What's more disturbing is the position of some of the hawks within the Bush administration. There seems to be a major dispute between Blair and Bush that is being downplayed. Blair wants immediate UN involvement but some of the Bush hawks want a US administered military government that is essentially a puppet regime. Essentially what they will be giving the Iraqui people is another dictator; this time a pro US one. Obviously the lessons of the Shah of Iran have been lost.

Halliburton was Dick Cheney's former employer. A case of political patronage perhaps?

I saw the Haliburton thing, I agree.

what's your source for the Pearl Harbor memos?

On the subject of boycott's, wonder if there are any American companies refusing to SELL to the French / Germans / Russians? Or is their money welcomed with open arms?

Please don't take personal offense to my comments about your post. I make the assumption that you are a fine person and well intentioned.

However, may I respectfully suggest that this constitutes (as you say) a disturbing set of allegations. Potentially inflammatory at the least, injurious at the most within the context of a popular public forum. No doubt, this thread will get a lot of attention and spin into some sensational dialog.

We live in a society that treasures freedom of expression and speech. But with that comes responsibility, especially in an age where all of us weild powerful communications capabilities such as the Internet. So, please substantiate such information and site your sources in detail when posting such serious matters.

As you know, these are frightening times. Intellect, patience and a balanced perspective will moderate the fear and conjecture that pervades a war time period. Does this make sense?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Okay, both of these facts are in the public domain. I picked them up by watching the news.

Haliburton's contract was on the national television news last night.

The writings of Bush's administration's member's have been published as magazine articles...I'll see if I can find a link for you. This also made radio news yesterday.

As you say these are disturbing, and possibly inflammatory but apparently not secret. It is for this reason that I signed my whole name to the original post.

Thank you for your reply. I also saw the news story about Haliburton on CNN last night and knew that Vice President Cheney was a former Haliburton executive.

It would be interesting to know what other companies in addition to Haliburton (a company who's stock I also own in an Invesco mutual fund) have the capabilities to fight oil field fires in Iraq. I do not know this to be true, but allow me to hypothesize that one of the contributing factors in the decision to award the contract to Haliburton was their unique set of capabilities in extinguishing and managing oil field fires in the Middle East.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Haliburton was there in 91 and have been invovled with Govermental contracts since there inception. Chaney doesn't personnally benefit from this finacially. Governmental organizations have a definete tendency to use the same people all the time. If you have down work for them in the past, it is likely you will in the future. I know because I have done work for them in remodeling end before.

Just because Haliburton does there work does not make it some sort of consiparcy.

As far as letting the UN back in--why? They do not agree with us on anything--France and their allies already have said they would veto anything we would do.

What about Russia selling millitary equipment to Sadaam--why doesn't this ever get mention as some sort of consiparcy.

Doesn't make sense either that all of the war protestors are not peaceful, creating riots and looting(not all of them) but do you realize how much it is costing our government to have police and to rebuild what they have destroyed? ( I know the war costs to but it must be the same argument with the rallies as well) Two wrongs do not make right.

Halliburton happens to be the ONLY company with current capacity or even capability to handle this potentially large problem, due in most part to their experience from the previous conflict. Along the same lines, I venture that Brown and Roote will receive a lion's share contract in the rebuilding process. Several key government players have been involved in that company. Are you going to cry foul there too? Again, they are the ones in that area with the capacity and capability to handle their piece of the pie.

For the conspiracy minded out there, I challenge you to find any elected official outside of career politicians like the Kennedys who does not have ties to big business of some sort. Heck, I'd say the career pols are even more susceptible to shady ethics. Do you really think, though, that this always means there are underhanded things going on when those companies are contracted with the government? Do you have any idea how many companies large and small are contracted to the government? Are those contracts the result of shady dealings? That would be very intellectually dishonest as well as downright inflammatory to think so.

I agree with Tom D. Reasoned, patient evaluation will help cipher the truth about current events. To comment one way or another in the heat of the battle is an exercise in pissing into the wind.

Correct me if I am mistaken but wasn't Halliburton under investigation for corporate accounting practices including tax fraud, by the government. And this leaves aside the accusations surrounding Cheney's energy task force. I just think that many people involved have not "avoided even the appearance of impropriety". I don't think that there is a conspiracy, I do think politicians reward their big donors.

I think really the issue that bothers me is politicians of all stripes treating us as if we were stupid. And along those lines it bothers me that political debate has sunk to level of simple name calling and catch phrase usage, or maybe we are to blame for being too lazy to do anything about it.

Sorry for the rant,

Richard

Tom, you don't actually own any of the stocks contained in a mutual fund - you own a portion of the mutual fund. Sorry to be pendantic. However, with widespread mis-selling of these (arguably shitty) products I feel obliged to point this out to consumers. As a point of interest, Halliburton is has traded up around 2% since the outbreak of conflict - roughly in line with the broader market.

---

"Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors a man's form or likeness so true as his speech." - Ben Jonson, Timber, or Discoveries made upon Men and Matter.

"...What about Russia selling military equipment to Saddam--why doesn't this ever get mention as some sort of conspiracy..."
I don't mean to say anything which might offend, but you do realize that the vast majority of military equipment in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) was "sold" to them in turns by every country that has them, right? Including the US and most of the European nations of the late twentieth century? That Russia was recently trying to keep its infant market economy afloat by selling them weapons is hardly anything worth speculating about and what speculation there is is largely left-over Cold War angst.
The US has changed loyalties in the Middle East three or four times since World War II. We're in a bit of a vicious cycle here because the last person we helped always ends up wielding more power in the region than they otherwise would have and in a way that is perhaps detrimental to any nation involved in the region. I detest the current Iraqi regime for the misuse and abuse of its citizenry, but we are the ones who effectively put the Ba'ath party in power there in the first place. Oops.
You've got to find the middle ground between helping too much and not helping enough because either extreme is a recipe for total disaster. The right kind of help is hard to define, too (although I think we've finely figured out that simply handing weapons to one nation or another is insane...I hope). Hind-site is 20/20 and no one ever said politicians and warhawks and treehuggers were smart enough to learn the lessons we all should've learned in history class.

I get what you are saying about selling military weapons and what not to them. I don't think the US did it without the UN approval--maybe they did? not sure. But Iraq has a no weapons or supplies, no trade with them from the UN and it seems that France, Germany, and Russia has broken that. Right?

Open Letter Dated 5 years ago?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...openletter021998.htm

No conspriracy, these fella's have wanted to do this for years, Bob Woodward wrote of Rumsfeld wanting to do this prior to 9/11.

I wouldn't expect any less from CNN or the New York Times to bring up such BS. Actually I am sure it will get great press coverage in most European Papers. Yep we are invading Iraq so that Haliburton can make a ton of money capping oil well fires. Hmmm I wonder who started those fires. Maybe the CNN should do a report on why the UN will not enforce its own resolutions.

Oh and I am sure Senior Chirac officials have been waiting for something big to galvanize the world to make them appear as a super power.

"As far as letting the UN back in--why"

I have to agree with Colin Powell over the Cheney/Rumsfield gang on this issue. The mideast is a potential tinderbox. The Arab nations already perceive the US as being pro Israel and anti them, even before this attack began. This is an area with a culture and religion totally different from the west. It' very naive to believe the common people will perceive the US forces as liberators rather than occupiers especially after a 12 yr US led embargo that has caused the deaths of so many of their children. They may be happy to see Sadam go but they will want the US troops off their soil ASAP. If the US tries to stay there too long or set up another Shah of Iran type puppet dictator this could turn into a situation that would make Viet Nam look like a picnic.

Powell is right when he says this must be a UN issue. The states can't go it alone once the war is over.

wow internet information and documents. that's great proof!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

". . .That Russia was recently trying to keep its infant market economy afloat by selling them weapons is hardly anything worth speculating about. . ."

Using that same line of thought would you say the same thing if North Korea sold certain weapons to Iraq in order to keep the North Korean economy afloat?

The UN resolutions regarding arms sales to Iraq are over 10 years old. I would not excuse any country that violated that agreement.

-MK

I agree that at least the US performed its arms sales prior to the existance of the UN resolution. But that just goes to show what kind of power the UN has over resolutions after they're only a few years old. If you try to enforce them at a later date after a lapse, everyone comes back with the response, "Yeah, but that's five years old! It can't mean anything now!" [shrug] While the UN is very good at dishing out aid in humanitarian effort, it really doesn't have the capacity to truly enforce international law, including most of its own mandates. Besides, Iraq is "allowed" to have arms, just not ones those of the "really big" variety.
As to the sale of nuclear arms to Iraq, that takes the question to a new level. No, I would not agree to North Korea doing that. Does that make me a hypocrite? Not in my opinion. Conventional war is far less costly on all facets in the long run.

I see this type of statement frequently, "the UN will not enforce its own resolutions". First of all the US is part of the UN. Secondly, the list of countries not following UN resolutions includes Israel, North Korea, China, and, the last time I followed this stuff, the USA. If we do not even hold ourselves answerable to the UN how can we demand compliance from other nations.

Richard