The U.S. is also one of the world's largest oil producers.

Post #69,134 by Mike 12/16/02 1:05:19 PM Reply	The U.S. is also one of the world's largest oil producers. >>GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 >>because they come from oil-producing states. This is not incriminating at all. The U.S. is actually one of the world's largest oil producers. In the late 90's when prices dropped....over 50,000 people lost jobs as a direct result. Thousands of wells were shut down because they simply were not profitable. (I'll provide evidence if asked for it....but I think this is pretty well known). As for the rest of it...... if you tell your two squabbling neighbors that the argument is none of your business...but that you wish they would just settle their issues...... are you really encouraging one to go into the others house, ransack it and take whatever looks tasty? -Mike -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,151 by boxley 12/16/02 3:26:57 PM Reply	evidence is WTF I ended up in florida cheap oil ment 600+ IT people on the street when Arco and BP joined together. In a town of 265 thousand it couldnt be absorbed and is still hurting the IT folks there. $25-$31 per barrel is an ideal price for economic balance. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
Post #69,158 by Simon_Jester 12/16/02 3:46:08 PM Reply	Diplomatic political-speak - an art unto itself. As for the rest of it...... if you tell your two squabbling neighbors that the argument is none of your business...but that you wish they would just settle their issues......are you really encouraging one to go into the others house, ransack it and take whatever looks tasty? Well, if they are squabbling - would you state that you have no opinion on how they handle their disagreement? Or would you state that you hope they bring it to a quick resolution, peacefully? Diplomatic political-speak is an art unto itself.
Post #69,199 by Mike 12/16/02 5:56:00 PM Reply	Yabbut Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. (I guess you could argue that by expressing concern over troops to the south we gave an implication that shifting them west would be just fine by us.... but its a bit of a stretch.) -Mike -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,206 by mmoffitt 12/16/02 6:54:53 PM Reply	I keep forgetting not to read for content. [Emphasis mine for the reading impaired and RW Apologists] GLASPIE: *But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.* I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. *All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly* In diplo-speak THAT IS AS CLEAR AS IT GETS.
Post #69,311 by Mike 12/17/02 12:52:18 PM Reply	Its in the eye of the beholder via Klibi or via President Mubarak Interesting you left that deemphasised. -Mike -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,329 by Mike 12/17/02 1:55:03 PM Reply	Some content for you. [link\|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aziz.html\|PBS - An Interview With Tariq Aziz] Question: Could you elaborate on the point about mixed signals sent by the U.S. during the run-up to the invasion of Kuwait? How did those influence your government's decision? Tariq Aziz: There were no mixed signals. We should not forget that the whole period before August 2 witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. So it would be quite foolish to think that, if we go to Kuwait, then America would like that. Because the American tendency . . . was to untie Iraq. So how could we imagine that such a step was going to be appreciated by the Americans? It looks foolish, you see, this is fiction. About the meeting with April Glaspie--it was a routine meeting. There was nothing extraordinary in it. She didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president. She was summoned by the president. He telephoned me and said, "Bring the American ambassador. I want to see her." She was not prepared, because it was not morning in Washington. People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour.... To contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush. He wanted her to carry a message to George Bush--not to receive a message through her from Washington. -Mike Can we put this to rest now? Does anybody still believe this crap? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,381 by mmoffitt 12/17/02 3:54:46 PM Reply	Interesting. We need to attack Iraq because they aren't trustworthy. Except in your post. Is that about right?
Post #69,383 by bepatient 12/17/02 3:59:16 PM Reply	Stretch it any further and it'll break. It was not, nor could it be construed as a green light to invade Kuwait. No matter where you put your red or bold text. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,436 by Mike 12/17/02 6:01:01 PM Reply	Once more unto the ridiculous So you think Aziz is lying in this interview but that Iraq does not lie about its weapons programmes? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,506 by mmoffitt 12/17/02 9:43:16 PM Reply	To the Two Above Keep goose-steppin'
Post #69,577 by bepatient 12/18/02 8:03:25 AM Reply	To the one above... ..call me when the alien mothership arrives. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,607 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 10:06:26 AM Reply	Why would he lie to a US Reporter? Hmmmm, maybe, just perhaps he doesn't want to admit to how much influence the BNL/Atlanta bank loan scandal bought the US in Iraq. Yes, it is very difficult to image why an outwardly US hating regime would fail to admit US influence in its foreign policy. Why, that might mean you'd have to question the integrity of people like James Baker, G HW Bush, Reagan, Casey, Poindexter, etc. and God knows that'd be Un-American.
Post #69,616 by bepatient 12/18/02 10:46:13 AM Reply	What? You're delusional now. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,621 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 11:21:22 AM Reply	No. I just don't drink your brand of Kool-Aid.
Post #69,636 by bepatient 12/18/02 12:22:11 PM Reply	Then maybe you can explain the above post? In light of the fact that noone agrees (even the Iraqis) that those statements amounted to a green light for invasion. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,654 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 2:08:53 PM Reply	No one is two words. Try here: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=69528\|Simon, who has more patience than I]
Post #69,660 by bepatient 12/18/02 2:25:44 PM Reply	My point is clear. Your statement...and continued insistance that the US green-lighted the invastion of Kuwait...flys in the face of 1)the evidence (actual statements) and 2)all the parties involved. You justify this by saying...the involved parties must be lying. (but they're telling the truth about everything else...right????) Others here have read the statement and disagree with your assessment. They, in your opinion, must be wrong. Great. All great conspiricy theories are born this way. Why not start the definitive website on the subject? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,665 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 2:37:51 PM Reply	Just ask yourself, what rings true? 1. Iraq remains the only nation to be removed from the official list of "terror supporting states". 2. Iraq's economy was suffering from the declining price of oil. Iraq chose to blame Kuwait's production in excess of agreed to limits. We said, officially, it's none of our business. 3. Down oil prices mean less money for the Texas oil billionaires of which the Bushs' are members. 4. Almost up to the point we went to war, the Bush Admin was lobbying (indeed subverting) Congress and others to continue to support Iraq and Saddam. Hell, there were directives signed to extend their credit for Christ's sake. 5. Glaspie's meeting with the Hussein. Ask yourself, up until the Kuwaiti invasion, were we not "on the same page" officially w/Saddam? Wasn't that the directive of Baker? Wasn't that what Glaspie said? Then, Saddam invades Kuwait. Suddenly, he's back on the terrorist list. Suddenly the fact that he used mustard gas on the Kurds is now "relevant". Suddenly, it is in keeping with the American Tradition to restore feudalism to the Middle East. Then ask yourself if you think its any co-incidence that in 2002 our hand-picked successor to Saddam is already engaged in negotiations with US oil firms to replace the Russian oil firms presently pumping oil out of Iraq. This is all, I suppose, mere coincidence, all just a "consipiracy theorists rantings". Sit and watch how fast Dubya and Dickey's buddies move into Iraq after the war, after we "gid rid of Saddam". Then tell me all this stuff is the stuff of fiction.
Post #69,720 by bepatient 12/18/02 4:57:11 PM Reply	If thats is all the case... ..then why is Aziz not telling the truth about it? He states emphatically that they did not consider her statements a "green light" to invade. In the current situation, Iraq has spent alot of time and effort countering US "aggressiveness" in the worldwide media in order to discredit our government and our position wrt the current regime. If your position were true there would be no reason for Aziz to lie...and every reason for him to come forward with the story you present. So, quite frankly, your position does >not< ring true. Stringing all of this "evidence" together makes a great conspiricy theory...but Iraq is currently trying (very hard) to discredit our government...and if your initial premise is true...they would only need that one item to accomplish their objective...yet it is denied. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,734 by Mike 12/18/02 5:24:08 PM Reply	Exactly! Well said.
Post #69,753 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 6:43:51 PM Reply	Re: makes a great conspiricy theory I suppose to a real live grown up member of the Reagan Youth, that's all it is. Or, it might seem that way too if you've smoked yourself some really bad crack.
Post #69,773 by bepatient 12/18/02 9:00:17 PM Reply	Maybe if I were one or had... ...but your translation of reality seems to fall into the "bad trip" realm. You want so badly for it to be true... Truth suffers as a consequence. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,766 by Mike 12/18/02 8:10:50 PM Reply	Ask yourself...... ...why after pulling off such magnificent manipulation... did we then stop at the Iraqi border? Does it really ring true that we would go to all that trouble and not even get our hands on all that luuuuuverly oil? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,776 by bepatient 12/18/02 9:04:48 PM Reply	C'mon now... ...they obviously had Nancy's soothsayer to tell them that "son of Bush" would come along and finally finish the objective. All the facts point to it. And to think that we fooled the Saudis and all the other coalition members into believing that Saddam did it all...when it was really the US that told Saddam to invade. And we've even been able to keep it a secret right up until mmoffitt discovered the real truth. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,830 by Mike 12/19/02 7:30:13 AM Reply	Ahhhhhhhhhhh.........clarity at last -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,837 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 8:00:33 AM 12/19/02 8:03:23 AM Reply	Unless we weren't after the oil.... I've often thought we were after the Bull Supergun. We got that, btw. Edited by Simon_Jester Dec. 19, 2002, 08:03:23 AM EST Expand All History
Post #69,856 by Mike 12/19/02 9:03:25 AM Reply	So.....the gulf war wasn't about "freeing" Kuwait. wasn't about oil. .....it was about weapons! I think the strategic importance of oil deserves to be in the mix somewhere...but I'll run with your suggestion for a moment. If we were sufficiently concerned to go to war over his weapons back THEN... seems his weapons TODAY might provide a similar concern. Yes? -Mike -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,869 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 9:50:46 AM Reply	Chuckle...sure except, back then, we claimed it was because Saddam agressively invaded Kuwait. It had nothing to do with weapons back been. So, if you notice the pattern, what we say (to the public) it's going to be about is unlikely to be what the war is really going to be about. :-)
Post #69,880 by bepatient 12/19/02 10:25:32 AM Reply	Hmmm... ...so confused...\r\n\r\nKeep getting told its all about the oil....\r\n\r\nnow its not all about the oil...\r\n\r\nreboot. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} \r\n[link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,906 by mmoffitt 12/19/02 11:36:43 AM Reply	Okay, Beep. You tell me. Why do we need to attack Iraq?
Post #69,949 by bepatient 12/19/02 1:52:38 PM Reply	Well I've been told... ...its all about the oil. Why should I ever question such popular wisdom? Never mind the minor little details of years of ignoring UN mandates, persuing and obtaining biological and chemical agents for weapons use, flaunting the UN again by omitting things that inspectors already knew were there...etc... And as for oil...do we want it expensive so all the fat texas cats will be happy...or do we want it cheap so the economy goes boom? Never really heard anything but "its about oil"..some saying we want cheap...others saying we want expensive...its just all so confusing.... Personally...I don't think we need to attack Iraq at all...I'd like to see us drill and exploit ANWR and Green River, strike a deal with the Russians to help them tap their own reserves (for a vig) and walk away from the middle east all together. Just so you don't think me anti-conservation...I also support raising the price of gas (through taxes) to about $4 a gallon...and using those taxes to build and support a public transportation system. While this is a somewhat different view than my traditional (get the f* outta my way) Libby underpinnings...I do feel that one key responsibility of government is to provide affordable transportation and mobility to its people...and having lived in Europe and seen what high gas prices can do as a behavior modifier and supplement to public transport...well lets just say that I support that endeavor. As for the Arab world...they don't like us???...well f'em if they can't take a joke. Simple really. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}* [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,028 by a6l6e6x 12/19/02 8:14:12 PM 12/19/02 8:15:37 PM Reply	I like your solution to the energy (oil) problem. But I would use some of the gasoline tax money for treating pollution related health problems. The oil industry is getting a free ride in that area. Pay for the consequences, I say. Ashton will be pleased about the side effect on UAVs (that's Urban Assault Vehicles for newcomers). Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain Edited by a6l6e6x Dec. 19, 2002, 08:15:37 PM EST Expand All History
Post #70,045 by bepatient 12/19/02 9:27:19 PM Reply	Mea Culpa syndrome... ...you say the industry gets a free ride...which I think is kind of ironic in that most of the serious ailments are auto emission related. The oil companies go get it...we burn it and then expect them to pay because its bad for us? Not quite with you there. The side effect on UAV's are drastic. I can't remember ever seeing one in Europe outside of military vehicles. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,052 by a6l6e6x 12/19/02 9:58:26 PM Reply	The free ride comes from the larger sales they enjoy. The consumption of oil/gasoline would be considerably reduced if it was properly taxed. And there is also the possibility of competition from alternative energy sources that might be taxed (if at all) differently. But you are right, ultimately it is we the consumers that pay. The problem is that, at present, we do not pay in proportion to the harm we cause. Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
Post #70,056 by bepatient 12/19/02 10:18:20 PM Reply	Thats it all over The problem is that, at present, we do not pay in proportion to the harm we cause. That may be one of the most sensible things I've seen posted in a while. The problem that I have is that, instead of us recognizing this..we spend all of our time blaming the businesses that give us the fix... And when we talk about the failed "war on drugs"...we say it can never be successful because where there is demand there will always be supply...so attacking supply is destined to fail...yet here it seems to be the easy solution...blame the corp...make them pay. We...the people...are the #1 polluters. Corporations get the press...and the movie coverage...but we are vastly more dangerous to ourselves than those "greedy corporate bastards". But what do I know...I'm in bed with big bizness---dontcha know ;-) Right Ash? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,072 by Ashton 12/20/02 12:49:30 AM Reply	Wow, Beep - in non-Market mode, eh? I mean - here's a whole thread in which you aren't just poseuring as the Corp/Devils advocate! Ackshully - I can't think of much to argue about in this thread :-) [Admin: Move thread to Sane Forum, please] I think I'll reserve my area of disagreement to the same old one, and for another venue. Will agree that 'blaming the Corp for providing what We were conditioned to Want' is as lame as you say. Pogo Lives: we have met the enemy and - Another time: Obv my perennial rant concerns the naive laissez faire of the most basic and expected kinds of scams ever perpetrated by the terminally greedy - demanding accountability and appropriate enforced punishment of offenders. (Corporate? throw in AMA too, re nonaccountability, non-protection from repeat butchers in the club) The 'accountability' can never occur until there is reform of the basic rules, er Charter: removing the clause bestowing 'Individual Citizenship' upon a complex collection of devious homo-saps (like the rest of us). "Free Speech via bribing congressfolk" indeed.. So along with Corp Charter revision must come campaign reform, the taking-back of the citizens' airwaves to the extent that: those who profit massively from these: release at low cost, suitable [=debated] air time as befits our paranoid style of political blab. Take the bribery $$ out of the Speech-dope selling. Both of these are Political / Governmental problems: should Corporate be blamed for behaving as outrageously as they can almost-legally get away with? Legally perhaps No. Actually: Yes, of course. Nasty manipulation is still nasty manipulation. (Let's not do Fred Rodell's immortal description of 'the law' right here, too. Either.) Somewhere in the New practical rules must also lie some disincentives to pay anyone 1000x the wage of the new-hire, obviously - presumably via Tax Rules, a part of the other reforms -- you know, like pre-Ronnie days? We can do the .. How does Corporate suck? It sucks beyond the ends of being and ideal grace .. to the depth and breadth and height A CIEIO can manipulate .. another time. Cheers, I. er.. watch that Slippery rung, just after the key to the exec john :-\ufffd When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards
Post #70,083 by bepatient 12/20/02 9:51:47 AM Reply	Damn...that was close ;-) I almost was forced to agree with you 100%. :-) It needs to be an exersize of >freedom< that changes this system. IMO, it is up to "we the people" to take back what is rightfully ours. I do not blame the CIEIO for acting in the best interest of his/her constituents. (congresscritter, however...there is another story...because by allowing CIEIO to influence...he is generally >not< acting in the best interest of his/hers) If we deem CEO pay unacceptable, ensure that it is lowered by acting upon it. Same with Hollywood. Same with Sports. Won't ever be able to fix CEO pay with ARod making 120 gazillion and a share of the team. Won't have it when you pay Denzel and John T 20+ million a film. I personally don't have any problem with high pay...as long as it has a basis in value (something that was severely lacking in the dot-bomb era). Jack Welch, on the other hand, turned GE from light bulb failure to manufacturing powerhouse...in the end...to the stockholders..he was probably worth every penny. I >really< don't like it when you decide what your own pay scale should be (Congress)...pay raises to Congress should be >voted< into place. Taking away the ability to get stinky rich is to tarnish the American Dream (tm). You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Still trying to aquire that key ;-p
Post #70,062 by Silverlock 12/19/02 10:48:32 PM Reply	2 problems Strongest first; ..expect them to pay.. How do you interpret taking some of the TAX money collected and distributing it to health concerns, or any other concern for that matter, as making the oil companies pay dime one? And then; The oil companies go get it...we burn it" Naivete isn't a good color for you Beep. Oil/auto is the reason this country doesn't have effective mass transit. Simply, there is more short-term profit in keeping cars on the road than there is in supplying the needs of trains/buses/trolleys, etc. The demand for gas is not just a consumer driven phenomenon. I hope you'll respond to both problems. The second is presented weakly, but I think I can defend it. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,063 by bepatient 12/19/02 11:02:30 PM Reply	Re: 2 problems First issue. I don't. Taking money from corporations is just another sales tax. Net effect is a wash...and the consumer doesn't >recognize< the component of price. Besides...I thought I was pretty clear when I said I don't expect them to >have< to pay for something that >we< do. 2nd point. I thought I was also relatively clear here. Mass transit is a government responsibility. Oil/auto is a convenient cop-out for what I consider to be one of our government's most amazing failures. The demand for gas is almost entirely a consumer driven phenomenon...and while we all know its environmentally unsound..we fail to support initiatives that change the status quo. Quite simply..raising the tax on gasoline to those levels will achieve the desired outcome. Again...you can blame the drug user or the supplier...which one creates the demand? I pull the trigger...but its S&W's fault the guy is dead? Chances are slim to none that we are going to agree if your premise is to blame Ford for the failures of mass transit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,098 by Silverlock 12/20/02 11:15:49 AM Reply	Okay First issue- We agree then that using tax revenues to pay for health problems caused by the taxed item does not equate to making the provider of the unhealthy, taxed item pay for them. Good. I agree BTW with taxing the hell out of gasoline. Get it up to 4 or 5 dollars a gallon. Second- I still think you are being a little naive. Consumer demand for oil is not a simple "buyer" driven demand. [link\|http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html\|GM's] destruction of [link\|http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm\|trolley] lines is a case in point. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,107 by bepatient 12/20/02 11:46:03 AM Reply	There is no naivite involved. I know the GM story. It should have never been allowed. Again...back to my premise...Mass Transit is a government reponsibility. GM can't form a consortium to buy the [link\|http://www.screamingeagle.org/\|101st Airborne], right? My point is that they've failed at this just as miserably as they have failed in so many other areas. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,110 by Silverlock 12/20/02 11:58:30 AM Reply	Let me restate My reference to mass transit being torpedoed by GM et al, was a illustration of a larger point. I am not trying to blame GM/Shell/Goodyear for the failures of mass transit. That is not the point I am pursuing. The consumer demand for oil has been manipulated by those who profit from that demand. The blame is shared. The dealer/user metaphor is not accurate. The consumer is not standing alone in this. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,141 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:16:03 PM Reply	And we (the people) are the ones that allowed it. It was all legal. Granted it may have been "sneaky" or "underhanded"...but it was all legal. And again...making >them< pay does absolutely nothing except extend the amount of time that it takes for us to pay. Taxing corporations for something that they will immediately pass through on price is an irrelevance. Fool me once, shame on you...fool me for >years<....shame on me. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,146 by Silverlock 12/20/02 3:23:51 PM Reply	Yeah. Right. It was all legal. And you say you aren't naive. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,149 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:37:27 PM Reply	Well...let me clarify... ...because risk/reward is involved. They may have cracked a minor law or 2 in the process..but..even in 1930 standards...being levied a fine of $5000 makes the law irrelevent. Cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problem. None of this discussion really even makes sense in the context of my point. None of that should have been possible. The simple fact that is >was< possible verifies the failure that I've pointed out. And..complicit or not...fining oil companies is no different than taxing us directly. >We< pay. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,152 by drewk 12/20/02 3:44:59 PM Reply	No, a specific subset of "we" pay And..complicit or not...fining oil companies is no different than taxing us directly. >We< pay. But "we" would pay in proportion to how much we use it. If you want (or need) to drive something that gets 12 mpg, and I can get by on something that gets 36 mpg, doesn't it seem fair that you should pay a three-times-larger share of the costs? Three times as much for the roads, three times as much for the health costs, three times as much for every cost involved in over-the-road transportation. I would think you would be in favor of costs being borne, to the extent possible, by those responsible for them. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #70,153 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:50:29 PM Reply	Whcih is why.. ...I say just tax the gas. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,159 by drewk 12/20/02 4:29:06 PM Reply	I ... thought that was the original idea But don't feel like re-reading the whole thread. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #70,160 by bepatient 12/20/02 4:48:41 PM Reply	Neither do I ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,085 by boxley 12/20/02 10:11:37 AM Reply	we have way too much mass for effective transit will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
Post #70,100 by Brandioch 12/20/02 11:23:20 AM Reply	Wrong. But we have too much infrastructure built up without any thought given to mass transit. Our cities would have to be heavily rebuilt to accomodate the hubs and routes needed.
Post #70,140 by boxley 12/20/02 3:15:58 PM Reply	certainly we could all huddle in a mass at government controlled checkpoints or we could live in america. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
Post #70,257 by mmoffitt 12/21/02 3:51:02 PM Reply	Re: Checkpoints. Hell, we're gonna do that already. Or don't you think the boys at the new ~~Gestapo~~ Homeland Security Office are thinking that up?
Post #70,119 by jb4 12/20/02 1:13:40 PM Reply	I'm sorry, I got distracted there for a second... Never mind the minor little details of years of ignoring UN mandates, persuing and obtaining biological and chemical agents for weapons use, flaunting the UN again by omitting things that inspectors already knew were there...etc... I'm afraid I'm lost...were you talking about North Korea? Pakistan? India? Oh, you were talking about Iraq. OK..I'm back on track....please continue.... jb4 "They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink." Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
Post #70,143 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:18:05 PM Reply	Methinks you're still distracted. Otherwise your post might have had a shot at making sense ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,916 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 11:49:50 AM Reply	Which war? I don't think I ever claimed that original Iraq War (Desert Storm/Desert Shield) was about oil. I might have claimed that we told Iraq to go ahead with the attack - but even then, how could that war be about oil? Weren't we getting large discounts on the price of oil at the time? Now, this time around....I'm just not sure yet. ;-)
Post #69,942 by Mike 12/19/02 1:21:29 PM Reply	No silly. The war is about the faked moon landings which were dreamt up to induce Russia to invade Afghanistan and generate a band of disillusioned hoodlums who would destroy the WTC so that we could get everyone fearful and justify an attack on Iraq which would provide an opportunity to destroy the Ethiopean space program which everyone knows was funding North Koreas initiative to spread buck teeth throughout the cast of the musical "Annie" in the hope that they would use their enormous incisors to chew a hole in the ozone layer....thereby causing global warming, the polar ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise causing a flood of the Netherlands and leave the Dutch no alternative but to colonise the entire middle east and then trade all their oil for Pepperidge Farm goldifsh. And...<cough>......whose bong is this? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,950 by bepatient 12/19/02 1:54:53 PM Reply	cough...mine.... ...Oh...I get it...so your saying its all the Jew's fault ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,965 by bbronson 12/19/02 3:02:48 PM Reply	How faked moon landings led to cheesy goldfish ;-) Sounds like a candidate for a future Connections episode! Brian Bronson
Post #69,970 by Mike 12/19/02 3:49:58 PM Reply	:-) -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,669 by Brandioch 12/18/02 2:45:05 PM Reply	Don't waste your time. The statements made at the time are public record. The actions taken that were based upon those statements are public record. Now it becomes convenient for certain individuals to "believe" what other individuals now say is the "truth" (despite those other individuals being less than trustworthy on any other occasion). Sad, really. But some people need to live like that. It's almost funny when you look at it from outside. Pure semantic games.
Post #69,670 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 2:48:28 PM Reply	Mea Culpa. I get so wound up sometimes I forget... Thanks for reminding me of the futility of trying to convert "true believers".
Post #69,679 by Simon_Jester 12/18/02 3:07:47 PM 12/18/02 3:09:59 PM Reply	Alas, even my link doesn't show that we gave Saddam a green light. Rather it (attempts) to show that we really never gave them a red light. It's most presuasive argument, however, isn't the color of the lights, but rather than the US expected Saddam to invade. (Iraq a damn good reason to invade, we knew troops were on the border, etc.) It also seems to argue that, irrespective of what the CIA was telling Congress, Kuwait seemed to think we'd come to their aid if they invaded. As someone's tag line states: The truth is somewhere in between. Edited by Simon_Jester Dec. 18, 2002, 03:09:59 PM EST Expand All History
Post #69,682 by mmoffitt 12/18/02 3:21:41 PM Reply	That is a matter of perspective. And, admittedly, when it comes to Bush/Reagan/Bush II, et. al. mine may be a little jaded. However, I think there is a very strong argument that by "not giving a red light" we gave the "green light".
Post #69,701 by Brandioch 12/18/02 3:57:44 PM Reply	Ditto. We knew Iraq would attack if we didn't tell them not to. We didn't tell them not to attack. So they attacked. True, we didn't tell them to attack, they just checked with us first to see if we had any objections to them attacking. We told them we didn't and they attacked. Anything else is semantic bull shit.
Post #69,718 by bepatient 12/18/02 4:46:31 PM 12/18/02 9:48:03 PM Reply	Not even close. But your statement still applies. Nothing in the record shows anything other than a diplomat saying "we have no interest". It's obvious to everyone that is only a "codeword" for "invade".[image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Dec. 18, 2002, 05:00:01 PM EST Edited by bepatient Dec. 18, 2002, 09:48:03 PM EST Expand All History
Post #69,732 by Mike 12/18/02 5:22:23 PM Reply	I think..... ....this represents a shift from the "we suckered them into an invasion so we could kick the crap out of them" theme at the beginning of this thread. I think you can make a case that the State Department did a shit job of sending a clear unambiguous message about our position. But the contention that we gave Iraq no signals that we would respond aggressively? Sorry I think that's wrong. "The Bush administration yesterday called for a diplomatic solution to the Persian Gulf crisis, warned Iraq against "coercion and intimidation," and ordered U.S. forces in the gulf on an emergency training exercise that officials said is meant as a response to the military buildup on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border." Patrick E. Tyler - Washington Post July 25, 1990* -Mike *You'll have to pay to view the archives. -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,740 by Simon_Jester 12/18/02 5:36:24 PM Reply	There were lots of signals.... There were lots of signals... Specifically, we didn't tell them that we would attack if he attacked Kuwait. That's because, as far as we can tell, it was our official position. (Which may or may not have been what Saddam was asking when he originally summoned Glaspie) 31 July: Kelly told Congress: "We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country. That is clear. ... We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations." Rep. Lee Hamilton asked if it would be correct to say that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the United States did "not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage U.S. forces" there. "That is correct," Kelly responded.{16} [link\|http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iraq_KH.html\| source ] Certainly we didn't do all we could have to avoid a war. And if that was our goal - then our State department did a fine job.
Post #69,764 by Mike 12/18/02 8:02:56 PM Reply	Oh my...... Here is what was said between Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs John H. Kelly, and Representative Lee Hamilton: Hamilton: If Iraq, for example, charged across the border into Kuwait, for whatever reason, what would be our position with regard to the use of US forces? Kelly: That, Mr. Chairman, is a hypothetical or a contingency, the kind of which I can't get into. Suffice it to say we would be extremely concerned, but I cannot get into the realm of "what if" answers. THEN..... Hamilton: In that circumstance, it is correct to say, however, that we do not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage US forces? Kelly: That is correct. And this, THIS.....counts for "evidence" of our official position? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,835 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 7:58:03 AM Reply	I did state - as far as we can tell.... because that's what we were telling our own Congressmen and we've never admitted to having an official agreement with Kuwait that stated that we would assist them if Iraq invaded. However, Kuwait seemed to think so, as one of their leaders bragged that if Iraq came after them they'd send in the Americans. Also, Iraq produced after the invasion a document from the CIA that stated (to the effect) that we would offer Kuwait protection from Iraq. (The CIA denies that this is an official document and that no agreement existed - but then again, we run back into the problems with Iraq creating a forgery, if it wanted to create a forgery, wouldn't it have said something far worse?) And - Bush's final communication to Iraq prior to the invasion did state that the US was concerned - but did not mention Kuwait and did not mention that America would attack.
Post #69,858 by Mike 12/19/02 9:08:29 AM Reply	Yes >>However, Kuwait seemed to think so, as one of their leaders bragged that if >>Iraq came after them they'd send in the Americans. .....yes! And this much is also acknowledged by Tariq Aziz in his frontline interview. He even goes further.....he says Iraq were convinced that the U.S.A were actually supporting Kuwait in their economic warfare. -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,870 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 9:51:38 AM Reply	Which goes back to my original question.... What were you saying about it being wrong to ransack your neighbors house?
Post #69,943 by Mike 12/19/02 1:22:33 PM Reply	I gerfot...... ...remind me? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #70,194 by dmarker 12/20/02 9:03:46 PM Reply	Re: Debating Trees when discussion is about forests ... I find that Mike argues deeply at the detail level whilst ignoring the macro or high level. My this I mean he is quite good at talking about trees but too often the others in the debate are discussing forests. If you push him at the macro level, and that involes challenging US policy and behind the scenes US manipulation, he accuses you of being a conspiracy theorist, ie if the topic isn't documented somewhere in detail (barring heated debates about the meaning of words) then you are a conspiratist - doesn't seem able or willing to debate actions and there consequences as evidence of intention & deed. e.g. If we argue that Bush Snr & his admin blatantly manipulated the situation in Iraq/Iran/Kuwait particularly from 1980 to 1991 1) 1st to contain Iran - achieved by covertly supplying war materials & loans to Iraq 2) to then contain Iraq - by helping Iran, by encouraging Kuwait & Saudi to demand repayment for war loans at a time when Iraq's oil infrastructure was wreaked 3) by then encouraging Hussien to invake Kuwait so he could be isoltaed & villanized in the Arab world Why do all these things. One has to do a little bit of deduction & reading ... (Per FORBES magazine August 2002 page 23) Iraq is believed to have even greater reserves of oil than Saudi Arabia (but after what US did by manipulating Iraq over the Iran war, Iraq had no desire to deal with US companies - DSM). So Russia's Lukoil consortium had signed a deal with Iraq to develop the massive West Quarna field (est 8 billion barrels) & China's China National Petroleum had signed with Iraq to develop a smaller field. No western (US) based companies were making any progress in negotiating further exploration & development with Iraq (for plainly obvious reasons) - Last week (under war threat from US) Iraq cancelled the Russian deal. To avoid another potentially ugly & sematic war with Mike over the above - I will let the reader draw their own conclusions as to why US is really threatening Iraq and demonizing Saddam. But come back to the original point about describing the trees when often the discussion is about forests. Doug Marker
Post #69,786 by Brandioch 12/18/02 10:11:41 PM Reply	How many incidents are needed? There's Saddam talking to April. There's Kelly addressing Congress. Now, take just those two incidents and compare them with Bush's speeches after the invasion. Prior to the invasion, we're talking about not getting involved in border disputes and so forth. After the invasion, Bush was very clear about how he felt about it. Where was the very clearly stated position PRIOR to the invasion? Why were we only able to articulate it AFTER the invasion? Our own people were asking what our position was prior to the invasion and the administration wouldn't give a clear answer. Does anyone have any doubt that the current Bush would have trouble articulating our reaction to a "what if Iraq invaded country X" scenario? But his daddy couldn't do that?
Post #70,074 by Ashton 12/20/02 1:05:09 AM Reply	An angle on the times: HBO "Live from Baghdad" re the events just before and during the bombing. This from perspectiveof the folks that showed the real-time events, from CNN. Can't ever be sure that the conversations depict events unslanted natch, but the dialogue is articulate enough - and Saddam's warts and.. viewpoint are given ~ 'equal time'. Friend had a tape of this. It doesn't pursue the angle of 'false diplomatic stage-setting', but the man playing a high Iraqi official (and today is even Higher) is acted by David Suchet, perhaps the best Poirot of all time. His performance alone, makes this a Must See IMhO. Decidedly better quality a presentation than typ Hollywood dreck. Ashton When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards
Post #69,215 by Simon_Jester 12/16/02 7:44:59 PM Reply	Oh come on...quote it right if you're going to quote it. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. Finish it... And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions. And the reply... We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed. Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests. Um, what was it you were saying about it being acceptable to ransack your neighbors house?

Welcome to IWETHEY!