I disagree. It's no more devoid of context or misleading in content than what's attributed to France.
Where are the source police on this one? Somehow, I can't see how an article from Michael Moore's website citing primarily the 'Real History Archive' and the Progressive can considered an unbiased report.
In matter of national security, why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? Are you saying the rest of the world SUPPORTS Saddam, or that they just don't like war? Or, is the rest of the world worried that we are going to be imperialistic like THEY have been in their history, ignoring the fact that the USA has given back soveriegnty to Japan and Germany amongh others. Or are you referring to the 40 other countries that SUPPORT this effort. I am a little confused about what "Rest of the world" you are talking about? Let's look at the facts: France opposes the war because it has major economic ties in Iraq. Russia opposes the war because the Saddam regime owes Russia over 8 billion dollars in unpaid debt. China opposes the war because it has also sold Iraq high tech fibre optic infastructure as well as weapons. So, you see, most of the leaders that oppose this war are voting with their own interests, why should we be any different? There have been 26 armed conflicts since the UN was chartered in 1947, all but 3 have been unsupported by the UN. So...should we sit back and let Saddam arm terrorists with nerve agents, or should we try to do the right thing, and take him down BEFORE that happens? Saddam is a bad man, no one will cry tears over him being gone except for the bank accounts of countries that were selling him stuff AGAINST UN resolutions. Yep, the USA is acting in it's own good interests, good for us, it is about time. We certainly can be more cognizant of other nations and their views, but you don't let what France did be swept under the rug. France does not deserve to be a part of any post war Iraq, maybe next time they will act for the good of the world and not their own pocketbooks. DD
Timing: The French Connection: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20SAFI.html France, China, Syria busting sanctions in order to help Saddam rebuild his missile arsenal. Key words: busting sanctions. How deeply involved do you think that the US is in sanctions-busting operations? Don't give me this crap about the US being just as culpable as the French. BS.
Originally posted by DaDakota In matter of national security, why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? If this were really national security we wouldn't have gone to the UN. The fact is this administration has demonstrated no immediate threat to the American people from Iraq. Americans don't even believe Iraq is as much a threat as North Korea. We don't even have a threat from Iraq IN Iraq as the current campaign is showing so far. Are you saying the rest of the world SUPPORTS Saddam, or that they just don't like war? They're against war as a solution to this situation. They are against the US blowing off the UN when they can't get authorization for war and then claiming they have a coalition of the willing when only 4 countries have troops on the ground. Or are you referring to the 40 other countries that SUPPORT this effort. I'm referring to the people in 38 of those countries who are heavily against war and the rest of the nations in the world that oppose war along with their people. Let's look at the facts: France opposes the war because it has major economic ties in Iraq. Russia opposes the war because the Saddam regime owes Russia over 8 billion dollars in unpaid debt. China opposes the war because it has also sold Iraq high tech fibre optic infastructure as well as weapons. DaDa facts? This American administration supports war because oil is a vital part of US National Strategy as outlined by the document of preemptive action that largely serves as current US policy. There's my fact. So, you see, most of the leaders that oppose this war are voting with their own interests, why should we be any different? It's a ridiculous for you to say that "most" of the leaders that oppose war are doing so because of their own interests. You mentioned three countries (even if we believe your "facts) however there are 191 countries in the UN. Do you really think 151 countries oppose war because of oil contracts and Mirage parts? There have been 26 armed conflicts since the UN was chartered in 1947, all but 3 have been unsupported by the UN. This is incomplete. How many of the 26 armed conflicts have been brought to the UN? How many of those brought to the UN were fought facing a veto? How many of those facing a veto also weren't supported by NATO? Neither the UN nor NATO supports this war. So...should we sit back and let Saddam arm terrorists with nerve agents, or should we try to do the right thing, and take him down BEFORE that happens? We can use that argument against many countries around the world, including the entire Middle East. France does not deserve to be a part of any post war Iraq, maybe next time they will act for the good of the world and not their own pocketbooks. Do you mean act for the good of the world that heavily opposes war? I guess the world just doesn't know what's good for it so the US will decide for everyone.
I'm sure if I called Halliburton they would tell me how involved the US has been... or maybe not. How many terrorist states has Halliburton done business with? Iran, Lybia, Iraq? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/halliburtonprimer.html Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties. Halliburton Energy Services What was Vice President Cheney's involvement with Halliburton? Cheney was tapped in 1995 to lead Halliburton as chairman and chief executive officer while the company was a second-tier firm within the oil and energy industries. As secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War, Cheney made international contacts which Halliburton executives hoped would propel the company to the industry's fore. Under his leadership, the company did expand overseas, swelling its domestic portfolio into foreign markets. Cheney also led the aggressive acquisition of competitors, an offensive strategy which occurred during a period of falling oil prices. The largest merger was with Dresser Industries for $5.4 billion in 1998 – the same month in which layoffs cut nine percent of the work force. During his chairmanship of Halliburton, Cheney criticized U.S. sanctions against "rogue" nations such as Iran and Libya in a 1998 speech. According to a July 26, 2000, Washington Post story, Cheney complained the sanctions "are nearly always motivated by domestic political pressure, the need for Congress to appeal to some domestic constituency." Cheney's work with Halliburton yielded large financial reward. In May 2000 he sold stock holdings in the company worth $5 million. When he retired from Halliburton during the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney was awarded a retirement package worth $20 million.
Uh huh. I seem to have missed the part about Haliburton supplying weapons to the Iraqi regime. Please point this part out to me, I can't find it. What was your point again?
Freakin' French... Who the hell does he think he is and who's he trying to protect... What an idiot...
Fuel isn't a weapon. France can't sell fuel but the US can sell drilling equipment used to detonate nuclear weapons? Sanctions should be enforced while our Vice President decries them? The Vice President of the US did business with rogue regimes but France can't? What is the point again? France bad, US good?
Timing: I think you're missing an important distinction here: the difference between our corporate-government structure and France's. In the US, the government has oversight over its companies; in France, the government actually controls and works for them. Specifically, the French negotiates deals with foreign socialist governments for its companies. Therefore, when you talk about French companies making shady deals, you are talking about their government making shady deals for their companies. When you talk about American companies making shady deals, however, you are not talking about the US government. Haliburton got slapped for a shady deal, correct? The French government negotiated the shady deal in question (for rocket fuel - what the f* else is Iraq going to use it for, BTW?). But do you see the distinction? Just as in my earlier example with the American Type Culture Company, you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between the US government and American companies. They are separate entities in this country. In France they are not. So sure, blame Haliburton and the ATCC for their shady/stupid deals. But your blame against the US government is misplaced. Our blame against France's government for French companies' mischief is not, however, misplaced.
I would tend to agree with Tree on this one. Our government is not responsible for everything that our corporations do. Maybe now the conservatives will stop blaming Clinton for Enron and all of the other corporations that fudged their books.
oh my gosh..where have you read this??? i've heard people respond to criticism of bush by saying, "actually all of that occurred under clinton's watch." but the major bulk of the criticism for corporate greed gone wild as been placed towards the administration that is currently in power.
As much as I distrust Bush, even I am not naive enough to think that his administration caused Enron (and others) to crumble. I also don't see fit to blame the Clinton Administration. Like Tree said, the government is not responsible for the action of corporations.
Originally posted by treeman Timing: I think you're missing an important distinction here: the difference between our corporate-government structure and France's. In the US, the government has oversight over its companies; in France, the government actually controls and works for them. Specifically, the French negotiates deals with foreign socialist governments for its companies. Therefore, when you talk about French companies making shady deals, you are talking about their government making shady deals for their companies. When you talk about American companies making shady deals, however, you are not talking about the US government. Nah, I don't put much into that distinction. US elected officials are put in place by corporate dollars. Our Vice President, obviously having huge influence on American policy, was the head of a company that made shady, criminal deals. Ken Lay, Mr Fraud, was vital in the formation of US government energy policy. The head of FOX News is one of Bush's advisors. The US government and corporations are incredibly intertwined. You've being very naive. So sure, blame Haliburton and the ATCC for their shady/stupid deals. But your blame against the US government is misplaced. Our blame against France's government for French companies' mischief is not, however, misplaced. Our Vice President was part of Halliburton when this happened! Cheney, Secretary of Defense during Gulf 1, advocate of Wolfowitz document of preemption, head of Halliburton while the company committed crimes by doing business with rogue states, he's now Vice President of the US steering the nation through war, and as soon as it's done Halliburton will be getting contracts. Wow... there is no connection there man. I wish I could read French, I'm sure they have some very interesting articles about US economic interests.
Well... This pretty much says it all right here. No, US elected officials are put into place by American voters via the electoral college. Corporate dollars simply help pay for their election campaigns. Does he still work there? If so, then I would think that would be a conflict of interest... Yes, corporations do have influence with government. Government also has influence with corporations. It goes both ways. But does the government control US corporations? Do corporations control the government? Only in the X-Files world. You are totally missing the importance of my post: US corporations and government are separate entities that interact, while French corporations and government are one and the same. If you do not think that that is an important distinction, then there is no point in further discussion, because that is the heart of the problem with the French government's dealings. And their distinction between our corporate dealings. Instead of putting blame on the US companies responsible for shady deals, you blame the US government. That blame *is* misplaced. Whether you admit it or not.
Originally posted by treeman No, US elected officials are put into place by American voters via the electoral college. Corporate dollars simply help pay for their election campaigns.[/i] That is very funny man. US voters are bombarded by political campaigns funded by the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by corporations. Corporations often dump money down the drain with no intent on receiving access, cooperation, and influence. That's how they stay in business right? Yes, corporations do have influence with government. Government also has influence with corporations. It goes both ways. But does the government control US corporations? Do corporations control the government? Only in the X-Files world. Since money controls politics, everyone can draw their own conclusions. You are totally missing the importance of my post: US corporations and government are separate entities that interact, while French corporations and government are one and the same. If you do not think that that is an important distinction, then there is no point in further discussion, because that is the heart of the problem with the French government's dealings. And their distinction between our corporate dealings. I guess there really is no point in further discussion if you don't see how the US political machine is controlled by corporate dollars. I do not believe that Chirac had any more knowledge or control of selling this fuel than our Vice President had in Halliburton's dealings. DaDa First rule of Fight Club, trust no one.
