The Dirty War for Oil: UN Oil-for-Food Scandal Implicates Putin Aides

[Pengwuino]

Stoned, what exactly are your sources of information. You act as if any news organization is wrong and biased and that you are getting your information from some divine source...

 

[russ_watters]

The UN was initiated by the US to be a sandbox in which to play with friends who would support US interests. This quickly went awry with fallout between the US and the USSR. Did the US really expect other countries to stand aside and not want a piece of the pie too? Oh the webs we weave.

Since the US and the USSR were at odds before the creation of the UN and the world had significant power struggles before the creation of its predicessor - the League of Nations - I can't see why you would assert that the US would have ever thought the UN would be a puppet. So to answer the question: no, the US never intended or expected the UN to be a puppet.

 

[russ_watters]

If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?

That's funny stoned, you assume a pro-jew bias where none exists, revealing your anti-jew bias. If he comitted crimes why should his religion be relevant to whether or not he should be tried? Of course he should!

 

[loseyourname]

I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time, give him inteligence data, aiding him and don't say nothing when he was actualy using chemical weapons becouse he was killing a lot of iranian, and that was good for America, and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator (he always was, even when he was killing iran people and gassing the kurds.)

I'm going to point out here the same thing I just pointed out to SOS in another thread. To show hypocrisy on the part of anyone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the US had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes prior to removing Saddam from power. Such a stance fallaciously assumes that there exists some unchanging body politic that is "The US" and is responsible for every action taken historically by distinct administrations. In fact, each administration institutes its own foreign policy and is responsible only for the actions that it takes. To demonstrate hypocrisy implicit in the act of removing Saddam, it is necessary for you to show that the administration that removed him had, in the past, supported equally brutal dictators. That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.

 

[Yonoz]

I know about Russia quite a lot and I don't need to read any BBC biased reports, BBC is British state controlled information network.

Why is that? Allow me to join the others who have already asked you to reveal your unbiased, credulous and undoubtedly professional sources of information. Maybe your definition of "biased" is, well, biased

If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?

What makes you believe that? Is that too something you learned from your omnipotent sources of information?
I believe I would mind it since it's a blatant display of disregard for justice and accumulation of power by the state, and it saddens me to see Russia lose its grip on democracy.
I do feel sympathy to the Jews of Russia, I don't think there's anything wrong with that or that it requires any sort of excuse. This matter however is not one of religious persecution, though it serves to fuel the growing antisemitism in Russia - it is a loss for democracy, justice and pluralism. I do not like Khodorovsky more than I like any other Russian oligarch - I believe they all make their money by dirty means, but then again - do you think businessmen in other nations are any different? Do you think all that power and wealth is going to be distributed in any way? I would refer you to some sources about Putin but I presume they won't be unbiased enough for you.
I feel sympathy for anyone that suffers from hate and prejudice - of which, IMO, you are full of. I believe the only reason you care so much for this trial is Khodorovsky's religious affiliation.

There is one very interesting story from recent weeks connected to the Khodorovsky trial but not so obvious, read beetwen the lines:, Russian Duma voted on May 9 to forbid dual citizens the right to head the Russian Cabinet.
You know to whom is that directed at ? think.

I'm sure you can find some perfectly logical explanation for that in one of your ever-correct sources. Please enlighten me and the other members of this forum as to what exactly I am meant to "think".

 

[Burnsys]

As you note, the entire world is complicit there. But at least the US is now standing up and putting a stop to him. Better late than never.

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't give him dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program and they didn't give him helicopters and heavy trucks and the most important.. they didn't transport iraki oil trhu iran and syrian piplines...

------------------------------------------------------------

His (Rumsfeld) December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and [B]the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil[/B]; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting

Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person"

 

[alexandra]

I'm going to point out here the same thing I just pointed out to SOS in another thread. To show hypocrisy on the part of anyone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the US had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes prior to removing Saddam from power. Such a stance fallaciously assumes that there exists some unchanging body politic that is "The US" and is responsible for every action taken historically by distinct administrations. In fact, each administration institutes its own foreign policy and is responsible only for the actions that it takes. To demonstrate hypocrisy implicit in the act of removing Saddam, it is necessary for you to show that the administration that removed him had, in the past, supported equally brutal dictators. That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.

Here's your proof, loseyourname - and it's not past; it's present: click on this link to a Washington Post article entitled "Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies: U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations".
Here's the first paragraph of that article:

President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24581-2005Jan20.html

 

[Yonoz]

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't

Pre-Gulf War Iraq was also supplied with European-made weapons and weapons fabrication means, though not through government aid.

 

[russ_watters]

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him.

Well, I didn't say "help" - but regardless, a great many countries, including some of the loudest complainers (France, Russia, China), did actively help him.

alexandra, that's awfully thin: Putin may be a kgb throwback, but he doesn't throw dissidents into plastic shredders like Saddam did. He's not in the same category. Other countries mentioned (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc.), and the US's policy toward them don't compare either.

But that's besides the point anyway. The hypocrisy that Burnsys (and others) have alleged requires you (or him or others) to show that Bush supported Saddam Hussein directly:

I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time... and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator...

Bush did no such thing.

 

[Burnsys]

That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.

Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person"

 

[russ_watters]

So then, Burnsys, that would show two decades of consistency in Rumsfeld's position, right? He was concerned about WMD and human rights in the '80's...

BTW, what do you think that handshake photo means?

 

[Burnsys]

Well, I didn't say "help" - but regardless, a great many countries, including some of the loudest complainers (France, Russia, China), did actively help him.

alexandra, that's awfully thin: Putin may be a kgb throwback, but he doesn't throw dissidents into plastic shredders like Saddam did. He's not in the same category. Other countries mentioned (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc.), and the US's policy toward them don't compare either.

But that's besides the point anyway. The hypocrisy that Burnsys (and others) have alleged requires you (or him or others) to show that Bush supported Saddam Hussein directly: Bush did no such thing.

Rumsfeld should be dismised for his previous cooperation with a terrorist regime even when he knew it was using chemical weapons, and what is the US's policy toward egipt?? us sends its prisoners to be tortured in egipt, and to saudia arabia, they support a family of cruel royal dictators, just becouse the oil keep flowing...

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, you posted the quote, not me. It says quite clearly that the reason they didn't cooperate more is because of those issues.

 

[2CentsWorth]

The original contention is that the US does not have a foreign policy of removing dictators, not historically, nor even now. In the case of Iraq, removal of a ruthless dictator has been used as one of many justifications for invasion. But this does not mean it is US policy now, or going forward, or even on a case by case basis. Other related reasons, such as human rights violations, etc. are a more consistent aspect of US policy, though even with this one can see inconstancies.

 

[Pengwuino]

No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't give him dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program and they didn't give him helicopters and heavy trucks and the most important.. they didn't transport iraki oil trhu iran and syrian piplines...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/airforce.htm

Iraq's more than 500 combat aircraft were formed into two bomber squadrons, eleven fighter-ground attack squadrons, five interceptor squadrons, and one counterinsurgency squadron of 10 to 30 aircraft each. Support aircraft included two transport squadrons. As many as ten helicopter squadrons were also operational, although these formed the Army Air Corps. The Air Defense Command piloted the MiG-25, MiG-21, and various Mirage interceptors and manned Iraq's considerable inventory of surfaceto -air missiles (SAMs).

Im sure those are chinese made Mirage jets though right? For anyoen who doesn't know, the Mirage fighter jet is a rather nice French-made interceptor jet.

 

[Pengwuino]

The original contention is that the US does not have a foreign policy of removing dictators, not historically, nor even now. In the case of Iraq, removal of a ruthless dictator has been used as one of many justifications for invasion. But this does not mean it is US policy now, or going forward, or even on a case by case basis. Other related reasons, such as human rights violations, etc. are a more consistent aspect of US policy, though even with this one can see inconstancies.

Thats actually simple denial. Even if its case by case, your still showing a complete attitude of denial. You would have shown a lot more credibility if you said say "oh maaaaybe .. on a case by case basis there might be a good policy for the US" but no, you showed how your mind is set on completely supressing any idea that the US might have a good foreign policy at some point now or in the future.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Thats actually simple denial. Even if its case by case, your still showing a complete attitude of denial. You would have shown a lot more credibility if you said say "oh maaaaybe .. on a case by case basis there might be a good policy for the US" but no, you showed how your mind is set on completely supressing any idea that the US might have a good foreign policy at some point now or in the future.

The Bush administration has changed reasoning for invading Iraq on a regular basis, including removal of a 'bad' dictator. It has been made clear that all the justifications, from connection to 9-11, to WMD, and so forth has been nothing but propaganda. Removing a dictator is just more of the same. You are the one in denial.

 

[Burnsys]

Hey, you posted the quote, not me. It says quite clearly that the reason they didn't cooperate more is because of those issues.

Exactly.. but let me show you the entire context of this quote:

"Tariq Expressed apreciation for US Support of resolution 549 at te UN. I (Rumsfeld) Offered our willinges to do more.
CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED I made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights. I pointed out that we where improving our contingency planning with gulf states as to our goal of keeping straits open.
From US standpoint, obiusly anything that is done that complicate lifes for iran and syria is helpfull and contributes to stability in the region"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq32.pdf

So what rumsfeld says to iraq foreing ministry Tariq in this metting is: Look we are helping you and we want to help you more.. but you have to stop using chemical weapons so we can CONTINUE helping you.

anyway:

When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"
------------------------------------------

PD: Only god and rummy knows what is in the censored part...

 

[Pengwuino]

Im not the one saying that i'll never believe in a certain us policy. I don't know why they brought up 9/11... beyond me. We had a good reason to think there were WMD's when everyone was telling us we had them and he even used chemical weapons in the past and ordered his military to use them in this war (but I am sure you just think "oh he lied and the rest of that stuff didnt happen"). Plus of course, removing a dictator has always been a reason and a damn good reason for any remotely caring human being. Having multiple reasons doesnet turn it into propaganda. I am sorry for your denial.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whats with people like you Burnsys? It was IRAN. Do you ever read any history books and learn the context of our actions?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Since the US and the USSR were at odds before the creation of the UN and the world had significant power struggles before the creation of its predicessor - the League of Nations - I can't see why you would assert that the US would have ever thought the UN would be a puppet. So to answer the question: no, the US never intended or expected the UN to be a puppet.

There are many publications on the topic of UN formation and evolution, and there are those who argue the UN not only has been used as a puppet (your words), but also through countries with leaders who are puppets of the US. Just because one may not agree with this view, it does not mean there is no such view.

 

[Pengwuino]

What nations are our puppets? I want a puppet nation of my own :D

Ok that's the last post from me for a few i think lol. I had 3 finals today, one at 6 :30am... and my math final was like... i got tricked into walking onto a nuclear testing range... boy am i exausted

 

[loseyourname]

Here's your proof, loseyourname - and it's not past; it's present: click on this link to a Washington Post article entitled "Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies: U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations".
Here's the first paragraph of that article:

I'm not sure I would call an editorial column "proof" of inconsistency in this administration's foreign policy. There is a lot of rhetoric in there as well, exactly what the writer is accusing Bush of. Ideally, you'd do everything yourself or with allies of like mind. In reality, however, circumstances often dictate marriages of convenience and administrations are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils for lack of a better choice. The administration could be completely consistent and downplay human rights abuses everywhere in the world, or it can be pragmatic and ease up somewhat on nations that are willing to help and that are good on these things relative to the abuses perpetrated by the regime being removed. It will be interesting to see how these allies are treated in the future by this same administration and whether or not they will eventually be taken to task for their own violations.

Let us take the North Korea example. If China is willing institute minor reforms that are at least a step in the right direction, and if they help to contain North Korea, is that not better overall? If the choice is that or to continue to blacklist China and ignore the growing threat from North Korea because of commitments elsewhere, what is the better choice? I know Kant valued consistency as the only true ethical value, but is there anyone that really still thinks that way? I guess I've never been a big detractor of hypocrisy and I also believe that all human are inherently hypocritical. We have biases and we change our minds as well. Our actions at any given time are never going to be in complete accordance with our professed beliefs. The best we can hope to do is to evaluate each decision we make on a case by case basis to determine what the right thing to do is. If removing Saddam was the right thing to do, it remains the right thing to do even if all other dictators are ignored. I don't think that all other dictators will be ignored, nor do I think the administration has been nearly as hypocritical as everyone seems convinced here, but even if I did, that doesn't necessarily make the greatest difference to me in evaluating any specific action it takes.

I suppose there are these two defenses that can be mounted for this administration. As someone who will probably be a lawyer by the end of the decade, this is the way my thinking steers. In reality though, Russ and I are being apologists. The others are building a case and we are building an opposing case, which requires all of us to emphasize that which supports our arguments and ignore or downplay that which doesn't. The reality of the matter, ethically speaking, probably lies somewhere nearer the center of the arguments taking place in public and private discussion groups.

 

[Burnsys]

Whats with people like you Burnsys? It was IRAN. Do you ever read any history books and learn the context of our actions?

If you can't see i am quoting US declasified documents, i think there is no history book better than that...

 

[Burnsys]

What nations are our puppets? I want a puppet nation of my own :D

Ok that's the last post from me for a few i think lol. I had 3 finals today, one at 6 :30am... and my math final was like... i got tricked into walking onto a nuclear testing range... boy am i exausted

For example my goverment. Argentina goverments... it has been a puppet since 50 years...
And i can surely tell you, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, And all centroamerican countrys are us puppet, for example tell me.. what kind of country could give an island of their own to US so they can test their missiles? a puppet government only...

And by the way. did you know that Georgian senators Salary is paid by america? haha yeah. amazing...

Just for example. somenthing i posted the other day..
To show how America and the imf controls our economic policy..

This was a note in the most important argentinian newspaper... Just imagine a note like this on the washingtong post, it's humilliating...
---------------------------------------
RESUMED TODAY IN WASHINGTON THE MANAGEMENTS BEFORE THE MONETARY FUND
Now the pressure of the IMF is for the private service rates and the fiscal surplus

In the list of worries of the Department of the Treasure, and also of the IMF, the debt that continues in default does not figure already in the first position. There are other more important themes in their agendas: rise in the rates of public services and the regulatory framework for the businesses ; and the fiscal theme, that includes the level of primary surplus (they would ask around 5% against the 3% presented by Argentina) and the law of coparticipación or what call here the "federalización of the tax system".
----------------------------------------

 

[Pengwuino]

If you can't see i am quoting US declasified documents, i think there is no history book better than that...

Yes but that doesn't mean you understand the situation. If you can understand, we were helping iraq, as the document also states, because we hated Iran more and they were our big problem at the time.

 

[Pengwuino]

For example my goverment. Argentina goverments... it has been a puppet since 50 years...
And i can surely tell you, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, And all centroamerican countrys are us puppet, for example tell me.. what kind of country could give an island of their own to US so they can test their missiles? a puppet government only...

And by the way. did you know that Georgian senators Salary is paid by america? haha yeah. amazing...

Just for example. somenthing i posted the other day..
To show how America and the imf controls our economic policy..

Any real proof of all those countries? Were you re-payed financially for the use of that island? Any proof of the salary thing? Are the US the creditors for Argentina? As an american (well this istn specifically a problem i have), its very apparent what kind of power a creditor can choose to have over a person that has oustanding debts owed to them. If you can give me suitable proof that the Argentine government does not owe the United States anything, I'd understand your position completely.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes but that doesn't mean you understand the situation. If you can understand, we were helping iraq, as the document also states, because we hated Iran more and they were our big problem at the time.

Ok, that clearly states that american government is capable of suporting terrorist states, tyrants, and dictators (even those who used chemical weapons) just to achieve their objectives.

Anyway the point of this thread is about war and oil and the same documents also clearly states that it was all about oil.. They chose what side to support becouse of oil:

"Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq26.pdf

Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq31.pdf

National Security Study Directive (NSSD 4-82) from Ronald W. Reagan. "U.S. Strategy for the Near East and Southwest Asia," March 19, 1982.
President Reagan calls for a review of policy for the Middle East and South Asia, to prepare for decisions regarding procurement, arms transfers, and intelligence planning. Revised guidelines are needed because of regional diplomatic and global oil market developments
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq14.pdf

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 114) from Ronald W. Reagan. "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," November 26, 1983.

President Ronald Reagan directs that consultations begin with regional states willing to cooperate with the U.S. on measures to protect Persian Gulf oil production and its transshipment infrastructure. The U.S. will give the highest priority to the establishment of military facilities allowing for the positioning of rapid deployment forces in the region to guard oil facilities.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq26.pdf

You are the one who doesn't understand the situation.

Anyway what has usa to do in iran. what is their problem if iran had a revolution, what has us to do with it? IMHO it was becouse a us puppet regime was overtrown??

 

[Burnsys]

Any real proof of all those countries? Were you re-payed financially for the use of that island? Any proof of the salary thing? Are the US the creditors for Argentina? As an american (well this istn specifically a problem i have), its very apparent what kind of power a creditor can choose to have over a person that has oustanding debts owed to them. If you can give me suitable proof that the Argentine government does not owe the United States anything, I'd understand your position completely.

1. Argenina debt to the world is about $130 billion dolars.. (no one knows the exat number even the government nor the imf becouse it's not well documented)

2. US debt to the world is $7.7 Trillon dolars i don't see any country telling what america has to do in it's economic policies

3 Argentina debt started in the 70' when the imf and the world bank borrowed money to the TERRORIST Military dictatorship we had as government supported by the US, which killed and tortured 30.000 people who where against us economic policies (The external debt between them), in that time they where called comunist... in the future i think we will be called terrorists...

4 Supposing that the debt is legitimate and that the us as no debt to the world.. When i am indebt to a bank or i hasn't paid the credit card, the bank does not tell me how to mannage my money, how much i should give to my kids in the weekend, how many food should i buy or what prices should i charge for my work...

5 between some of all the economic policies that US impose on argentina goverment, on of them is allow a rise in the prices of water gas and oil, all this resources controlled by multinational corporation, For example, the only water supply corporation, Aguas argentinas. Owned by Suez (france), Vivendi and Aguas de barcelona (spain).

About the other countrys i had no time right now but you can search how many non-loyal government has the US overtrown in Central america...

 

[Pengwuino]

1.You still didnt answer my question about how much argentina owes the US.

2. Taxes, tarrifs, export restrictions... any of htis ring a bell?

3. Ohhh yah communists, got to love em. But wait... they pointed 10,000 nuclear warheads at us remember?

4. The bank could decide to demand all the money back and take all your stuff if it decided too. If they had no control over you, why don't you just stop paying your bills? As you can see, if they wanted to, they sure could decide how much you should give to your kids, how to manage your money (which you actually do anyways if you have debt... if you have a budget), how much food to buy and what you should charge for your work.

5. And how exactly does raising prices on oil help us?

@your previous post

Again you obviously show your lack of a basic understanding of this world. The resources we actually purchase should be protected just like you protect your money with an armored car. If that's wrong, then wow. You also don't seem to understand why a country would try to help a nation if their neighbor is a dangerous threat. I don't know how to convey common sense to you... but you should remember that when you want to deal with a worse problem, you sometimes have to do less evil things.

 

[Burnsys]

1.You still didnt answer my question about how much argentina owes the US.

Argentina 38,4%
Italiy 15,6%
No Identified 12,8%
Sweden 10,3%
USA 9,1%
Germany 5,1%
Japan 3,1%
Great Britan 1,1%
Holland 1,0%
Others 2,5%

2. Taxes, tarrifs, export restrictions... any of htis ring a bell?

Nope. i don't think i even seen a report in US mainstream media saying somenthing like:

"In the list of worries of the Chinese Department of the Treasure, and also of the IMF, the debt does not figure already in the first position. There are other more important themes in their agendas: rise in the rates of american public services and the regulatory framework for the businesses... bla bla bla..."

3. Ohhh yah communists, got to love em. But wait... they pointed 10,000 nuclear warheads at us remember?

Yes i guess all this reporters were planing how to create atomics bombs...

List of reporters tortured and disapeared by the military dictatorship of the 70'

Claudio Adur (11-11-76), Newspapers: "Crisis" and "El Cronista Comercial", "Arte Hispanoamericana" Magazine. Founder of the center of art studies and investigations.
Ricardo Emir Aiub (09-06-77), "Coronel Dorrego." Journalist
Alejandro Martín Almeida (17-06-75), Telam News Agency
Lucina Alvarez de Barros (07-05-76), Barrilete Magazine. Teacher
María Elena Amadío (30-03-76), Discusión Magazine.
Andrés Lucio Ariza (22-07-76), Journalist Córdoba.
Juan José María Ascone (18-05-77), "La Opinión" NewsPaper, Primera Plana and Competencia Magazines.
Jorge Alberto Asenjo (12-06-76), "Cinco Saltos" Journalist, Río Negro.
Oscar Osvaldo Barros (07-05-76), Crisis and Barrilete magazines. Writer.
Horacio Félix Bertholet (01-10-76) Channel 2 and teacher at School of journalist at La Plata.

Full List http://www.aunoagencia.com.ar/article.php?story=20040325203104297&mode=print
etc etc etc..

deamn i fill safe now that America have:

"5,400 warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles, 1,750 nuclear bombs and cruise missiles ready to be launched from B-2 and B-52 bombers, 1,670 ``tactical'' nuclear weapons and another 10,000 warheads in bunkers around the United States. "

Pointing everywhere...

About Argentina Debt:

Year ...Total Debt ...Rise %
1975...7 875
1976...8 280....5,14%
1977...9 679...16,9%
1978...12 496...29,1%
1979...19 034...52,32%
1980...27 072...42,23%
1981...35 671...31,76%
1982...43 634...22,32%
1983...45 087....3,33%
1984...46 903....4,02%
1985...48 312....3%

(The military dictatorshiop begins in 1976 and last to 1983 )

List of some "Martinez de hoz" 's(trained in the school of the americas, Head of the Argentina military dictatorship) economic policies:

40% down in salaries
Elimination of export restriction
Reduction of import tariffs
Total opening to foreign capital
Liberalization of currency and financial markets
Reduction of state spending and privatization of national corporations
Rise in defence and security and cuts to education, health and infraestructure
etc. etc. etc.

4. The bank could decide to demand all the money back and take all your stuff if it decided too. If they had no control over you, why don't you just stop paying your bills? As you can see, if they wanted to, they sure could decide how much you should give to your kids, how to manage your money (which you actually do anyways if you have debt... if you have a budget), how much food to buy and what you should charge for your work.

I don't see your government getting instruction of what to do becouse of Amercian debt, which is 58 times bigger than ours..

5. And how exactly does raising prices on oil help us?

"The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry"

"Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company."

"Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed. "

"National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron"

"There are also questions about how energy policy decisions may be affected by the private financial interests of so many senior cabinet members. "

"The Bush administration has already made it clear that it would be interested in opening up oil exploration in Alaska.
It is a move opposed by environmental groups but favoured by energy companies. With oil prices rising in recent months this issue has taken on new urgency. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

"Exxon-Mobil's profits increased so much that it had a record-breaking year and its chairman received a $38 million bonus. Now we're giving them tax breaks while our gas prices rise to record highs? "

"In the 2004 election, 80 percent of donations from big oil were donated to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "

@your previous post
Again you obviously show your lack of a basic understanding of this world. The resources we actually purchase should be protected just like you protect your money with an armored car.

The resources we purchase to terrorists tyrants who kill their own people with chemical weapons like saddam housein should be protected until they came home doesn't mather what countrys ther pass by.

With this statement you are accepting that america start wars becouse of oil. Changing sides and supporting anyone who is gladly to sell them "Resources".

I don't know how to convey common sense to you... but you should remember that when you want to deal with a worse problem, you sometimes have to do less evil things

You are still doing evil things...

 

[Pengwuino]

That first list of numbers doesn't make any sense. Please clarify what it actually is.

For #2, you failed to even make a coherant statement towards how other countries do not use economic tools to hurt/help other countrie such as America.

And that list of people is pretty much useless as we all know who is capable of overthrowing a government. Hell, many senators of the United States in the past were being bought off by the KGB in an attempt to undermine our government as discovered by the Venona project : http://www.answers.com/topic/venona-project .

And i remember a certain President defending your nation by saying any attack on this entire side of hte planet would have resulted in a massive response. I suppose that included you in our protection. I guess I wouldn't feel very safe either if the #1 military power in the world swore to protect me :-/. Right.

Our governemnt doesn't get told what to do because we could tell the world to screw off and stop buying or selling to them and sine we're the largest economy on earth... ouch that'll hurt them.

And i sure would love some sources on those 10's of millions figure because all i can see is... : http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

And yes, we should be able to drill for oil up there. Its our land and very few people care about it. No study has come out saying that there's any significant danger in drilling according to the plans for the environment. Unless of course you have sources...

And exactly what does a large % of big oil money going to republicans mean? What if they gave $10 and 8 went to republicans? Unless you can provide a more meaningful figure, this conversation is rather dull. And of course, why would they give to the democrats? The democrats want to blame oil for everything wrong with society while those democrats drive around in big ol SUV's and refuse to allow nuclear plant construction.

And no, I didnt say we start wars for oil. You simply assumed that hoping to further your belief which is of course, wrong. We have a very large demand for oil and as the largest economy on earth, we need to secure transportation, thus, need a military presence. That does not mean we go to war with a nation for more oil. Maybe Europe would seeing as how they illegally profited from oil...

Oddly enough the most money contribution to alternative fuels are those same big bad evil war mongering oil companies... hmm... makes you think eh?

Oh yes and "its still an evil thing" is the pacifist do-nothing let people die view on life. Its a far greater evil to let evil men have control over the lives of $25 million others. You are proposing that if something can't be done niec and easily and without a problem, it shouldn't be done at all. This leads to millions of people dieing because you want to have the imaginary high moral standard to say "its still evil, you can't do it".

 

[alexandra]

Our governemnt doesn't get told what to do because we could tell the world to screw off and stop buying or selling to them and sine we're the largest economy on earth... ouch that'll hurt them.

Err, and then you wonder why people living in other parts of the world don't like what your administration is doing, and why those who are incapable of doing a proper political analysis generalise and 'hate Americans'? Well, Pengwuino, how would YOU feel if someone living in another, more powerful, country made such a statement and the USA happened NOT to be the most powerful country in the world? Such arrogance - and such lack of empathy for the plight of other people. But never mind, Pengwuino, one day, one way or another, the shoe will be on the other foot, so to speak. Then, perhaps, you'll understand what emotions such statements provoke. But of course, you simply don't care: you're OK, and bugger the rest of the world! (You think!)

And yes, we should be able to drill for oil up there. Its our land and very few people care about it. No study has come out saying that there's any significant danger in drilling according to the plans for the environment. Unless of course you have sources...

"...very few people care about it..."? What do you mean, Americans? I doubt that this is true - but even so, there are people who care about the environment living in other countries. Oh right, of course - silly me: THEY don't count as people. Only Americans are people, in your view. In effect, your arguments boils down to this: big capital has the right to destroy and risk the environmental integrity of OUR PLANET. Wow! Talk about arrogance - and even stupidity: do you have no sense of self-preservation, even? Where, exactly, do you propose to go live once the environment is totally destroyed and can no longer support life on earth? It is a blatant lie, by the way, that 'No study has come out saing there there's any significant danger in drilling...'. Here's an extract from one of the *milder* reports:

MIXED VERDICT OFFERED ON ALASKA OIL DRILLING;
SCIENTISTS SEE BENEFITS, BUT CITE ADVERSE IMPACT

The Washington Post
March 05, 2003
Edward Walsh, Washington Post Staff Writer

The National Academies of Science and Engineering yesterday delivered a mixed verdict on the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration on Alaska's North Slope, crediting the oil industry and government with doing much to minimize the environmental impact but warning that adverse consequences have not been eliminated and will continue to accumulate in the region.
Reference: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/prb/In_the_News.html

But of course, in typical style, you'll ignore this evidence - because it just doesn't suit. Oh well, so be it... But really, Pengwuino, you are not immune to whatever environmental effects such schemes have: even if we don't all live in the US, we all live on the same planet.

And no, I didnt say we start wars for oil. You simply assumed that hoping to further your belief which is of course, wrong. We have a very large demand for oil and as the largest economy on earth, we need to secure transportation, thus, need a military presence. That does not mean we go to war with a nation for more oil. Maybe Europe would seeing as how they illegally profited from oil...

So why Iraq? It WASN'T about 9/11 (Iraq had NOTHING to do with that), and it WASN'T about WMD (there were none there) and it WASN'T about 'removing tyrants' (is Karimov being removed?), and it WASN'T about improving the lives of Iraqis (ha! I can't even BEGIN to address this one)... So why Iraq?

Oddly enough the most money contribution to alternative fuels are those same big bad evil war mongering oil companies... hmm... makes you think eh?

Evidence, please?

Oh yes and "its still an evil thing" is the pacifist do-nothing let people die view on life. Its a far greater evil to let evil men have control over the lives of $25 million others. You are proposing that if something can't be done niec and easily and without a problem, it shouldn't be done at all. This leads to millions of people dieing because you want to have the imaginary high moral standard to say "its still evil, you can't do it".

Oh yes, because when the military comes in people's lives are saved! Without counting how many innocent civilians ('collateral damage'!) have already died, untold innocent Iraqis (mostly children) are going to die terrible deaths for years and years and years, from depleted uranium poisoning and the cancers that result from it getting into the food chain. How humane! Well, bravo.

 

[antfm]

"Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructaires, and like 'boni patres familias' (good heads of the household), they must hand it down to succeding generations in an improved condition".
(K. Marx, Capital)

I don't know much about marxism. I don't know much either about capitalism. In fact I don't think we use these terms in an agreed, well defined way. I prefer consider them as theoretical analysis and studies, basically economical, of society. So, if we are discussing those systems, we could always go to the sources and see what they say about different issues affecting the development of society.

I'm afraid that about this particular concern, what we are doing with the planet as a whole, what we are leaving to the generations to come, capitalism doesn't say too much (or worse, when it says something it seems quite scaring to me). It hasn't been difficult, however, to find a serious concern about that in a marxist foundational text. I really miss some environmental consideration in capitalism. The planet seems to remain in it as an infinite source of goods, which is a rather unrealistic, and I would say unscientific point of view.

 

[Burnsys]

That first list of numbers doesn't make any sense. Please clarify what it actually is.

It says how much argentina own to US..
and it is only a 9.1% of our debt...
But i don't see italy or sweden telling us what to do with our economic policies...

Argentina 38,4%
Italiy 15,6%
No Identified 12,8%
Sweden 10,3%
USA 9,1%
Germany 5,1%
Japan 3,1%
Great Britan 1,1%
Holland 1,0%
Others 2,5%

For #2, you failed to even make a coherant statement towards how other countries do not use economic tools to hurt/help other countrie such as America.

I repeat you.. i never look other country telling your government what economic policies they have to pass in the congress... for example...

And that list of people is pretty much useless as we all know who is capable of overthrowing a government. Hell, many senators of the United States in the past were being bought off by the KGB in an attempt to undermine our government as discovered by the Venona project : http://www.answers.com/topic/venona-project .

We all know who is the number 1 in oberthrowing goverments... THE CIA..
Anyway our DEMOCRATIC government where overtrown by the military dictatorship trained by USA in the school of americas...
And tell me.. those senators where tortured and executed??...
show me proof that the 30.000 killed by the dictatorship where agents paid by the comunist?. you will no find any, becouse they where executed without trial, nor defence, nor one simple human right...

And i remember a certain President defending your nation by saying any attack on this entire side of hte planet would have resulted in a massive response. I suppose that included you in our protection. I guess I wouldn't feel very safe either if the #1 military power in the world swore to protect me :-/. Right.

Bull****... we never been a target of USSR nukes... and yeees America helped our nation by killing and torturing 30.000 people, by selling our natural resources to foreing corporations by prohibiting free spech and by giving us a DEBT...

And i sure would love some sources on those 10's of millions figure because all i can see is... : http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

Cheney once drew parallels between his role as CEO of Halliburton to his role as defense secretary. Addressing the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies convention in Corpus Christie in 1998, he stated; "In the oil and gas business, I deal with many of the same people." (5) With a $45.5 million stake, he is the company's biggest individual stockholder. Last month he sold 100 000 shares of stock for an estimated $5.1 million, cashing in on the high price of oil. The company has also been active on the political front giving almost $200 000 in the 2000 Republican campaign.

According to an examination of regulatory filings showed on Monday (July 24), as CEO he raked in $1.28 million in salary and $640, 914 in other compensation last year plus stock options worth $7.4 to $18.8 million depending on the company's future stock performance (6). Comparing this to the $181,400 salary of a vice president raises interesting questions

In October 1999 speaking at the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil Exposition he said that members of the oil business could help the industry to become more effective by becoming active in the political arena and helping elect the right people to office (7)

5. Corpus Christie online 10/23/1998
6. Reuters, 07/24/00
7. The Baton Rouge Advocate, 10/28/00

And no, I didnt say we start wars for oil. You simply assumed that hoping to further your belief which is of course, wrong. We have a very large demand for oil and as the largest economy on earth, we need to secure transportation, thus, need a military presence. That does not mean we go to war with a nation for more oil. Maybe Europe would seeing as how they illegally profited from oil...

And you are willing to buy oil to terrorists who used chemical weapons on their own people...
"thus, need a military presence" in case the nation or tyrant we are buying the oil from decides not to sell us anymore for example...

Oddly enough the most money contribution to alternative fuels are those same big bad evil war mongering oil companies... hmm... makes you think eh?

Show me proof

Oh yes and "its still an evil thing" is the pacifist do-nothing let people die view on life. Its a far greater evil to let evil men have control over the lives of $25 million others. You are proposing that if something can't be done niec and easily and without a problem, it shouldn't be done at all. This leads to millions of people dieing because you want to have the imaginary high moral standard to say "its still evil, you can't do it".

the pacifist do-nothing let people die. So let's support saddam husein and don't say nothing when he kill his own people... it's more. let's support him while he use chemical weapons... it's the lesser of two evils you know... at least iran didn't use WMD...