user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Interesting note: George Bush Sr. originally supported Saddam's invasion of Kuwait because of slant drilling, Donald Rumsfeld was friendly with Hussein, Halliburton under Dick Cheney did more business with Saddam than any other company in the US (millions of dollars worth), Iraq didn't have WMDs, and had nothing to do with 9/11.
It's wrong, but it's business as usual for any foreign company operating in the Middle East.
Remember this 23.01.04 headline: "Halliburton admits $6m kickbacks"
Two employees of a Halliburton subsidiary were fired when it became public they were receiving bribes.
Besides, France and Germany were punished when they weren't allowed any Iraq reconstruction contracts, but Iraq foreign debt is being written off because Bush is such a good samaritan.
There was also a leak that Bush officials were blackmailing Kuwait's government. If they didn't place huge orders to the US industrial - military complex, the Iraqi foreign debt to Kuwait and war reparations would be written off under US pressure.
And no, French government officials don't receive bribes directly.
There are as much connections between TotalFinaElf and the French cabinet members as the ones between US cabinet members and Halliburton.
In none of these cases are the bribes payed directly to US/French government officials.
These people are professionals.
LOL.. LOOK IN YOU'RE OWN BACKYARD HERZOG BEFORE YOU TRY AND CRITICIZE OTHERS!
by isay on Sat Jan 22, 05 6:02am
[+]
Eat the French.
Herzog there is only one description for you your a complete wanker a total and utter fuckwit! Dont you know america wouldnt exist if the french hadnt beat the english for you? PRICK!!!!!
There have been several allegations of bribes and using the oil-the-food program for personal gain. Many investigations are under way right now, and I am pretty sure a lot of people will be proven to have taken bribes and profitting illegally from the situation. I'm sure some will be French, but I'm also pretty sure some will be American, British, German, etc. etc. etc. It seems to me this story is being spun by interested parties to promote hatred against the French. Again you're disguising innuendo and opinions as clear-cut facts - they aren't.
its herzog nico hes just either a gestalt entity made up of stupid people or just a common or garden dickhead!
I think for one mobsie she have some karma knocked off for name calling!(not by me) and for another if this is true sure why not apologize? and i think Bush should also apologize for all of the people who have died in iraq.
should * not she hehe.
Documents recovered after the war showed the saddam had a system in place to bribe key officials in the french government to ensure that they vetoed any war resolution the UNSC came up with. Not innuendo, not allegations, facts.
And to this day there has been no outside investigation, and no french politican has been punished for this.
Mobs, again you have publicly embarrassed yourself. I suggest you make a hasty retreat to avoid further humiliation.
The Independent Inquiry Committee into the Iraq Oil-for-Food Programme (IIC) is ‎collecting and examining information relating to the administration and management of ‎the Oil-for-Food Programme, including allegations of fraud and corruption on the part of ‎United Nations officials, personnel and agents, as well as contractors, including entities ‎that have entered into contracts with the United Nations or with Iraq under the ‎Programme.
In January 2004, the Iraqi newspaper al-Mada published a list of individuals and companies around the world that supposedly received certificates from the government of Iraq that entitled them to buy a certain amount of oil from Iraq. The list included an apparent reference to Sevan, the former director of the Office of the Iraq Program. If Sevan did in fact accept these oil certificates, he would indeed be guilty of an egregious form of corruption.
It is rumored that the list was provided to al-Mada by Ahmed Chalabi, the former member of the Iraqi Governing Council now in disrepute for allegedly providing the US with false information about weapons of mass destruction in pre-war Iraq. Thus far, no documentation of the list's authenticity is in evidence; the Volcker commission is inquiring.
Herzog - Yes there is an investigation on charges of corruption in the Oil for Food program, including bribes to or by the French government. It is called the Volckner commission. I believe there are others within the UK and the US, but I don't have references for them, right now.
The recovered documents that you allude to apparently have Chalabi as their source. They haven't been authenticated, not even by Americans. So then they can't be factual quite yet.
So in response to you, just because you say something doesn't make it true or a fact. By the same token, just because I say it doesn't make it true or a fact either. I try and find sources that substantiate what I consider facts, and then I say what my opinion is.
But I don't call my opinion a fact. I just question what you call facts.
No doubt they'll be 'gathering information' for the next few decades. I'll be more impressed when they are A) actually punished, and B) formally apologize to the world for their actions.
So far no one in the french government has been punished for this, and no one in the UN has been punished for the oil for food scandal.
Big surprise.
Really hezzog and how do you figure that? I`m only saying what everyome thinks! You are a dickhead! and Kisty is just sulking with me so what she says in this is irrelecent!
herzog, irrelevent.
Your ballot , like you, is pointless! Why should the french apologise to america. Saddam may be your enemy but why is he frances enemy Herzog. simpl he isnt and the american government take kickbacks from everywhere so perhaps its they who should be apologising to the whole world! Have america ever apologised for anything?? damn nerve expecting an apology on your terms! no herzog you really are a moron its really quite obvious.
herzog: I am consistently stunned about your ability to forgive Bush and the US government even the most egregious sins and yet spend so much time and energy trying to dig up real or perceived transgressions from France or the UN.
There's a much richer trove of misdeeds closer to home ... why not save some energy and note all of the low-hanging fruit?
(It would help avoid making you look like you have blatant double standards ... !)
If the Bush administration were caught redhanded taking bribes I doubt you'd find me on here defending them.
Besides which, I like pointing these things out to the people who claim the US cannot have moral authority to act on anything without the UNs approval, and with it the french. How is a morally corrupt bureacracy supposed to bestow morality on anything?
One thing upon which I think we can all agree, Herzog: Saddam was so harrible that it was a big mistake for our government to install him in power in the first place.
Why must American boys die to protect the rest of this scummy world? Why is it when some shit happens Europe just wants our Money and Military? The French once again i will state that they only helped us with a raggity ass fleet in the Battle of Yorktown only to block off Cornwallis from escaping. Besides the French were not helping us they were just getting back at the British. After they did that they went straight from Yorktown to the British held West Indies to annoy them there. Most of Europe is corrupt anyway except for maybe Denmark. The Frogs and the Krauts are just upset we stopped their business with Saddam. The French definetly need to apoligize to us. I can
t believe after all we did for Europe that they could decades later be such ungratefull pricks. Just makes me happy that we left Europe. I like how you all just attack Herzog for telling the truth on this subject and just spit out personal attacks against him. Why should we let the world make decisions for America. But hey thanks to Michael Moore, All the Liberal news stations, Dan Rather, Old Europe and many others Bush won re-election in 2004. Unfortunetly for us Republicans we have to deal with your bitching for another four years.
All you did for europe RR? Which is what precisely???
The French don't bathe enough to be trusted so, their apology would be empty..teach 'em to bathe and then we can talk...
Neal: the US did *not* install saddam hussein as dictator of iraq. He managed that feat on his own.
We did help him out in his war with the iranians, but he was already firmly in power by that point, and it's unlikely anything would have taken him down.
Oddly herzog you were supplying arms to iran via israel too! A far more insidious crime than taking bribes dont you think! That and iraq not actually having WND`s! Lets face it your diatribes against other countries mean little in the face of your own countries crimes. You admitted you were friendly with saddam herzog is it then different for you because your american and so feel you have a divine right to be a complete and utter hypocrite?
"Unlikely that anything we could have done would have taken him down?!?"
Is that why we supported him for so many years?
herzog, your'r eliving revisionist history. Saddam was only a cruel eveil dictator after Kuwait. Before that, he was a staunch American ally, in a sea of Muslim radicalism.
Or did you not see the pic of Rumsfeld glad-handing him, years back?
Re: The hypothetical about Bush admin taking bribes.
True ... you have been tactfully silent about Halliburton and the War contract scandals ... I will give you that.
Still ... not defending is pitiful when what is needed is "taking to task and holding accountable."
Cath: the US was *not* instrumental in saddams rise to power, and his subsequent consolidation of all power in iraq. That is the revisionist history talking. We aided him against iran, that doesn't make him our 'staunchest ally'. We aided the soviets against the germans, did that make them our greatest ally of all time? No, we used him while he was useful, and ditched him when he wasn't, this is known as 'realpolitik'. And is the only rational way to do these things.
Cath: the whole 'halliburton bought president bush and made him invade iraq' mantra is unsubstantiated. That's like asking why don't I refute the 'fact' that bush is hitler.
In America, people are innocent until proven guilty. Except in Texas, where they prefer to execute the innocent. Of course, due process wouldn't matter to a conservative. They prefer secret military tribunals anyway.
Of course, realpolitik is dishonorable and ammoral. Or is that redundant when talking about neo-conservatives?
"Interesting note: George Bush Sr. originally supported Saddam's invasion of Kuwait because of slant drilling, Donald Rumsfeld was friendly with Hussein, Halliburton under Dick Cheney did more business with Saddam than any other company in the US (millions of dollars worth), Iraq didn't have WMDs, and had nothing to do with 9/11. "
And when Saddam DID have WMD, they weren't produced in Iraq, they were bought from the United States to be used on Iran.
herz: Again, you try to mince semantics. The US did help Saddam and did consider him an ally. He was not demonized as a brutal dictator who should be taken from power. He was "our son of a bitch."
"Staunchest ally?" Again, nice twisting of semantics by adding that suffix. Now, instead of arguing against an assertion I never made, let's get back to the ones I did make.
As for "This is known as realpolitik. And is the only rational way to do these things" ...
I have other names for it, Niccolo. And I suggest that it is not the only option available.
As for Halliburton ... are you going to tell me you believe that was all on the up-and-up? That there were no no-bid contracts or sweetheart deals?
herz, how can you continue to defend this bunch of crooks? Bush dodges the draft, you say it was never proven (enough). He snorted coke and was a drunk ... you say "That's in the past." He's proudly ignorant ... you say he is street-smart.
If some Democrat had half Bush's shortcomings, you'd ride him out on a rail.
Really, herz ... it makes you look bad. After a certain point, you demean yourself with further defense.
'herz: Again, you try to mince semantics. The US did help Saddam and did consider him an ally. He was not demonized as a brutal dictator who should be taken from power. He was "our son of a bitch."'
Right, at one point.
Let me ask you this, when we aided him was he a direct enemy of france? Had he just finished a massive war against them? No? He was the enemy of, well some people who certainly weren't our allies. So we didn't intentionally screw over our friends right there.
When france helped out saddam in the 90s and later was he an enemy of the US, supposedly the ally of france? Had he just finished a massive war against us, and was in fact still firing on american troops? Yes. Did they act to directly screw over an 'ally' of theirs? Yes they did. See the difference? It's alright to work against your enemies, it's not ok to work against your friends. Not if you want them to stay your friends for very long.
Cath: what is your 'other alternative' to realpolitik? The alternatives are: allow dictators to do whatever they please, including attacking our allies without reprisal, trust to the UN to take care of things (they never have before and show no signs of changing in the future), or bear the entire weight for preventing these things and fighting these wars ourselves. It would mean an increased military budget and more dead americans.
How is this worse than using other dictators to fight still worse dictators, killing no americans, costing a fraction of what a direct war would, and accomplishing our goals in the process?
So what is your alternative to any of these things
'herz, how can you continue to defend this bunch of crooks? Bush dodges the draft, you say it was never proven (enough)'
People don't dodge the draft by signing up for the military, that's not the way it works. You can argue that he dodged service in vietnam, fair enough, but so did kerry (the service he signed up for, at the time he signed up was not serving in vietnam). Now if you want a real draft dodger look at your buddy clinton, he left the country during the war and spent it in russia and england.
He snorted coke and was a drunk .
Robert Byrd was in the Klan and democrats manage to see past that, it was in the past. Kerry shot an unarmed civilian in the back, but you look past that because it was in the past. Personally I don't care what recreational drugs he chose to use as a kid, so long as he isn't on them now. I'll bet your youth isn't spotless either cath.
'If some Democrat had half Bush's shortcomings, you'd ride him out on a rail'
Not really, he hasn't done anything that wrong. It's not like he gave out information he knew at the time to be false, clinton. Or refused to come to any stance on any issue, kerry. Or made statments about how the negro race will destroy america at klan rallies, byrd.
I haven't heard you condemn any of these things.
Cath: in your opinion which is a worse sin: shooting an unarmed man in the back, or drinking 20 years ago? How about calling for the extermination of all blacks, or snorting coke 20 years ago? You condemn one and not the other, a little partisan bias there cath?
Re: France & Saddam ... I am not familiar with this, so I can't really comment. I will say that I try to look at my own behaviour, rather than focusing exlusively on the search for flaws in others.
We should be doing that now ... we have plenty to work on.
Alternatives?
1. Act on our principles, for a change, and not pay them lip-service while we act as underhanded as the people we call enemies.
2. Stop being paranoid and seeing enemies and threats under every stone.
3. Stop helping Businesses exploit other peoples.
4. Stop propping up dictators. If they go left, they'll go left ... it won't be the end of the world. If our system is better, that will become apparent, over time.
Those are some ideas that come to me, for starters.
Damn ... my first respinse to your "defenses" was lost ... too long. Just as well.
herzog, you are an amazing psychological study.
Rather than risking evaluating your man and finding flaws that you may have to acknowledge, your shifting scale of morality forces you to search for someone else that you can assert is "as bad or worse."
That doesn't make your man good. And it doesn't make him worth defending.
I am not a Democrat. If Byrd was involved in the Klan, I denounce those activities.
Now ... shall we get back to the actual topic: Bush?
I also have to say, herzog, that -- in general -- the Right has developed a reputation for vicious, damning lies about other people. At this point, most of the "accusations" they make I find less-than-credible. I would need corroboration before I addressed them.
It is too bad that a once-honorable group has debased itself to the point where they can no longer be trusted to tell basic truths.
'Alternatives?
1. Act on our principles, for a change, and not pay them lip-service while we act as underhanded as the people we call enemies.
2. Stop being paranoid and seeing enemies and threats under every stone.
3. Stop helping Businesses exploit other peoples.
4. Stop propping up dictators. If they go left, they'll go left ... it won't be the end of the world. If our system is better, that will become apparent, over time.
Those are some ideas that come to me, for starters. '
So do nothing, gotcha.
herz: First rule when you are in a hole: Stop digging.
Second: Lead by example. It's more powerful than you give it credit for, and has far more integrity.
In response to everyone's arguement about France and the oil-for-food program, read this and shut up:
"(CNN) -- Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors. "
If the Americans will not apologise for the way they feel about France, I don't see why France should apologise for the way they feel about them. So no, I don't think the US deserves an apology.
"this is known as 'realpolitik'. And is the only rational way to do these things."
by herzog
The reason why the US is even having tension with France and Germany is because they are ALSO following the 'realpolitik'. France and Germany see national interests as the most important- the interests of an ally across some ocean is less important. The whole balance of power concept... its all 'realpolitik' foreign policy. YOU herzog, should therefore RESPECT the foreign policies of France and Germany. You should CONGRATULATE them for being such 'realists' and for what you say is following the only rational approach to foreign policy.
France will not apologise for using the 'realpolitik' , when the US itself uses it!
Il semble le français n'apprendra jamais.
I myself am not a follower of the silly realpolitik.
In other words Eurotopia is telling us to go shove it.
While we're on the subject of french does anybody really like french dressing?Stuff sucks.
Oh yeah,this is a serious ballot ...
have americans thanked france for the help when america was fighting for independence.
no i dont think it has.
do americans think they could have won independence if britain was at peace with france and britain was allowed to send her best army and navy over to america.
|
|
