screwey, but it certainly makes me raise an eyebrow, particularly when Cheney was so adamant that he had no financial ties to Halliburton and when a Congressional investigation organization rules that he did.


And as far as Brown and Root..few companies can excel better at their various tasks that Brown and Root are engaged in...

Which may very well be true. I am not a party to the figures or how they do business so I can't judge if they're the most cost-effective. Again, though, the ties make me somewhat skeptical.

DP

Perhaps it's a difference of opinion over what constitutes "severed"...I know if I quit a company and have no more say so in the day to day running of a company...that pretty well sums up severed..

Yes, perhaps, but if you still retained fiscal ties to the company, which Cheney clearly does, and stand to make a huge profit from continued success for the company, which, again, Cheney clearly does, then it seems slightly odd that, due to the contracts Halliburton managed to gain in post-war Iraq, it stands to make over $1.7 billion as well as hundreds of millions more from no-bid contracts. I'm not saying it's definitely screwey, but it certainly makes me raise an eyebrow, particularly when Cheney was so adamant that he had no financial ties to Halliburton and when a Congressional investigation organization rules that he did.


And as far as Brown and Root..few companies can excel better at their various tasks that Brown and Root are engaged in...

Which may very well be true. I am not a party to the figures or how they do business so I can't judge if they're the most cost-effective. Again, though, the ties make me somewhat skeptical.

Oh...I agree..on the surface it can indeed look screwy...but he still has no say so in the day to day operations of Haliburton, and he still was only one of an entire board..and stock options may indeed look diceybut they are only options to buy regardless but if I sell off every active stock I have..that's a pretty good indicator I am trying to disassociate myself from that company.

>>Snip<<

Revisionist history: completely neglects America's involvement with Iraq.

Yes yes yes, Russia and France to name but two nations have had dealing with Saddam in recent years, just like the US before them. If you're going to argue that Russia and France opposed the war because of oil then you might as well also argue that this was the reason why the US decided to go to war. This is nothing new and all parties involved must accept some of the responsibility. To attempt to entirely absolve the US from blame whilst placing it entirely upon the heads of France and Russia is clearly ludicrous and I won't indulge this thread any further.


i do totally agree with the hnourable representative of Genaia
:)

I knew this news was old..but i rarly start a thread myself and that was an artical in the news paper the other day i felt like putting up...at least i aint being flamed :P