I know...I just think his point is ridiculous and if heeded...dangerous. You have to get somebody on standby who can bring it under control effectively. Red Adair is a little too old for this now, so Halliburton happens to be the most qualified option.
No, I think the problem he has is that an American oil company with ties to the VP is getting the contract. I think he would prefer that Hasbro or Calvin Klien got the contract - someone with no oil experience and no contacts with the administration... Or some oil company that Cheney wasn't directly linked with. Regardless of the actual reason that Halliburton got the contract, if you're trying to convince people in the Middle East that this isn't an imperialist oil grab, having a company that your Vice President has ties to profit massively off of the war doesn't make things look any better. Again, this is just more bad PR in terms of justifying the war.
And I suppose that there isn't a long standing tradition of politicians handing out contracts to their buddies? It would be a much different story for me if Halliburton weren't so well qualified to handle the job.
And I suppose that there isn't a long standing tradition of politicians handing out contracts to their buddies? Of course there is. Doesn't make it right, though. And that doesn't change the fact that its going to make ME (and European) countries that much more suspicious of our motives. You can argue whether its right or wrong, I'm just stating what the consequences are likely to be.
I personally no longer care whether anyone else is suspicious of our motives. They are going to be suspicious no matter what we do, that is painfully obvious by now. Some people just don't listen to reassurances, and are not going to trust you no matter what you do. True, I didn't care all that much about what they thought before (turns out I was right not to), but now my level of concern about that issue is at zero.
I personally no longer care whether anyone else is suspicious of our motives. They are going to be suspicious no matter what we do, that is painfully obvious by now. This is where you and I disagree. I think that suspicion is caused by a consistent pattern of "oops". This entire Iraq effort has been characterized by a pattern of mishaps or things-that-look-bad like this. Everything from this to the spying on UN delegates incident to the Old Europe references, etc has all played into it. It's just a big series of embarassments and missteps. I disagree that they will always be suspicious, and I point to Gulf War I and Bush Sr.'s strategy there. There may have been people here and there who distrusted us, but the international nature of the effort really diluted it. No significant group of people thought that we were imperialist for doing that attack. (OBL did build his cause on the fact that we stayed after the fact, but even he never really argued the war itself because it wasn't a winning argument). Similarly, our multilateral interventions (although belated) in Bosnia and Haiti were never looked at as some American power grab.
My argument is: If you don't want people to think the Iraq deal is about oil, quit doing stupid stuff like exempting oil and gas drillers from the Clean Water Act. It has nothing to do with the threat of Saddam. If you're Michael Jackson and you don't want people to think you're a pedophile, you quit sleeping with little boys.
Major...I really think that you are amongst the smrtest posters on this BBS and I am generally very impressed with your in depth knowledge of a good many issues...but you've simply dropped the ball here. The ME nations...hmmm...I wonder what they think. We will never really know because if they voiced an opinion out of line with their government they'd have a bullet firmly implanted in their cranium. As for the TWO European nations still opposing war...France and Germany...they both have extensive economic dealings with the current regime in Iraq...add to that the fact that France is in a battle of sorts with Great Britian to see who the dominant nation in the EU will be and what you have is no big shock that the French and Germans are behaving in this manner. It's called economic self-dealing...but I guess that is ok to many members of this BBS unless your name happens to be Bush.
As for the TWO European nations still opposing war...France and Germany... Refman. Almost too easy. If you go to the link and click on graphical data it gives you the figures for all the countries. With recent UN weapons inspector reports and US bungling the strong majorities against the war sholuld be higher now. ********** By William Horsley BBC European Affairs analyst Europe's leaders may be divided on the Iraq crisis, but the majority of people across the continent are united in their opposition to war, polls suggest. From Portugal to Russia, opinion surveys suggest that without a further UN resolution, most Europeans are overwhelmingly against war - and even a second resolution would not convince many of them. In Germany, central to Europe's anti-war bloc, an opinion poll this week makes it look almost as if the Germans now see the US - not Iraq - as the main threat to world peace. The Forsa poll found 57% of Germans held the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". Only 6% said they thought President George W Bush was concerned with "preserving peace". Anti-war demonstrations are taking place across Europe From Germany there is also evidence of damage to the overall image of the US. A new Emnid poll conducted in Berlin found that 54% percent of Berliners under 30 years old had a "mostly negative" association with the US as a country, against 36% who saw it as "mostly positive". The evidence of other recent military conflicts, including the first Gulf war against Iraq in 1991 and the 1999 conflict over Kosovo, is that public opinion can turn in favour of western governments when a war is waged and won. One thing is clear. Most western European nations see a clear United Nations mandate as crucial to winning their support for military action. In five EU countries, according to an EOS Gallup poll, that backing could not be won even with UN support for war. graphical data Conflict with Iraq : Europe's war views These anti-war figures are high compared to similar polls conducted before other US-led wars in recent times, including the first Gulf war, Kosovo and Afghanistan. In each of those, military action was seen as being a reaction to aggressive action by an "enemy". In the case of Iraq now, President George W Bush is advocating pre-emptive action. US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld offended the French and Germans by calling them, and others who stood against the US strategy on Iraq, "old Europe". He saw the countries of "new Europe" further east as the more willing allies. That is true of the political leaders in central and eastern Europe and the Balkans - including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - all of whom have signed public letters of support for the US lead. Support low Yet public opinion in eastern Europe is even more hostile to war than in the west. A Gallup International poll of a few days ago found low support in the region for war, even if sanctioned by the UN - just 38% in Romania, 28% in Bulgaria and 20% in Estonia. The figure for Russia was 23%. And in Turkey, polls have consistently found an overwhelming majority to be against war on Iraq. Yet the pro-Islamic government there says it will allow the US to use Nato bases in Turkey. Decisive factor? So public opinion, however strong, may not be the decisive factor in how a country acts. In the UK, an opinion poll in the Times newspaper this week found that 51% of those questioned saw Tony Blair as a US poodle - although 47% trusted him to do the right thing. An overwhelming 86% wanted more time for weapons inspections, and only 25% thought enough evidence had been found to justify a war. But as the case of Germany's Chancellor Schroeder shows, a leader who has strong backing for his anti-war stance may find that is not enough. Mr Schroeder was a big loser in the latest two regional elections. And in a poll last month 60% of respondents said the German nation as a whole would like to see "less and less" of Mr Schroeder in future. Only 5% thought he would grow more popular. The rest said there would be no change, or were undecided.
And the most telling: These polling numbers simply tell me that we are talking about a bunch of anti-american idiots. "Warmongers"? That is extremist terminology. 6% thought Bush interested in peace? What do they think, that he just can't wait to see some bright puffy lights on his TV screen? Now, the negative attitudes regarding us are nothing new - we've been seeing that trend develop since the 1980s (it started way before this, and is actually on target for the trend - meaning there really was no spike because of the Iraq crisis). But 86% of them actually think that inspections will work? There is no other word than "idiot" to describe someone who thinks that inspections will truly work. But it's really nothing new - Europeans are against us, and generally don't even like us too much anymore. Big deal. Tell me something new, or something I care about.
LONDON (Reuters) - A leading member of British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s government said on Sunday she would resign if the country went to war with Iraq (news - web sites) without the backing of a second U.N. resolution. Reuters Photo Latest news: · Powell Sees Hope for U.N. Vote on Iraq AP - 1 hour, 25 minutes ago · Iraqi Official Thinks U.S. Wants War AP - 2 hours, 31 minutes ago · Blix Hopes It's Not Too Late to Avoid War AP - Wed Mar 5,10:04 PM ET Special Coverage The announcement by International Development Secretary Clare Short ratcheted up the pressure on Blair, facing rising disaffection from the public and his own party over his support for a U.S.-led attack to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). "I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the U.N. and I will resign from the government," Short told the BBC. Junior government member Andy Reed quit his post on Sunday and there was speculation four others could follow amid a rising rebellion among the ranks of Blair's Labour Party against his unswerving support for a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. A new poll showed that only 15 percent of Britons backed an attack on Iraq without a second.............................. Resignations in Blair gov
Pardon me for bringing this back up but, isn't Boots n Coots Red Adair's outfit?? It is mentioned in the story as being one of the companies involved in fighting the oilfield fires if they occur..I ask mearly for my own information.. and also, seeing as Hallibuton/Brown & Root has a very large Houstion base, wouldnt this be a good thing for a struggling Houston economy? The war is going to happen whether we like it our not, might as well have some advantage to our area. and, so what if Cheney had/has a connection to them, Halliburton is one of the only companies that has the expertise and associated companies to deal with oilfield problems. It makes the most sense to tap them for this kind of work.
Shes phony. Clinton didn't give the U.N. the time of day when it came to Kosovo and Iraq. Thousands were killed but you didn't hear anything from the human rights activists. Did she threaten to resign when British forces teamed with Americans to attack Saddam in preemptive strikes? Of course not.
X-pac, This is what I don't understand. We took out Milosovic (sp?) at the behest of France and Germany, when they could not get it through the UN because Russia was going to veto it. Now, that we are asking for their support, they undermine us in a similar situation. WTF is that? DD
I agree. Of course its not their obligation to support us but, like you mentioned, the situation is similar. I think the mistake we might had made after 9/11 was not using NATO for help in the war on terror. (NATO invoked Article V after 9/11, which states that an attack on a member country is an attack on all member countries. German AWACS patrolled the East Coast for a little while, but that was it.) Kosovo obviously is a good example of this. Kosovo was successful because all the member states, had a stake in the result. My point is when countries have a stake in a conflict, they tend to fight to win. This would be my reasoning as to why France, Germany and other NATO allies are being stubborn about the war. I say give them what they need and get this over with.
If you start using logic, you may make it so Bush looks like his actions are permissible. That will cause some members of this BBS to spontaneously combust.
Ref, if you think the concept of logic is owned by camps of certain political persuasion but not others, then we'll have to deny you your daily ration of freedom fries.
