An odd Iraq analysis

Post #83,671 by cwbrenn 2/24/03 7:24:54 AM Reply	An odd Iraq analysis A few days ago a friend of mine put forward an odd little analysis of the US/Iraq/UN situation. His pet theory was that the US and the UN are co-conspirators in a huge game of "Good cop, bad cop." His theory, apparently, is that one night in some smoky room the US told the other members of the UN Security Council "look, everyone in the Middle East already hates us, so we don't mind playing the heavies here. You keep waving the olive branch, we'll keep beating the drums of war, and we'll see what works." In his mind, the UN has spent a good deal of time saying "look, I'm sorry about my partner... he takes these things personally... I'm trying to HELP you, here..." and is now just about to step out of the box to get everyone a cup of coffee... It's important to add that I simply don't see any reason to believe this idea, but I thought it was odd enough to share with others. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #83,681 by dmarker 2/24/03 8:29:11 AM Reply	That would be cute if it weren't for ... the knowledge that the same team backing Bush W , backed Regan & then Bush-1 & are well known for their right wing tendancies & bullish ness (& business associations, debts & interests). I would rather believe the theory in your post but I just don't think the history of these guys fits. The Europe US split is deep & real. Perhaps being inside the US you don't realise the extent and intensity of it. Rummy & Bush image is s*** outside of US. Powell still has respect if not sorely tested. Chirac (who I have never like personally), seems to be the real international man of the moment, with his finger on the pulse, & that sucks. Cheers Doug
Post #83,694 by cwbrenn 2/24/03 9:29:55 AM Reply	Oh, I believe the split is real. I'd just never heard the "good cop, bad cop" idea before, and it made me chuckle. Personally, I don't think a good cop/bad cop tactic could be kept secret -- if the press can get wind of Saudi Arabia's "Secret plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq" then there's no way they'd be kept away from the "secret interrogation tactics of the US and UN". "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #83,700 by bepatient 2/24/03 9:54:47 AM Reply	You see...this is what I mean. Bush Sr, Bush Jr...et al...in your mind...have undertaken this policy for "business accociations"...its all about the oil...yadda... Yet Chirac (who has more oil money on the line by resisting) has his "finger on the pulse". Can you NOT see the hypocrisy in your own position? And think...in another ill-fated thread we discussed another member helping rebuild Iraqi oil capacity...and now he wants >war< to do it some more. And assisting Iraq in the interim is seen as utter hypocrisy. How can anyone help destroy Saddam...then help rebuild capacity. The "minor detail" that is neglected is that the oil capacity was rebuilt to assist in the "oil for food" program. Inconvenient fact that would make someone that you want to vilify appear just a touch more human. But, it cannot be that simple...there cannot be any "human" reason attributed to anyone but Chirac. He's the good guy. But if I say anything bad about Chirac...I'm just "french-bashing"...the new sport of the right-wing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,707 by Silverlock 2/24/03 10:20:01 AM Reply	One other "minor detail" you "forgot" to mention Cheney's company violated US law to sell those oilfield supplies. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,717 by bepatient 2/24/03 10:41:26 AM Reply	chuckle The sales were legal. Conducted by 2 of Halliburton's >french< subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump. Oh what a tangled web the "heroic" french are involved in. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,729 by marlowe 2/24/03 11:24:54 AM Reply	Just goes to show... just because something's legal doesn't make it right. I'm not a big Cheney fan, but I can live with him for the time being. Chirac, however, needs a spanking right now. No oil for TotalFinaElf! CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere! Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #83,734 by bepatient 2/24/03 11:34:54 AM Reply	Also goes to show... ...if its part of this administration...it MUST have been illegal. Did we come up with that emoticon for "knee-jerk" yet? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,744 by Silverlock 2/24/03 12:00:42 PM Reply	If the loophole fits, you must acquit? chuckle right back atcha. It was against the law for Halliburton to sell oilfield equipment to Iraq. They found a loophole. You must be proud. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,750 by bepatient 2/24/03 12:13:37 PM Reply	ROFL You say it was illegal. Now you say it was "just bad form" It never ends. And I suppose the irony of the situation really did slip past you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,755 by Silverlock 2/24/03 12:27:39 PM Reply	Was it against the law for Halliburton to sell to Iraq? Did they do so anyway, once they found a snakehole to wiggle through? Just because our upstanding Justice Department hasn't seen fit to investigate this outright sham, doesn't mean they acted within the law. It was illegal, they did it anyway using sleazy methods to hide it. The dismissive chuckle you give these kinds of things implys you think they are inconsequential or that you even approve of them. Does it mean nothing to you that American companies a flouting the law and getting away with it? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,762 by bepatient 2/24/03 12:53:47 PM Reply	There you go again. "sleazy"..."snakehole"...etc. There's nothing for the DOJ to investigate. What part of >legal< don't you understand? And if its so >horrendous< for American companies to do this...where is the equal disdain for the government of France condoning these actions? Hypocrisy. Clear and simple. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,778 by Silverlock 2/24/03 1:44:00 PM Reply	Hypocrisy? Who was it that asserted it was "for the cheeldrun"? As for understanding "legal", I say they broke the law and got away with it. You applaud the plucky spirit of the misunderstood megacorporation. My use of derogatory terms to describe those in the oil business? IMO abundantly appropriate. You may think they are the saviours of capitalism, just don't expect me to agree. They are slime. What about the French? Are the laws in France regarding this comparable? (For French owned corps). I don't know. I do know the US laws prohibited the actions that Halliburton took and they got away with it. Once again; Was it against the law for Halliburton to sell to Iraq? Did they do so anyway? Did they get away with it? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,781 by bepatient 2/24/03 2:03:53 PM Reply	Yes. Clearly. The companies that sold the material were FRENCH. Incorporated in France. Ruled by French law. Their primary shareholder happens to be an American corporation. And they did business with Iraq. Just like the heroic French governmnet of Chirac. But let it be >Halliburton<, then they are slime. Evil bastards. That, my friend, is textbook hypocrisy. Especially considering the >world< agreed to an embargo. We just passed a law about it. Just for the record. Yes it would have been illegal for >Halliburton< to sell to Iraq. They did not. There was nothing to get away with. Dresser and Dresser-Ingersoll are >French<. Get it right. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,785 by Silverlock 2/24/03 2:12:23 PM Reply	You missed something I don't recall defending the French. I recall denouncing Halliburton who used French subsidiarys to break US law. More specifically about those french subsidiarys, are they in the oil business? Then they are slime too. Why are you defending these pricks? Stock portfolio going down? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,796 by bepatient 2/24/03 2:48:53 PM Reply	I guess the link to Molly... ...defending the French...and the editorial content within...can't be considered support for the French. Humble apologies :\| So you don't, in fact, support the French? Is this what you are saying? I'm not defending anyone. There's nothing to defend them from. No stock holdings. Children make that a mutually exclusive endeavor at the moment. Besides...the markets horrible...or didn't you notice. Just pointing out first, a lie and second, hypocrisy. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,801 by Silverlock 2/24/03 3:02:28 PM Reply	Back to the point, shall we? I keep stressing this, Halliburton broke US law by using French subsidiaries to sell oilfield equipment to the Iraqis. You say this is legal. I say it is illegal and they got away with it. Why do you keep focusing on france? I called you out on your description of the "un-named" company and owner in your post describing how they only sold this stuff for humanitarian reasons. Twist it how you will, my point is simple. They got away with breaking the law. For profit. NOT for humnitarian reasons. As for Molly, If you want to rip me for agreeing with some of her points, do so. Somewhere else. Let's try to keep this thread on point, OK? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,804 by drewk 2/24/03 3:14:04 PM Reply	Questions I'm not trying to make a point by asking, I actually want to know the answers. Does Halliburton own more than 50% of either of the French companies? Did the law specify what percentage a U.S. corporation could own of foreign companies engaged in trade with Iraq? (I take as a given that U.S. law can not regulate the behavior of a foreign corporation.) How did the law treat the question of majority ownership of a subsidiary incorporated in another country?[1] Until I know the answers to these it sounds like the problem may be that national law is inadequate for regulating the behavior of multi-national corporations. Which is, of course, just how the multi-nationals like it. [1] In fact what is the general rule if a U.S. corporation buys a controlling share of a foreign corporation. Is that now a U.S. company with a foreign headquarters? Could the U.S. (theoretically) revoke their articles of incorporation? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #83,806 by Silverlock 2/24/03 3:24:01 PM Reply	Good questions. I may remember this wrong, but my understanding was that Halliburton originally had the contracts and when laws were passed prohibiting them doing business in Iraq, then the subsidiaries took over. I'll try and find some sources. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,809 by bepatient 2/24/03 3:30:31 PM Reply	Find those sources. That prove Halliburton complied with the law. Go right ahead :) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,814 by Silverlock 2/24/03 3:44:26 PM Reply	You feel good about defending slime? Cheney; We won't do business with Iraq. Neither us nor our foriegn partners. (paraphrased) Well maybe just a little. Ok, maybe [link\|http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml\|more] than a llittle. I was wrong about the timing though. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,817 by bepatient 2/24/03 3:49:09 PM Reply	Oh. So you lie about something... ...then I call you on that lie. You seem to think that attacking me is the solution. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,820 by Silverlock 2/24/03 4:03:15 PM Reply	Lie? They broke the law. They found a lawyers trick to get around being convicted/punished for it. The oilfield equipment was produced by Halliburton. It was sold to Iraq. That was illegal. They shrouded it in middlemen. Sound business practices, huh? Unless of course, you are saying I was lieing about something else. If so, point it out for me will ya? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,822 by bepatient 2/24/03 4:13:33 PM Reply	The only one saying it is illegal is you. Oh, well, maybe a web site or 2. No complaint filed. No conviction. No nothing. Because the law wasn't violated. No matter how much you try to claim it was. So yes. You lied. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,829 by Silverlock 2/24/03 4:46:47 PM Reply	If you say so. No conviction. By that logic, I want to hear you say "Clinton did nothing illegal". What part of "got away with it" doesn't make sense? Let's go for the absurd. No one, according to you, who is not convicted has ever acted illegaly. I know you don't think that. Neither do I. People commit crimes all the time without getting caught/prosecuted/convicted. Doesn't mean they were acting legally. My sincerely held belief is that they acted illegaly and got away with it. If you define that as a lie, so be it. I say they acted illegaly and didn't get caught. You say since they didn't get caught, they didn't act illegaly. If I'm wrong about your position, I apologise, but that's what it looks like. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,832 by bepatient 2/24/03 5:01:17 PM Reply	Hmmm. Let me see. What part of >not illegal< is it that you have having problems with? There was nothing illegal in what happened. No laws were violated. No matter how much you insist they were. They had nothing to "get caught" doing? Is that plain enough? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,875 by Silverlock 2/24/03 8:55:00 PM Reply	plain enough I will accept for now, your belief that a megacorporation did not break laws applicable to it through underhanded dealings. Will you accept my belief that they did? We disagree. I don't see a common ground. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,899 by Brandioch 2/24/03 10:15:24 PM Reply	Is OJ guilty of murder? More clearly, how do you view "the Law"? Do you place the Letter of the Law above the Spirit of the Law? Can someone "break" the Law if someone finds a loophole? If not, then why do we use the term "loophole"? I believe that it is because some people place the Spirit of the Law above the Letter of the Law. The Letter of the Law is NOT always perfect. So it is possible to break the Spirit of the Law while still following the Letter of the Law. I will leave it up to everyone else what type of person values the Letter of the Law more than the Spirit -and- What type of person values the Spirit of the Law more than the Letter.
Post #83,910 by Silverlock 2/24/03 10:35:44 PM Reply	ok, On this, I agree. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,913 by Simon_Jester 2/24/03 10:42:20 PM Reply	In any case...relax..... Haliburton made sure it crossed it's i's and t's whenever it does a deal. It won't be caught flaunting US law that much....at least with regard to international deals. (Tax evasion may be another story). Besides, did you see they charged to build the cages in Guantamo?
Post #83,922 by Silverlock 2/24/03 11:01:17 PM Reply	You want me to stay calm? Or you want me to relax? Doesn't matter. I'll mouth off when I think it needed. Hopefully in a relaxed manner. :) How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,932 by bepatient 2/24/03 11:39:37 PM Reply	Nobody called it a loophole... ...but you and Silver. You are making something up and then tossing it in with completely unrelated situations. All the while "pretending" to ignore. Its not a letter vs spirit argument. Except to you...in a veiled attempt to toss around some holier than thou insults. Pathetic is your word for that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,933 by Silverlock 2/24/03 11:49:50 PM Reply	You don't consider this a loophole? Clearly circomventing the laws of our country to do business with our declared enemies? Oh, never mind. I forgot. Profit was involved. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,939 by Brandioch 2/25/03 12:11:51 AM Reply	Another possible factor. Do you believe that certain people would hold an opinion contrary to their current opinion if the company involved had retained the services of Bill or Hillary Clinton? I think there the discussion would be the complete opposite of what we're seeing right now.
Post #83,943 by bepatient 2/25/03 1:17:22 AM 2/25/03 1:19:56 AM Reply	Obviously not. Its not a hidden clause. Its not a "lttle known sub-paragraph" Its not any of these things. Why. Because the transaction was absolutely legal. There was no circumventing involved. There was no "loophole" involved. But I expect you to continue this..and continue your attacks against me...simply because I know your position that anyone even remotely involved with the current US government is an evil, lying bastard thief...and then you get really nasty with oil men. So none of them could possibly be upholding the law. (except the Holy Ghost" tm of the law maybe) You continue to INVENT "loopholes". Talk about "letter" versus "spirit" of the law (and then mention Clinton like I would have a different opinion if it were >him<)(post edit..sorry...not you) I don't have that problem...much as it would be >convenient< to assume. Your "friend" continues to be too afraid to tackle any issue with me directly. But since he has been supporting Chirac..well you know where that leads..we're far enough right for that to be very clear. I expect more of the same. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Feb. 25, 2003, 01:19:56 AM EST Expand All History
Post #84,009 by Silverlock 2/25/03 1:23:09 PM Reply	Take it slow I am not attacking you. I am attacking your position. Your mindset. Your reflexive defense of all things monetary. Slow down and make sure you are not confusing me with someone else. I see by your edit that for at least part of this exchange, you did have me confused with someone else. Are you sure you didn't make the same error elsewhere? How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #84,042 by bepatient 2/25/03 2:45:23 PM Reply	I did. And thought the post edit addition would clarify (the "sorry not you" piece) that section of post not directed at you specifically. Its not "reflexive defense". It is a very simple reasoning. You made a false statement. I called you on it. I did recant on a portion of the debate with you due to your clarification on stance with "nos amis". I had assumed a position based upon one of your posts that you later clarified. (All in good spirit, too...unlike a few others around here;-)) Then we enter a little go-round about "letter vs spirit" in which you start railing on the >intent<. You don't know anything about the intent. You assume it based on your prejudice...a prejudice that I don't share. And here...you are probably correct...we can agree to disagree. I don't care to >ever< enter a place where prosecution is based upon some mythical "spirit" of law. You seem quite fine with assuming guilt first, based on your own personal prejudice. Is that the country that you want made in your own image? Its a slippery slope that applies evenly across the board. I do not support prosecution on "spirit" of the law because that "spirit" is open to radical differences in interpretation. And just discussing "spirit" versus letter, in my opinion, is an attempt to level guilt at the innocent. Individual >or< business. And sooner or later, these assumptions of guilt are NOT leveled at the "evil business"...but they are leveled at an individual member of that business. Much like here. And there is no basis nor any proof that Cheney was involved or even aware that these sales were made. (Oh sure...you will retort "How could he NOT know...he was in charge"..etc...all assumptions...all presumed guilt...all leveled at an individual based upon your personal prejudice) See where this is going? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,050 by Silverlock 2/25/03 3:03:26 PM Reply	Letter vs spirit post wasn't from me. I thought you may have made that mistake. Just clarifying. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #84,059 by bepatient 2/25/03 3:26:09 PM Reply	Yep...review complete. You held that it was illegal. No spirit mentioned. So we can stick to the original "you're wrong" assessment that I made earlier :) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,812 by drewk 2/24/03 3:39:52 PM Reply	The problem is still larger than just this one instance Even if it happened exactly as you remember it, the problem IMO still isn't Halliburton, per se. It is that corporations are able to say, "That corporation that is entirely owned and controlled by this corporation really isn't the same entity at all. Nope, that's not us." Any time a nation passes a law saying, "You can't do that," corporate lawyers challenge them to define "you". No matter who the "you" is, the one doing it is never the one the law applies to. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #83,816 by Silverlock 2/24/03 3:47:10 PM Reply	Like I said They are slime. Absolutly right about the larger issue. These espousers of "personal responsibility" all seek plausible deniability. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,808 by bepatient 2/24/03 3:29:32 PM Reply	Essential to the hypocrisy, The French are not deserving of criticism. The Americans are slime. Yet they are doing the exact same thing. That, my friend, is a hypocritical position. It is not a violation of US law for French companies to sell something to Iraq. I'm not twisting anything. The twisting being done here is by you. Motivation aside. Rebuilding Iraqi capacity was done to enable "oil for food". Pure evil that. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,813 by Silverlock 2/24/03 3:40:38 PM Reply	Let me see.... You twist my words and ascribe to me positions I haven't taken. Why is that I wonder? Your "creative" recounting of my words- The French are not deserving of criticism. Never said it. Next The Americans are slime. No, the oil companies are slime, not Americans. Yet they are doing the exact same thing. Both the American and French oil companies are flouting the laws of their respective contries? Both are slime, like I've said before. As your premises are false, your conclusion is invalid. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,815 by bepatient 2/24/03 3:44:58 PM Reply	Nice tap dance. Lets not see any more support of the French ... shall we... since nothing happens in their oil business (involving foreign reserves and contracting said reserves) that is not reviewed and approved by the government. Other than that. Since they are all slime...I suppose I'll let you dance out of this thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,819 by Silverlock 2/24/03 3:57:39 PM Reply	Soft shoeing it. You seem to place a great deal of weight on my having posted the Ivins column defending France. I asked before, did you read the column? Do you know what she was pointing out? I don't remember her defending the business practices of the French in that column. I don't remember me ever saying anywhere that the French were not deserving of criticism or any words that could be construed that way. You argue your point as if I had woken you from a nap by shouting that position in your ear. You argue against that position quite well. Unfortunatly, it's not my position. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #83,823 by bepatient 2/24/03 4:16:23 PM Reply	And I retract. Because you so eloquently clarified your position. Like I said...lets not see you joining in praise for Chirac, ok? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,826 by Silverlock 2/24/03 4:35:46 PM Reply	Haven't yet. Don't expect to. How many lives per gallon? --Sign outside of various churches
Post #84,033 by jb4 2/25/03 2:04:23 PM Reply	Beep, the New World Order proselyte!!! And if its so >horrendous< for American companies to do this...where is the equal disdain for the government of France condoning these actions? and you have the gall (or is it Gaul?) to rail against silverlock for "hypocracy". This is about as hypocritical a statement as you have ever uttered (at least, in print)! I don't give a flying fuck what the Frogs do. I don't have to follow their laws, I have to follow ours. And so does Halliburton. And so does Cheney. Whether you like it or not. jb4 "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." Rich Cook
Post #84,034 by boxley 2/25/03 2:07:57 PM Reply	Question, it is illegal for US Citizens to travel to cuba many of them travel to bermuda where it is legal to travel to cuba. Many do just that. They are breaking no Bermudan law and since they did not travel from the US to cuba only from the US to Bermuda they are not really breaking US law. I see a similarity between the issues. Comments? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] \ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
Post #84,045 by bepatient 2/25/03 2:50:54 PM Reply	Not even applicable here. Because there was nothing illegal in the transactions. It is entirely likely that they would have been within the law >even if the transactions originated in the US<. These guys >want so badly< for this to be illegal that they're willing to invent legal positions that don't exist. I guess they consider creating the "vast left wing conspiricy" as >turn-about is fair play" ;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,093 by tuberculosis 2/25/03 5:38:46 PM Reply	Actually, its not Case law has shown that free Americans can go anywhere they like (Lawyer uncle looked this up for me). What kind of government restricts where its citizens can go? It is, however, illegal to engage in commerce of any sort - IOW, no trade with Cuba. Its the embargo (or as the Cubans call it - blockade). Now the tricky bit is proving you didn't trade dollars for anything while in Cuba. No meals, no drinks, no fees of any kind. A few cruisers on sail boats have visited Cuba and "self hosted" (they say) - which is to say - only ate food they brought, drank rum they brought, and only walked around - no trade. Its getting harder to prove that though and the pitbull feds are turning up the heat on these people when they catch them to try to make them examples and discourage the rest of us from going there. There sure were a lot of boats flying US flags at Marina Hemingway New Years Eve tho... The whole Cuban situation is a microcosm of what's wrong with US foreign policy. Its the best example we have of how embargos and economic sanctions are ineffective, how not all dicatators are evil (Castro seems to be doing alright by his people given his constraints). The idea of using illegally occupied territory rightfully belonging to a country whose government we've been trying to topple for almost 40 years to hold prisoners from another war is just too much to take. I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customer got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more. --Alan Perlis
Post #84,043 by bepatient 2/25/03 2:47:00 PM Reply	And they did. Or aren't you following along. There was nothing illegal about the transactions. Does this not >translate< in English? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,117 by jb4 2/25/03 7:07:15 PM Reply	Here's what I follow: Silverlock thinks Cheney (albeit by the Halliburtton proxy) broke a law trading with the Iraqis. You don't. In the dust-up that followed, you challenged him to show the same level of outrage toward the French Govt for allowing trading witht he Iraqis as he showed in the Halliburton proxy for Cheney trading with the Iraqis. I claimed that this is a New World Order position; that one should be outraged in what an autonomous ruling body (in this case the French Govt) decides to do, if it is different from what you own govt does. I claimed that this is a hypocritical position for you to take, because you have railed indefatiguably against similar New World Order-type positions in the past. No, I think I've been following along quite nicely, actually... jb4 "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." Rich Cook
Post #84,211 by bepatient 2/25/03 11:52:45 PM Reply	You want to give a link? Possibly? Just asking. I don't recall any specific situation that you reference. I won't call you a liar like the "high mip" whiners around here...nor get huffy and demand an apology. Just show me where I said something similar or supported an opposite position...in your opinion. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,608 by jb4 2/27/03 9:53:26 AM Reply	Well, I did a search... ... of your posts with the word "UN". I found 29 (but I discarded one because the "UN" was part of the string "UNAMERICAN"). In these posts, I found you to be unabashedly dirisive of the UN, and what it stands for. In some people's minds, the UN is the symbol (or, perhaps, whipping-boy) for the "New World Order", which I understand to be a talk-show-host buzzword for a single world government (yeah, like that's every going to happen). Wit the tenor and tone of your posts re: the U.N., I would surmise that you are no great fan of the "New World Order". And yet, the post at the head of this thread seems to me to indicate a sudden, unaccustomed support for the UN...and therefore by extension, the New World Order, you seem to heretofore eschew. Am I "reading you by your posts", or am I missing something? jb4 "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." Rich Cook
Post #84,636 by bepatient 2/27/03 12:27:03 PM Reply	There has been... ...a decisive show of support given to France because they are "representing the will of their people" by holding against the US. I attributed that belief to someone here that didn't hold it...so I recanted. There seems to be an equal amount of derision being thrown around based on this Huffington piece and others about the US motivation being "purely financial"...with a complete ignorance of the fact that 1) France agreed to the same embargo terms 2) they have and continue to violate those terms with materials that don't even qualify for exempt status under "oil for food" and 3) because of #2 they have and are at much greater financial risk with Saddma's removal An equal argument leveled against France, (they're in it for the money)however...doesn't seem to be acceptable. Its "France-bashing" and thats "bad form". It is not a "new world order" argument. I >am< derisive of the UN...but NOT what it stands for. Its principles are good...its application of those principles is spotty...and its procedural inadequacies are about to kill it outright. If there is to be a "new world order" under the UN banner...they MUST enforce their own resolutions. Allowing a rogue nation to play you like a fiddle does nothing for your credibility as an organization. The "Star Trek" dream of a unified government of earth isn't a bad thing. Accepting it as an eventual reality is a stretch (as you apparently agree). Its the willingness to be supportive of one while remaining blissfully ignorant of reality while damning another with the exact same reality that bothers me. Better explanation? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,646 by jb4 2/27/03 1:53:52 PM Reply	Nope. Clear. thanks for the clarification. I believe we can put this thread to rest, as I now understand your position. We can instead get back to our regular squabbling, which is already in progress.... If only we had been allowed to count the hanging chads tlike the FLSC said we could.... ;-) jb4 "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." Rich Cook
Post #84,665 by bepatient 2/27/03 3:34:22 PM Reply	Only dimples. Else there be lawlessness :) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,775 by Ashton 2/28/03 2:48:27 AM Reply	Propinquitous LRPD:____ snort
Post #83,831 by Another Scott 2/24/03 4:59:32 PM Reply	WashPost said it was legal. According to [link\|http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm\|this] story which appears to be a copy of a Washington Post story from 2/20/2000. As secretary of defense during the Persian Gulf War, Richard B. Cheney played a key role in the U.S.-led military coalition that forced Iraq to retreat from Kuwait. But as chief executive officer of Halliburton Co., a Dallas-based maker of oil equipment, Cheney recently held a major stake in Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co., two American players in the reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry. While the United States and Britain wage almost daily airstrikes against military installations in northern and southern Iraq, U.S. companies, executives and even some architects of American policy toward Iraq are doing business with Saddam Hussein's government and helping to rebuild its battered oil industry. Though perfectly legal, the growing U.S.-Iraqi commerce has been kept quiet by both sides because it seems to fly in the face of Washington's commitment to "regime change" in Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's claim to be defying the world's lone superpower. The United Nations also helps both countries avoid embarrassment by treating the business arrangements as confidential. The trade is permitted under the "oil for food" deal, a humanitarian exemption from the U.N. trade embargo imposed on Iraq after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It allows Iraq to sell oil and use the proceeds, under U.N. supervision, to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, as well as spare parts to keep the oil flowing. Placing bids through overseas subsidiaries and affiliates, more than a dozen U.S. firms have signed millions of dollars in contracts with Baghdad for oil-related equipment since the summer of 1998, according to diplomats, industry officials and U.N. documents. "The United States is the cradle of the international oil industry," said James Placke, who tracks Persian Gulf oil production for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "A lot of the equipment in Iraq's oil industry was originally made in America, and if you want spare parts, you go back to the original supplier." Emphasis added. This is yet another illustration of my contention that the sanctions were never going to work as a long-term constraint on Saddam. If the UN and the US wanted the Oil for Food program to work, then spare parts from US companies were required. My $0.02. Carry on. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #83,833 by bepatient 2/24/03 5:03:06 PM Reply	Reality. What a concept. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,836 by mmoffitt 2/24/03 5:19:20 PM Reply	Define "work". Have the sanctions worked? I'd say that depends on their aim. I don't see Iraq in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran or anywhere else. So far the inspectors have found no WMD. If Iraqi intentions were to invade another nation and the sanctions were put into place to prevent Iraq from doing that, then clearly the sanctions have worked (now if we could only get some one to contain Dub, Rummie, et. al.) Personally I oppose the sanctions, but on humanitarian grounds. I don't think we'll ever overcome an adversary by becoming just like him. And I think all this saber-rattling belies a lack of faith in our system. What we're saying is that we're not sure if given a choice, our way looks better. Therefore, if you're not going to play ball by our rules, we'll bomb you until you do. I seem to recall a European country in the late 30's and early 40's that had the same ideas. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #83,838 by Another Scott 2/24/03 5:40:16 PM Reply	No sanctions haven't worked - they haven't made Iraq comply. Sanctions were imposed for several reasons, not just to keep Saddam from invading his neighbors. [link\|http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2002/res1409.htm\|UN SCR 1409] renewed sanctions against Iraq for 180 days. Convinced of the need as a temporary measure to continue to provide for the civilian needs of the Iraqi people until the fulfilment by the Government of Iraq of the relevant resolutions, including notably resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 and 1284 (1999), allows the Council to take further action with regard to the prohibitions referred to in resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 in accordance with the provisions of these resolutions, o o o [link\|http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm\|Resolution 687] covers the 1991 cease fire and UNSCOM. Note that UNSCOM's mission wasn't just inspection but was also "monitoring" Iraq. I.e. after the inspections were over, UNSCOM would continue to watch Iraq to make sure it didn't reconstitute its weapons programs. They've not been able to start the monitoring phase, even after 12 years. 8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; 12 years later, they're having to destroy prohibited missiles again. So even if no WMDs have yet been found by UNMOVIC, that doesn't mean that Iraq has complied with the relevant Security Council resolutions. If Iraq dumped its chemical and biological weapons materials in a trench in the desert without UNSCOM or UNMOVIC present, it was in violation of 687. There are probably dozens of other things like this I could point out, but will let others do so if so inclined. I think it shows that while sanctions have had some impact on Saddam's military, they haven't achieved their goal - making Iraq comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions. The longer sanctions go on, the more porous they'll become, IMO. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #83,839 by bepatient 2/24/03 5:45:43 PM Reply	So whaddya think..we need one more resolution, right? ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #83,858 by Ashton 2/24/03 7:04:39 PM Reply	Thanks for a cant-free report. Circle-jerk present. It does support the rationale for 'remedying' Iraq's non-compliance in the ways noted. But a circle jerk ensues: It is The United Nations' ox which has been gored. The Dubya cabal has had Iraq in its sights since Daddy made a bad call, in 20/20 hindsight (this allegation is of the sort.. the usual never-to-be proven-in a Court of Law kind). Additionally, various and unsatisfying allegations attempting to connect Saddam with Al-Q have been floated, along with other allegations, with the net result of this Admin attempting to portray Iraq as ~ The Next Best Target in (our self-defined set of) Evil States / the Domino theory of Vietnam redux. Ergo: IF the UN cannot be coerced, cajoled, convinced! to support this planned invasion and the US goes ahead anyway: We shall be as guilty of 'noncompliance with the law' as is Iraq demonstrated to be. (Of course we can always say - as Dubya has effectively 'said': So What? OUR* Decision is that Iraq Makes Us Feel UnSafe. And this is enough to justify our doing Anything, anyWhere anyTime.*) Take yer pick; WHICH "UN Rulez" you wanna go by today.. Phony 'votes of Congress to abrogate Its Own Constitutional authority' == Responsibility, notwithstanding. Ditto on previous UN Resolutions defining what "breach of sanctions" might mean. IF THE UN won't agree and support this invasion Today? See above. Ashton
Post #83,861 by Brandioch 2/24/03 7:31:23 PM Reply	See the Halliburton thread. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=83744\|Here] Oh my. It seems to be this very same thread. Because Iraq did not comply to the the LETTER of the resolutions, we are allowed to kill Iraqi children. Nay! We MUST kill Iraqi children. Now, Halliburton followed the LETTER of the law and managed to turn a profit helping evil Saddam but that is okay, because it they found a loophole in the law. If Iraq is WRONG for NOT following the LETTER of the UN resolutions -THEN- The US is WRONG for NOT following the LETTER of the UN resolutions. We are preparing to break the law and kill innocent children to "get" Saddam because he broke the law. But Saddam's "breaking" of the law did NOT result in anyone in any other country being killed. The USofA's "breaking" of the law will.
Post #83,871 by dmarker 2/24/03 8:12:26 PM 2/25/03 2:05:18 AM Reply	Yup Ash - good call - could see where this thread was head Feel sorry for Silverlock - it is hard to get a good grip on interaction where the other person distorts the points to the extent that occured here Am wondering how long it will tak Silverlock to conclude that there is nothing one can learn other than coping with irritation & annoyance from interacting with BP on topics related to politics. The perceptions & thinking mips just aren't there for BP. Twisting & distorting what others say seems to be BPs standard tactic in difficult matters. That gets to be downright annoying after a short while. Anyway, lets observe the next such match - perhaps we can create a score table. <grin> Doug M Edited by dmarker Feb. 25, 2003, 02:05:18 AM EST Expand All History
Post #83,951 by bepatient 2/25/03 2:32:25 AM Reply	Sad. Yes you. Sad. You see. I retracted here. We may still disagree...but it maintained at least a note of ci Why? Because Silver acted like an adult. Something you and your new buddy can't seem to do. You feel more inclined to play these games. Can't enter this conversation. Because you know I am correct. As far as the main discussion, I am absolutely correct. Its ok. You don't have to admit it. I know it would be painful. You can invent motive, talk about spirit, dance around all you like...but the initial statement re: the legality was >false<. So instead you feel content to play this little infantile game. Just as well. Cry me a river. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #84,929 by mmoffitt 2/28/03 4:05:31 PM Reply	Good points. However, ... isn't the implicit function of the resolutions you cite to prevent Iraq from continuing to be a threat to her neighbors? If not, why explicitly call for Iraq to disarm? Yes, the sanctions were implemented to assist in the enforcement of resolutions calling for disarmament. But those resolutions were written to protect Iraq's neighbors. No, that isn't explicitly stated in the resolutions. But we can all read in context, can't we? bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #83,853 by Brandioch 2/24/03 6:27:16 PM Reply	Yep. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We pushed him back into Iraq. Sanctions have ensured that he hasn't invaded anyone else during that time. That sounds like "success" to me.

Welcome to IWETHEY!