*Originally posted by pinx *
**let me reiterate my point earlier from an earlier thread…
gp: people like you=ewwwwwwwww
do you want to keep pushing it? **
So how about those Mets
*Originally posted by gpdesigner *
**So how about those Mets **
BOOOOOOOOOO
Lets talk about the Red SOx!
from guns to sports, only at kirupa.com
You know fester I am not in Mass anymore… how are the sox doing so far?
Thier doing alright so far this season.
They smashed st. louis last night. 13-1
Strange after losing to them 9-7 the day before. But thats baseball for you.
Still too early in the season to get worked up over thier overall placement. (ahem fighting for first with NY!!! wooo wooo wooo)
ha ha
baseball=too much nut scratching
i had to leave a baseball game after 20 minutes cause it drove me ****ing crazy.
*Originally posted by fester8542 *
**Thier doing alright so far this season.
They smashed st. louis last night. 13-1
Strange after losing to them 9-7 the day before. But thats baseball for you.
Still too early in the season to get worked up over thier overall placement. (ahem fighting for first with NY!!! wooo wooo wooo)
ha ha **
Umm…correction…FIRST BABY!!!
See attached
Well, New Jersey Nets beat San Antonio yesterday…YAY!!! =) I’ll move all of these comments later so that we don’t hijack guig0/majeye’s thread 
All right, back to our debate 
The US provides numerous other countries inlcuding Iraq with military technology, medical technology, etc. We do it out of a hope that this technology could be used to defend themselves or against other mutual US threats such as the USSR.
When countries decide to use our technology against their own people, and then they are not able to account for the whereabouts of a good portion of this technology - the US has to intervene. If Taiwan did something similar to Iraq, there is a good chance we would be there as well right now
Fine. But look at this:
Intelligence report from 1982:
Document 15: United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of Commerce. “Helicopters and Airplanes for Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform,” September 20, 1982.
Iraq’s director of agricultural aviation invites U.S. crop-spraying aircraft manufacturers to provide information about helicopters and pilot training, noting problems with its existing equipment because pilots have been inhaling insecticide fumes.
Iran was reporting chemical weapons use against its forces by this time. According to a 1991 article in the Los Angeles Times, American-built helicopters were used by Iraq for some of its chemical weapons attacks; according to the Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq experimented with using commercial crop sprayers for biological warfare.
In 1983, however, a year after that report, guess what? We still supported Iraq!
Document 31: United States Embassy in United Kingdom Cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State. “Rumsfeld Mission: December 20 Meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,” December 21, 1983.
At a 90-minute meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein evinces “obvious pleasure” at a letter Rumsfeld brought from President Ronald Reagan. The two discuss common U.S.-Iraqi interests, including Lebanon, Palestine, opposition to an outcome of the Iran-Iraq war that “weakened Iraq’s role or enhanced interests and ambitions of Iran,” and U.S. efforts to cut off arms sales to Iran. Rumsfeld says that the U.S. feels extremely strongly about terrorism and says that it has a home - in Iran, Syria, and Libya, and that it is supported by the Soviet Union. He encourages arrangements that might provide alternative transshipment routes for Iraq’s oil, including pipelines through Saudi Arabia or to the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan. The State Department calls the meeting a “positive milestone.”
Again in 1983 we gave Iraq financial aid:
Pursuant to the Reagan administration’s policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S., and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), “The terrorism issue, therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.” The financing is to signal U.S. belief in Iraq’s future economic viability, secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and “go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral context.”
IMO, since that gift was during a war, Saddam probably used that money for weapons.
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Interests Section in Iraq. “U.S. Chemical Shipment to Iraq,” March 4, 1984:
Indicates that a shipment of 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride to Iraq was held back at JFK airport because of “concern over Iraq’s possible intention to use the chemical in the manufacture of chemical weapons.” Washington asks the U.S. interests section in Baghdad to remind Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.'s grave concern about chemical weapons, and to inform it that the U.S. will publicly condemn their use in the near future. The interests section is to reiterate the request that Iraq not use chemical warfare, and to say that the U.S. opposes Iraq’s attempts to acquire chemical weapons related material from the U.S.: “When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq.”
We already knew of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in 1981!!!
Department of State Memorandum. “Notifying Congress of [Excised] Truck Sale,” March 5, 1984.
The State Department informs a House Committee on Foreign Affairs staff member that the department has not objected to the sale of 2,000 heavy trucks to Iraq, noting that they were built in part in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan. The official policy of the U.S. is that it does not export military related items to Iraq or Iran. When asked if the trucks were intended for military purposes, the official responds, “we presumed that this was Iraq’s intention, and had not asked.”
They had not asked??? Well, we just *assumed Saddam was going to use the trucks for all the right purposes…
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to United States Embassy in Jordan. “Chemical Weapons: Meeting With Iraqi Charge,” April 6, 1984.
Reports that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Placke discussed a draft United Nations’ resolution on chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war with Iraqi interests section representative Nizar Hamdoon on March 29. Hamdoon said that Iraq would prefer a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution. Placke indicated that the U.S. could accept Iraqi proposals regarding points that should be included in the resolution if the Security Council approves them. He said that the U.S. would like the Iraqi government’s cooperation “in avoiding situations that would lead to difficult and possibly embarrassing situation[s]” regarding chemical weapons use, but noted that the U.S. did “not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship nor to detract from our common interest to see war brought to [an] early end.”
Oh, my. 1984, three years later, we FINALLY condmen their use of chemical weapons, but in a “non-embarrasing” way…
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Iraq. “Memcon [Memorandum of Conversation]: Secretary’s Meeting with Iraqi DepPrimMin [Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz, November 26, 1984, 10:00 a.m.,” November 29, 1984.
Following the restoration of formal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq, George Shultz meets with Tariq Aziz and emphasizes “the U.S. desire to base these relations on the presumption of equality, mutual respect, and reciprocity.” After Aziz says that Iraq’s advantage in weaponry was enabling it to defend itself against Iran, Secretary Shultz comments “that superior intelligence also must be an important factor in Iraq’s defense. Aziz acknowledged that this may be true.” (The U.S. had been secretly providing Iraq with extensive intelligence support for several years.) Secretary Shultz concludes by welcoming the candor of the ongoing U.S.-Iraq dialogue, and remarks that "Iraq can expect the U.S. to maintain its opposition to both the use and production of chemical weapons. This position is not directed specifically at Iraq . . . "
hmm…
BTW, I got this info from the link I posted earlier, Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - Press Release
You see, Kirupa, in a way you are right. If the U.S. shares a common enemy with another country, we give them military aid. The problem here is that we gave Iraq aid for use against a common enemy (Iran) even after we knew from intelligence reports that Iraq was using chemical weapons.
Why did we take Saddam out now in 2003, 22 yars after we knew of his use of chemical weapons? The answer is simple: OIL. At that time, we were trying to help him build an oil pipeline:
Ambassador-at-large and presidential emissary Donald Rumsfeld discusses prospects for improving U.S.-Iraqi relations with King Hussein of Jordan. Rumsfeld reports on his talks with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz and says they had “more areas of agreement than disagreement.” He also reviews the status of a proposed pipeline to Aqaba for Iraq’s oil.
The U.S. promoted the Aqaba pipeline project strenuously for several years during the early to mid 1980s. It would have carried oil from northern Iraq to the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan, alleviating the disruptive effect on Iraq’s oil output that resulted from Iran’s attacks on oil transshipment facilities in the Persian Gulf and from Syria’s closing of a pipeline that had transported Iraqi oil. The proposed project reflected the U.S.'s extreme nervousness about threats to the world oil supply resulting from the Iran-Iraq war.
The U.S. involved several U.S.-based multinational corporations in planning the project. International financier Bruce Rappaport, a friend of CIA director William Casey, was also a central figure in the proposed deal. (The final report of the independent counsel for the Iran-Contra “arms for hostages” scandal cites reports indicating that Rappaport’s bank in Geneva was the recipient of a mysterious $10 million payment from the Sultan of Brunei to fund the Nicaraguan contras that subsequently disappeared. Rappaport denied this; the final report says that the issue remained unresolved. He was invited to testify in 1999 at a House Banking committee hearing on corruption in Russian financial transactions, but declined.) The project was complicated by demands that the U.S. arrange for ironclad security guarantees from the Israelis, since the pipeline would have been vulnerable to their attack. The Israelis, for their part, demanded guarantees that pipeline facilities would not cause environmental damage.
All involved had their reasons for at least hypothetical interest in the project. For Iraq, it would have been a manifestation of improved U.S.-Iraq relations - they wanted as much U.S. financial and other involvement in the proposed deal as possible. For the U.S., it would have provided an alternative, theoretically secure outlet for oil and created a nexus for entangling Iraqi interests with those of Jordan and Israel, consistent with U.S. plans to create a wider consortium of Arab countries that would cooperate with the U.S. and would be willing to resolve the Palestine-Israel dispute on U.S. terms. Israel would have benefited from new oil facilities in its vicinity, and won points with the Reagan administration. Also, according to internal documents from a friend of Reagan administration Attorney General Edmund Meese, brought in as an intermediary because of his Israeli ties, payoffs would have been skimmed from complex financial guarantee arrangements for the Israeli government and Labor Party.
Attempts to agree on arrangements that would satisfy all parties dragged on, until the several private companies that had been brought in to plan the project backed out, questioning the motives of all involved. Iraq, however, revived the concept in 2000, presumably for its own strategic interests.
Once that idea fell through, however, we started condemning Saddam. Now, we take over Iraq and give Cheney oil contracts. And this is the cost:
EDIT:
sushis in a prior note…I wrote…
I am fully aware of whom gave whom… why whom gave who…and who will give whomever the same if it serves who’s purpose…
As a U.S. citizen you have a right to purchase a hand gun… so buy one
the constitution says…in more words than one… ‘it is every citizens right to change the government if he feels the government isn’t representing him…by force if nessasary’… so take your new gun…go to Washington… and change the government.
???
Actually, in America, the government is influenced by voters. So here is what I will do: Try and change the views of people like you so the government will be representing me. Gee, that idea sure beats the hell out of taking a gun to Washington, huh?
The US foreign policy is not known for being consistent. The foreign policy usually falls in the way of the State department, and the State department always gets re-shuffled with the arrival of a new President. So what one President sees as important might be completely dismantled by another President. In the early 1980s, it was a different kind of a world. If a showdown occurred between the USSR and the USA, it could have been swift, mutual destruction of both countries. USSR supplied Afghanistan, US supplied Iraq, USSR supplied Iran, etc. It was a political seesaw and both sides tried to get as many allies as possible. Only when the dust settles (after the collapse of the USSR) do we see the footprints made in the sand - such as supplying Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. with weapons.
The oil pipeline thing is odd, but most international projects cannot occur without the use of the government. Once you become head of a large multinational, you will automatically be thrust into a social level that will include the political elites such as CIA officials. On numerous occassions, you will find key politicians lobbying other countries to lower tariffs, allow investment in this sector, etc. Trade is the most important way to help influence another country’s policy. China probably doesn’t like the US, but they won’t go further than rhetoric because they depend on us for providing them with revenue that they need. If the pipeline did go through Iraq, Saddam would have had to, in the best interest of his finances, (to build more palaces maybe?), have to give in to the demands of the countries who will have a say in the oil pipelines.
Cheney was head of Halliburton - one of the larger US oil service companies. Who else would they give the contracts to? A company that is not part of the small coalition? Probably not. I’m sure BP may have rights to drilling, etc. When it comes to repairing damaged oil fields, Halliburton is one of the names you would see more prominently. If they were to use the the proceeds from the Iraqi oil, in the short term at least, to help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, etc., then I don’t see any problems with that. It’s too early to see what is going to happen.
If this was entirely for oil, I am sure we could have found cheaper ways such as drilling in Alaska or taking over Brunei or even hijacking oil tankers heading toward Brunei. Also if Dick Cheney really wanted Halliburton to repair some oil fields, I would have been more than happy to recruit a few of us (for a large vandalism fee of course) to help spray paint/or have paintball practice at some of the oil fields in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. =)
Cheers!
Kirupa C:-)
I agree to a degree with Kirupa, this was was not mostly about oil. Its about getting control of Iraq for influence. But oil not only a good way to pay for the war, it also gives US even more influence because of the world’s dependace on oil and gives the US a bit of leverage.
But I agree that that Cheney’s oil buddies got hold of the oil is pretty rediculous. Other companies went to the pentagon to see if the can auction for the contract, they where declined. Later it was annouced that Cheney’s Halliburton will be directing the oil in iraq.
I a bit unfair, and quite strange 
maybe im a bit cynical…
but a lot of this has to do with power as well…
im not having a go at the US here or its ppl…
just an outside opinion ok?
if there is one country in the world that has to be declared as a superpower surely it is the US…
and everyone else looks up to it and of course will become an ally of it as they know if the **** hits the fan they will be backed up…
but at the same time, how many times has the US recently “helped” other countries with their internal disputes…
this show of military power only enforces everyone elses opinions of the US…
yeah u kick *** and u have the firepower to do it all so well…
recently there was a TV prog over here about Bin Laden and the hunt for him and a leading CIA op (now ex 4 some reason?) was asked how long he thought it would take to find him if he was properly funded…
his reply was six weeks…
and he gave an amazing answer too…
he said with the current situation with Iraq that the terrible events of 9.11 were thrown to the side altogether…
he also stated that it was quite ironic that way back BL had wanted to attack Madass and was denied by America who at the time were helping to fund them with their war against the USSR…
now if you think about it, in the US attacking Iraq, is this not doing the dirty work of the countries biggest enemy?
the CIA op also stated that there was an assassination mission on Madass b4 the first Gulf War, a “Black Op” but a couple of weeks b4 everything was pulled…
the war machine entered and we know the rest…
various high members of the American Society were interviewd during the course of the programme and there were a few theories banded about…
a lot of them make sense too when u thought about it…
unsure when the next election happens over there but am i right in saying that your current president getting elected there was a bit of dubiety in it as far as voting went?
think about this…
the president gets in by the skin of his teeth…
his father failed b4 in Iraq to dispose of this feckin madman…
the US has been enforcing democracy in other countries through using military power…(all for the good of the people there i may add in case anyone thinks i am having a go…)
there was the terrible tragedy of sep 11th…
hunt for BL begins…
cant find him anywhere?
war breaks out on Iraq…
kick *** there and the ppl of the world once again see how the swift hand of justice can be dealt…
obviously the ppl of the US and elsewhere’s opinions are influenced by these acts…
this is a shot in the dark…
how soon do u think BL can be found?
will it be close to the next election or just after it?
i am a firm believer in the freedom of speech and democracy thing…
every man or woman on this planet has the right to say what they want and be treated fairly and justly by anyone else…
but i do have to question were it is all going if ultimately a governments aim is to have a “controlling influence” on other countries due to their previous actions…
whether this means that yes indeed we have 1 global superpower but then somone else once had that dream and look what happened…
this is absolutely and categorically no snipe at the ppl of the US before anyone flames this…
or me…
all i am doing is stating wot i have thought about the whole thing…
just an opinion which we r all entitled to have from a nobody whose brother was there the first time around
*Originally posted by AnOraK *
**how soon do u think BL can be found?
will it be close to the next election or just after it?**
JackPot!!
You know what is the root of all our problems?
lies
We all have acepted a cinical view on politics… expecting them to lie to us, after all they´re politicians.
And they lie to us, they lie everytime. And we do what? we forgive them, we gave them a pat on the back and we wisper on teyr ears, “don´t worry, that´s what politicians do…”
Clinton, Nixon and so many others: lied to an entire nation, to the congress… he kept the power.
Blair and Bush:
Lies: They told us that they were going to bomb Iraq to free it from the evil grasp of Saddam´s devilish hands, and to protect the world… they told us that the war was a sucess, with only a few colateral damages. They told us that the primary reason was the WoMD.
Truth: The reason for the war is power. They don´t care about Iraq´s ppl. Colateral damage is a soft world for slautering his own soldiers, his allies, woemen, childrem…
There is no WoMD.
Now we have 3 kinds of ppl:
1 - The ones that seek out for the truth;
2 - The ones that has no instruments to seek out for the truth;
3 - The ones that want to be fooled, and live in the bliss of ignorance.
What kind are you 
well said Guig0
Thanks AnOrak.
You have made a quite good post too.
The thing is: our memories have a very short life span, and politicians take advantage on this.
They screw us big time after the elections, and they lie to us to make us feel better, if we don´t buy theyr lies they present new things to make us look in the other direction while they´re pushing the dirt below the carpet. And if all else fails, they always can make a big show just before the new elections in order to be loved again.
The sad thing is that most of us play along.
the beauty of a memory is that you can choose the things you want to remember…
that seems to be the political view anyway…
as far as big shows go…
the next US venture will be interesting right enough…
Cheney was head of Halliburton - one of the larger US oil service companies. Who else would they give the contracts to?
Hmm, let me think about this…
ExxonMobil?
ChevronTexaco?
Marathon Oil?
BP??
These are just a few…
If this was entirely for oil, I am sure we could have found cheaper ways such as drilling in Alaska or taking over Brunei or even hijacking oil tankers heading toward Brunei.
Cheaper for who? For America or for Cheney? You see the money spent on the war is not coming out of Cheney’s pockets. The money gained from oil contracts, however, is going to his company. Cheney doesn’t care about the American people or the economy. He saw the money HIS COMPANY would earn by invading Iraq.
I would have been more than happy to recruit a few of us (for a large vandalism fee of course) to help spray paint/or have paintball practice at some of the oil fields in Texas, Oklahoma, etc.
Not a bad idea 
Yeah, Cheney’s company getting a good chunk of the credit is odd, but Halliburton is among only a handful of companies that are more service oriented than reseller oriented. You won’t find Halliburton gas stations like you would BP, Amoco, Texaco, etc. For fixing the wells, you will probably only go to Halliburton or to a lesser degree Schlumberger - which has a former CIA high-ranking CIA official among its friends
Also, when anybody becomes a high-ranking official in the government, I think (not sure), but they have to end all financial ties they may have to any other company. I don’t even think Cheney has any financial ties to Halliburton, but his influence certainly helps =)
RussianBeer posted
Its about getting control of Iraq for influence. But oil not only a good way to pay for the war, it also gives US even more influence because of the world’s dependace on oil and gives the US a bit of leverage.
Yeah, that’s probably another reason. The US does not have much control over the Middle East. I think I mentioned that trade would have helped, but the pipeline that would give the US economic control over the ME countries has been foiled. Having the US only a few hundred miles away from the Palestinian/Israeli border helps push our cause further.
If any country wants to influence Middle Eastern policy, Iraq is a good place to be. Prime real estate, good weather, plenteous golden sands, beaches overflowing with oil, few taxes, lax gun control laws, friendly people…=)
Cheers!
Kirupa 
