babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » The Host of Villians in the U.N.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Host of Villians in the U.N.
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 05 March 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that several nations on the United Nations Security Council do not want us to enter into a conflict with the Iraqi regime and its military support. This article may give us the reason why.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm


From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ben_al
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3427

posted 05 March 2003 02:03 PM      Profile for ben_al     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, you offer possible reasons why some countries may oppose war with Iraq, but what about Senegal, Cameroon, Guinea, and Angolanot to mention millions of citizens in many countries?
From: Kitchener, ON | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 05 March 2003 02:28 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i see.

well, if you want to start listing corporate connections, the U.S. erased the following information from the Iraq weapons declaration before it helpfully took it to the photocopier for the rest of the non-permanent members of the security council.

luckily, Die Tageszeitung obtained the deleted portions.

Financial Times, Dec 19 2002

quote:
Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Honeywell and other major U.S. corporations, as well as governmental agencies including the Department of Defense and the nation's nuclear labs, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
 
On Wednesday, December 18, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach broke the story on the US national listener-sponsored radio and television show "Democracy Now!" Zumach's Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung plans to soon publish a full list of companies and nations who have aided Iraq. The paper first reported on Tuesday that German and U.S. companies had extensive ties to Iraq but didn't list names.
 
Zumach obtained top-secret portions of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration that the US had redacted from the version made available to the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.
 
"We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program," Zumach said. "Pretty much everything was illegal in the case of nuclear and biological weapons. Every form of cooperation and supplies was outlawed in the 1970s."
 
The list of U.S. corporations listed in Iraq's report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.
 
Zumach also said the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture quietly helped arm Iraq. U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia trained traveling Iraqi nuclear scientists and gave non-fissile material for construction of a nuclear bomb.

but, okay, that was years ago.

what about how U.S. companies are financially supporting iraq over the last four months?

Washington Post, Feb 22 2003

quote:
American oil refineries have dramatically increased their reliance on Iraqi crude, even as the Bush administration steps up preparations for a military attack against Baghdad, to offset a shortfall in oil imports caused by a recent political crisis in Venezuela.

The United States has more than doubled its consumption of Iraqi crude over the past two months, buying more than $1.6 billion in Iraqi oil through foreign middlemen between Dec. 5 and Feb. 1, according to unpublished U.N. figures [ ... ] U.S. firms purchased only 39 percent of Iraqi oil exports during the second half of last year. Between Dec. 5 and Feb. 1, U.S. buyers consumed about 1.1 million barrels per day, accounting for 62 percent of Iraq's exports during that period, according to U.N. figures.

[...]

Although Iraq rarely sells oil directly to American oil companies, Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., Valero Energy Corp. and other U.S. firms have purchased more than half of Iraq's oil through foreign middlemen since the oil-for-food program came into existence. Spokesmen for Exxon Mobil and Valero could not be reached for comment.

[...]

But oil analysts say that Iraq's decision to stop demanding a surcharge in September, and a sudden stoppage of Venezuelan exports following a national strike, has renewed American interest in the Iraqi oil market. "The loss of Venezuelan oil complicated everybody's life," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the New York-based Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. "Iraqi oil is close to the Venezuelan type oil, and it turned out to be the only large-volume alternative available" over the past two months.



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 March 2003 02:34 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dave:

I don't need to visit the Heritage Foundation to find out that some of the nations that oppose an invasion of Iraq do so at least partly out of self-interest. It wouldn't surprise me a bit, but it doesn't change anything. An invasion doesn't look to me like the right way to deal with Saddam. The fact that the French government shares my opinion but may do so for different reasons doesn't concern me as much as avoiding the needless deaths of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people.

I think this is a distraction at best.

Edited for grammar.

[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 05 March 2003 02:46 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post
The CIA book of facts errrrrrrrr that is an oxymoron. While I agree that probably some countries oppose an invasion on self-interest .... Isn't it IN American self-interest to invade???

Oil oil oil oi


From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 March 2003 02:51 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Besides, if the Security Council is such a nest of vipers, why would the US even bother with a resolution therefrom, a resolution would presumably convey no legitimacy? I think all this whining is just sour grapes from a bunch of amateurs, thugs by diplomatic standards, who are gradually realizing that their bullying tactics have blown up in their faces.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave Boaz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3694

posted 05 March 2003 03:19 PM      Profile for Dave Boaz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kuba if the U.S. wanted Iraq's oil for itself we would not look to Iraq but to Venezuela.
From: Washington DC | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 05 March 2003 03:43 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post
Venezuela????

And I suppose Alberta is next?


From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 March 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No need to invade Alberta. Plenty here would be happy to join the US, I'll bet.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 05 March 2003 04:51 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would imagine the ratio of those do and don't want to be annexed by the US would be roughly equivalent to Venezuela's.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 March 2003 05:15 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True. Actually a vocal number -- probably a minority, but when even our beloved Premier muses aloud about the possibility, you can never be sure -- like to grumble about going it alone. The likely eventual upshot of which would be joining the US... but that's for another thread.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 05 March 2003 05:21 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to the thread for a sec, but I always get a giggle out of the starry-eyed assertion that those nations opposing war in Iraq do so out of self-interest, whereas the ol' U.S.of A is just doing it for...uh, what again, exactly?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 05 March 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post
What's the equivalent to Jihad for bible thumping politicans??
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 March 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why, idealism, black_dog. It's the world's first idealist empire, or hegemon, or whatever. It's not an empire, or hegemon, or whatever like the others.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 14 March 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gotta bump this one. The Heritage Foudation suggests that the governments opposing war are doing so for economic reasons -- isn't that a (gasp) ... marxist ... analysis?
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 14 March 2003 06:37 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Gotta bump this one. The Heritage Foudation suggests that the governments opposing war are doing so for economic reasons -- isn't that a (gasp) ... marxist ... analysis?

Its not marxist, its realistic.

I think the reason why Boaz pointed out these statistics is to show the utter falsity behind this idea of France and Germany opposing war out of the goodness of their hearts.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 14 March 2003 06:54 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think the reason why Boaz pointed out these statistics is to show the utter falsity behind this idea of France and Germany opposing war out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't think anybody with two brain cells to rub together thinks that France and Germany are against the war out of some sense of moral outrage. But to call them villians for being oppossed to war on the same grounds that the U.S.A. is pushing for it (that is to say, self-interest)is a wee bit hypocritical.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 14 March 2003 07:26 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is one of those stunning ironies that those who support the war can only find 'self interest' as a motive for opposition to war, while denying the same motives are applicable to the supporters of the war.

Ha ha!


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 March 2003 08:28 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aside: I have always been amused at the fact that the Heritage Foundation in the USA is a right-wing think tank while the Heritage Front in Canada is a right-wing white supremacist group.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 14 March 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Aside: I have always been amused at the fact that the Heritage Foundation in the USA is a right-wing think tank while the Heritage Front in Canada is a right-wing white supremacist group.

Don't play that game. Remember, Hitler's party was called the National Socialist Worker's Party.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 March 2003 09:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez. Someone's got ants in their pants.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 14 March 2003 10:13 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Geez. Someone's got ants in their pants.

I didn't like it when you insinuated that all conservatives are white supremacists.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 14 March 2003 10:17 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No some conservatives are equal opportunity facists, and actually have no racial bias at all. Instead of appealing the tawdry racial fears in the way Hitler did, they appeal to universals that are inclusive of a multi-ethnic populous on such principals as religion or nation.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 06:31 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just wondering why is it that people don't see that only reason for the French, Russian, German and Chinese not going to war with Iraq was because of Oil. These governments couldn't care less for the Iraqi people or anyone else.
In 1995 they wanted to lift the sanctions so they could make more oil deals and sell more weapons to Saddam. Now I don't like sanctions I know they hurt really bad kill many innocent people but if they were lifted there certainly would have been a double Genocide the Shiites to the south and the Kurds to the north.

The world is not black and white. In this case a use of force to remove Saddam would surely "HAVE THE LEAST CASULTIES". The SOJOURNERS Christians for justice (www.sojo.net) made a six step plan to remove Saddam. The first step they subjected to indict Saddam in a Military tribunal. They said "The Tribunals can Destroy criminal Regimes" like in Rwanda and Yugoslavia" I'd Like to remind you all that 800,000 died in Rwanda before the world noticed and over a million in Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia the Americans finally used force without a UN resolution. Because the UN seems to be unable to do it's Job. The Americans probably saved many lives.

Bush was stupid he managed to sell to his own nation that security was the issue but the rest of the world didn't by it. People don't care until the Violence gets exported beyond their borders. "The only time the French want to help is when the Germans are in Paris sipping coffee"
They also go into West Africa make huge messes without any UN resolutions. They don't care about any one they probably the most greedy, capitalistic and Imperialistic government there is.(I don't make Generalizations I don't hate any one I talk about Governments and Regimes that are bad not people).

I wonder why Britain wants to go to war perhaps Tony Blair might have the Moral High ground he has nothing to lose by opposing the war. Perhaps Mr. Blair really wants to help the people of Iraq.

It's also funny to me that none of the 3 major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty or Doctor without Borders) Has outright opposed the war. They all say that in case of war certain measures must be implemented to protect civilians but they don't out right oppose. Meantime the have huge files of the crimes against humanity that the Iraqi government has done. What message should we learn from this?

Now obviously there are many Dictatorships that oppose the war for freer of being next but hopefully after the war with Iraq there won't be no more wars like this. Hopefully we can send the Message that we won't tolerate intolerance, that we won't tolerate inhumane dictators.


Yes wars Kill, Sanctions Kill even more, But Dictators Kill the most.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 15 March 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And another point of information is Saudia Arabia would gladly compensate at a good price for the loss of oil production from Iraq. It also has the interest and means to do so. The OPEC countries don't want the price of oil to go to high so there will be no reason for us to find alternatives if we wanted. So I'm sure Saddam would also gladly supply us oil if thats what we wanted.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 March 2003 10:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didn't like it when you insinuated that all conservatives are white supremacists.

Ladies and gentlemen! Boys and girls! Welcome to the Ass-U-Me of the Month Award Ceremony!

Today, I get to MC this, and proudly present the award to one Gir Draxon!

Hint, buddy: I was snickering at the coincidence of names, not whether their political philosophies actually overlap. You assumed I was actually calling "all conservatives" white supremacists.

It is, however, to be remarked that right-wing pull-yourself-up-by-your-boot-strap rhetoric often is a cover for racist philosophies which ascribe the failure of ethnic minorities to allegedly inherent defects in a racial group, rather than to structural factors such as the magic phrase discriminatory hiring policies.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 15 March 2003 10:12 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What's the equivalent to Jihad for bible thumping politicans??

I believe the term is "Crusade." As in "a Holy Crusade to save the lands from the infidels" or "The Ernest Ainsley Crusade will be at Such-and-Such Theatres next week."


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca