The Iraq Thread 2

[theavonlady 2]

Saddam's been a very naughty monkey:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030410/104998680005.html

Quote[/b] ]KUWAIT CITY -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been caught with his pants down -- literally. A shocking 1968 porn film has surfaced, in which the flamboyant strongman appears performing raunchy homosexual acts!

Quote:

Quote[/b] ]"Saddam appeared in as many as 85 of these films under a variety of stage names, most frequently Omar Studdif," reveals the researcher.

[Gollum1 0]

Aahh, It's a fraud.

It has to be.

If not...Chrish Almighty.

[theavonlady 2]

Aahh, It's a fraud.

It has to be.

Says who?

[Gollum1 0]

Aaah, don't assume it's true, we'll wait and see.

Hoooly S**t...

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam Starred in Gay Porn Films!

Thursday April 10, 2003

WTF: April 10, 2003. Why wasn't this news before?, but I suppose it is in the entertainment and gossip section, so mayby it's false information.

[denoir 0]

Aahh, It's a fraud.

It has to be.

Says who?

Common sense. It is taken from the March edition of the Weekly World News that also reported that the French were hiding Saddams WMD under the Eiffel tower.

This is rubbish, and I agree with quicKsanD that this kind of thing is not worth posting.

[toadlife 3]

No they did not. Does the term "no-bid contract" mean anything to you?

Just because a few of the jobs were no-bid contracts doesn't mean they all were, as you suggest.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

Quote[/b] ]Sure Halliburton was best for the job, Dick Halliburton is vice president!

You are not being logical in your argument. Please explain to me why Halliburton was not the best company for the job.

Quote[/b] ]

But this is all old news now. Halliburton was caught red-handed and thrown out by the Pentagon. They are crooks, they were caught, it's a fact.

Exactly. Their no-bid contract was suspended. My government is not allowing Halliburton to rip me off. Seems the right thing for them to do.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe Bush honestly didn't know, maybe he did. But why should we blindly trust this man with everything? We need independent groups watching over his every move, keeping track of all the documents, and someone definitely should take account of how our money is being spent.

Who is blindly trusting Bush with everything? Every move he and his administration makes is scrutinized - especially now - it's an election year!

Quote[/b] ]You mean it's YOUR money paying for it, if you're a US, or British taxpayer. So it's in YOUR best interest not to get screwed over. Bush and co. are getting rich either way, they already got their money out of YOUR pocket.

I'd like you to please explain to me how 'Bush and Co.' is going to get rich by adwarding a contract to Halliburton. You can do this by listing all of the members of the Bush Administrative that currently hold interest in Halliburton.

[walker 0]

Hi toadlife

When they are waiting to get in power they work for the company or a subcontracter. For the most blatent company that does this look to The Carlyle Group; there is a thread about them in this forum.

It is called 'The revolving door' the major contributors to a party put in cash then expect laws that suit them. When the politician leaves office they wait a while in a subcontracted firm or as a inspirational speaker in luncheons sponsored by the company that put them in or its subcontracters.

As to Haliburton they should not have been given the contract as they are at risk of going bust due to their Asbestos claims. Any money the government gave them for this contract is clearly at risk. In banking terms Haliburton are a bad risk possibly the next Enron.

By the way members of the Vice Presidents family currently work for Haliburton dont they?

Kind Regards Walker

[ozanzac 0]

In Australian political terms, it's called a conflict of interest.

[Acecombat 0]

haha look at where the news is originating from KUWAIT CITY

[toadlife 3]

Sounds like politics as usual. Quid Pro Quo at it's best. I read a tiny bit into Halliburton, and by the small amount of news I saw about them, they seem to be doing okay financially. Yes, they have asbestos lawsuits going against them, but they are handling the situation. Their stock has actually gone up in recent days, due to them filing for bankrupt

http://webreprints.djreprints.com/891520996388.html

[walker 0]

Sounds like politics as usual. Quid Pro Quo at it's best.  I read a tiny bit into Halliburton, and by the small amount of news I saw about them, they seem to be doing okay financially. Yes, they have asbestos lawsuits going against them, but they are handling the situation. Their stock has actually gone up in recent days, due to them filing for bankrupt

http://webreprints.djreprints.com/891520996388.html

Hi toadlife

Your new defence of their actions is:

Quote[/b] ]Sounds like politics as usual. Quid Pro Quo at it's best

The US government is not held in such high esteem in your own eyes. So you now admit the current Bush administration is acting in way that can be seen as corrupt.

Sadam was corrupt.

So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?

Kind Regards Walker

[toadlife 3]

I wasn't defending anyones actions, and I'm still waiting for someone to give any evidence that Halliburton was not the best choice for the jobs.

Corruption and special interest dealings are common among governments world wide. You speak as if the these possible special interest dealings are exclusive to the Bush administration.

If the Bush administration is being devious in their dealings, I'm pretty confident (and I hope) that they will be uncovered sooner or later.

[walker 0]

Hi toadlife

I repeat:

The US government is not held in such high esteem in your own eyes. So you now admit the current Bush administration is acting in way that can be seen as corrupt.

Sadam was corrupt.

So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?

Consequences

I assume from your aquiessence in

Quote[/b] ]I wasn't defending anyones actions

that you accept there was no moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator.

Since it is now generaly accepted there was no WMD.

You must there for accept according to your own admissions neither reason for invading Iraq was valid.

The question then becomes one of TBA sponging off US and UK tax payers and Iraqi oil to pay reperations for whoops! invading Iraq and then deciding who shall get the contracts for those reperations.

The insurance analogy

Now if I cause someone to be injured while climbing my insurance pays for it, I guess the the US and UK tax payers are similar to an insurance company. Some major differences though. I dont get to decide my cousin gets the nursing care contract for the person I injured. If I was criminaly negligent I go to Jail. If I have a personal fortune my insurance gets to take from it to cover their costs.

Which brings us back to something I have been saying in this thread for some time.

Political Consequences of Coalition Failure to find WMD

WMD was the pretext for War (with it Sadam and Iraq was seen as dangerous to the coalition countries)

If the US and UK administrations don't come up with the proof of WMD.

It does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour)

Or were stupid (criminal neglegence)

Both are resignation matters in a true democracy.

If they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them

by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US.

Otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

The costs of Invading Iraq

Failing to rebuild a country after you smashed it apart in a war makes the people who live there resent you.

If you can not even find the WMD, for which you fought the war, they resent you more.

If while you are failing to find the WMD you smash up the wrong peoples houses or shoot their inocent family members, friendly fire happens accepted but it dont alter how people feel, they will resent you more.

Sadams money is unacounted for; it may have already been transfered to AlQueda (let us pray it has not) The 750,000 dolars in the suitcase was Sadams daily bribe money where is the rest? It belongs to the Iraqi people and can be used to help reconstruct the country.

Failing to adress the economic, social and political needs of Iraqis would mean a former Evil Tyrant, Sadam will begin to be seen as a Robin Hood.

Consequences for the War on terror

Before GW2 Al Queda was significantly weakened by the attacks in Afghanistan. Afgahanistan had a sufficient force of Coalition trops there to prevent the reemergence of the Taliban. Effort was being made to rebuild the country and remove it as an Al Queda recruiting base. Since GW2 the number and quality of these troops has been reduced to feed in to the increasing demand on troop numbers in Iraq.

The mistake of fighting a war on two fronts

Any one with a brain can see that is fighting a war on two fronts always costly and considered a strategic error.

As a result the US and the Coalition members are in more danger of terrorism than before GW2 or are the higher number of attacks my imagination? It may even include a WMD threat. Let us just pray the WMD was not there in Iraq in the first place.

TBA and TBA2s failure at a time of War

So both TBA and TBA2 have failed us at a time of war by increasing the number of enemies the coalition faces and by failing to deal with those dangerous enemies. Where is Bin Laden? Maybe Kurdish intelegence can help the Coalition find Him.

The single biggest sin a democratic administration can make is failure in war. It is considered a terminal error.

Still we live in democracies we can get rid of lame duck administrations. I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitamacy if they atempt to remain in power without finding the WMD. So we will have to lose these lame duck administrations in that case.  It is a cheaper option than having them continue on unable to govern.

TBA2 Tied up in ivestigations

Allready the UK government has had to spend months of adminstration time and money explaining its actions with regard to the whistle blower Dr David Kelly and its PR department has wasted more doing a hatchet job on the reporter Andrew Gilligan. All for what to say it did not lie when it said the Iraqis had WMD that could be fired in 45 minutes (it was refering to WW1 style Gas shells that it could fire maybe 25 miles) but it left everyone with the impression this was WMD that could be fired on UK bases in Cyprus. The results of inquiry are due out this month. Then there is the inquiry into the UK going to war on inccorect evidence to be started.

TBA Tied up in ivestigations

In the US the investigation into which whitehouse official revealed the identity of the CIA agent in charge of finding ilegal nuclear weapons materials is due to start early next year. As is the investigation into failures of US inteligence in the run up to GW2. The CIA has allready made it clear they blame TBA's private inteligence firm. Why TBA employed that bunch of amatuers is beyond me.

Legal consequences for TBA and TBA2 of not finding WMD

It maybe that Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings in pursuit of a wrongful war if no WMD is found. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the adminstrations not US and UK tax payers. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an adminstration that fails to come up with proof of WMD have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before I pay for it.

We then come to the matter of investigating a possable war crime this would be for the future Iraqi government or better a referendum of the Iraqis to decide. It may well be that such a government decides that the removal of Sadam was a worth while venture.

They have to pull their fingers out and find that WMD to stand a chance of staying in power and prevent our taxpayers from having to cough up for their (mistakes or lie) does not matter which.

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

can someone give me proof that Halliburton was the best for the job?

[ralphwiggum 6]

it' called a GOSSIP section for a reason. remember that some gossip columnist for LA Times wrote that a white actress was carrying a child of Black Panther leader?(back in 60/70s) the actress was so distraught and had miscarriage, and even opened the casket to prove that the child was not from the black person. she went menatl and ended up dead.

this is why Gossips don't make headlines.

[Balschoiw 0]

hey Ralph here you go :

Why Halliburton is soooo great !

[toadlife 3]

hey Ralph here you go :

Why Halliburton is soooo great !

Any other company would have to pay those same salaries. Growing up in a town that was built on oil, I can tell you that even in the safe confines of the States, working for an oil company pays big bucks - even if you do the most menial of jobs. The reason is because the jobs generally suck, and are almost allways hazardous. Deadly accidents are very common when working in oil feilds. Even the companies that do sub contracting work for oil companies (like cleaning up oild spills, and laying pipe) have huge injury rates, and the occasional death.

[toadlife 3]

Hi toadlife

I repeat:

The US government is not held in such high esteem in your own eyes. So you now admit the current Bush administration is acting in way that can be seen as corrupt.

Sadam was corrupt.

So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?....

Stop comparing Saddam with Bush. That's just rediculous.

From your posts, your logic seems as follows:

* Bush is corrupt (allegations of special interest ties)

* Saddam was corrupt (proven allegations of mass murder, torture, crimes against humanity)

.....Thus you conclue that America's government holds no moral ground over Saddam's Regime.

[walker 0]

Stop comparing Saddam with Bush. That's just rediculous.

From your posts, your logic seems as follows:

* Bush is corrupt (allegations of special interest ties)

* Saddam was corrupt (proven allegations of mass murder, torture, crimes against humanity)

.....Thus you conclue that America's government holds no moral ground over Saddam's Regime.

It is precisley comparison that gives moral and ethical accendancy. US administrations have to be compaired with those they opose. You just did it yourself.

Live with it.

Hi toadlife

I repeat:

The US government is not held in such high esteem in your own eyes. So you now admit the current Bush administration is acting in way that can be seen as corrupt.

Sadam was corrupt.

So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?....

perhaps the underlining will help.

I cant help it if your own view of your administration is so low. That is what your own opinion is; there in the public record

Quote[/b] ]Sounds like politics as usual. Quid Pro Quo at it's best

in context and for all to see.

You used the above remark as a defence for the indefensable that is corruption in an administration.

I slapped your remark down with your own hand of cynacism. It is the standard rhetorical weapon for dealing with cynicism in debate. So every time you see cynacism used you can use exactly the same method to combat it.

I personaly believe US administrations are not all in it for a fast buck or indeed corrupt. I do believe TBA is one is of very doubtful quality, morals and ethics and that if your congress dont get rid of them I hope your electorate will for that is the true defence your country has against a president becoming a dictator.

When evidence of wrong doing or maladministration in a democratic administration occurs it is the duty of all to blow the whistle. It is the duty of none to be cynical and wait for them to turn in to a Sadam so you can say 'I told you so!'

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]The US government is not held in such high esteem in your own eyes. So you now admit the current Bush administration is acting in way that can be seen as corrupt.

Sadam was corrupt.

So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?

Saddam's regime commited mass murder, torture, crimes against humanity, etc. TBA may have unethical ties to certain businesses. I don't see how they are equally corrupt.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]The US government is not held in such high esteem in your own eyes. So you now admit the current Bush administration is acting in way that can be seen as corrupt.

Sadam was corrupt.

So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?

Saddam's regime commited mass murder, torture, crimes against humanity, etc. TBA may have unethical ties to certain businesses. I don't see how they are equally corrupt.

Hi m21man

Comparison aint the same as equivalence.

Assumptions eh get you every time. Need to read things carefully.

The question was put in a way to show that cynacism aint a defence it is a rod to beat a cynic with.

As you agree that

Quote[/b] ]TBA may have unethical ties to certain businesses.

I hope we dont have one more for the cynic trap and that TBA must endure from you the aprobrium such doubtful quality, morals and ethics deserves.

You are after all presumably a voter in US elections and when you see evidence of wrong doing or maladministration in a democratic administration occurs it is your duty to blow the whistle. It is the duty of none to be cynical and wait for them to turn in to a Sadam so you can say 'I told you so!'

Kind Regards Walker

[Acecombat 0]

Harassed Saudi Saddam Seeks a New Name

Staff Writer

RIYADH, 5 January 2004 — A Saudi citizen wants to change his son’s name from Saddam Hussein because of the constant banter his son faces at school, Al-Watan newspaper reported yesterday.

Hussein Mohsen Al-Harithy applied to the Civil Status Department to change the name of his now 14-year-old son following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. However, an Iraqi Scud missile struck the department holding the application in 1991, causing the paperwork to be lost in the rubble.

“After I found out the paperwork was gone, I forgot about the whole thing, but the recent events and the capture of Saddam Hussein forced me to change the name,†Al-Harithy said.

The boy, his father said, was fighting with his classmates at school every day. “My son is angry and frustrated because of this name that has caused him a lot of trouble at school,†Al-Harithy said.

Students made a habit of calling the young Saddam names like Haddam, which means destroyer. “One of my son’s teachers called me and advised me to change my son’s name to avoid the problems he’s facing,†the father added.

The name Saddam, Al-Harithy said, now symbolizes “pessimism, evil, mockery and disappointment all at once.†He wants to change his son’s name to Sitan, meaning the blade of a sword.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]So where is your moral ethical high ground for invading another country to remove a corrupt dictator when you seem to accept such corruption in your own administration?....

"when seem to accept such corruption in [my] own administration?"

Like I said before, it sounds like you are comparing the Bush administration to Saddam Hussein's regime, which is perplexing to me.

Have you even done anything that was unethical, immoral, or dishonest? WHat do you think is the standard for miltary action against nutso dictators that kill thousand of innocent people? Do you think we (western countries) should stand by while attrocities happen, simply because we ourselves are not perfect beings of light?

Edit:You keep stating I "accept the corruption in the Bush Administration". I have not seen any proof of corruption in the Bush administration, nor has anyone given me anything beyond speculation.

Might there be some corruption in the Bush administration? Sure there might. Does that possibility have any bearing on my feeling towards weather or not we should go into Iraq. No it doesn't. My cynicism towards the varying amounts of corruption that pervade every single government on this planet does not have anything to do with my opinion that Saddam Hussein’s regime deserved to be overthrown.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you think we (western countries) should stand by while attrocities happen, simply because we ourselves are not perfect beings of light?

Yes , did the world attack you when blacks in your country were subjected to racism (similiar to saddams anti-shiiteness) , did the world attack you when your bombs dropped throughout your so called precise bombings killing people throughout the world without your country even apologizing to them .. damn this hypocrisy...

I could go on and on about the Native red indians who were hunted down and killed or the british racism in India where they slaughtered the whole Mughal family just to please their crowns f**** ego where were human rights then? You dont define the time frame as to what happens when and how and when it should move on.

I am against Saddams murder of his people but it was their inteernal matter not your countrys bloody business. PERIOD.