posted April 10, 2003 05:08 PM              

Oh yeah, something else that struck me... why is it now that some of the initial anti's are now swaying the other direction???

posted April 10, 2003 05:39 PM              

My intuition has never let me down, yet.

Furthermore, do you honestly believe that Intelligence is going to make us privy to all they know until every last dot is connected? I think not.

posted April 10, 2003 06:17 PM            

Fact 1: Haliburton is no longer in the running for contracts to refurbish the Iraqi oil fields as the article I posted a link to states. Did you not read it? Your information is out of date.

Fact 2: Shell Oil Co is factually Royal Dutch Shell, not an American oil company but from the Netherlands. BP, British Petroleum, isn't American owned either.

Fact 3: Any Exxon/Mobil tankers lined up for Iraqi oil will be purchasing that oil at market prices. The President has repeatedly said the oil belongs to the Iraqi people.

Fact 4: Vice President Cheney owns no stock in Haliburton.

Jakie, this is clearly false. Vice President Cheney owns NO shares of Haliburton stock. He divested himself of all that stock. For a US official to own or control stock in a company that has dealings with the Federal Government is a conflict of interest.

"Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed."

Are you now going to counter factual information with speculation and opinion like this?

"President Saddam Hussein is sitting on reserves of at least 115bn barrels, the second-biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia. Popular opinion has it that hordes of empty Exxon tankers would soon form a second line behind any US troops if the call comes to ride into Baghdad. But while the bounty would have the likes of BP and Shell licking their lips, what may happen to Iraqi oil under a new order is not clear."

You can't have it both ways Jakie. If you were in favor of leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, you were pro Saddam because effectively, it's the same thing with the same result, more tortured, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens. If you protested the war, you were pro Saddam.

jwhop

posted April 10, 2003 09:24 PM            

If you can't remember what Cheney is receiving the money you allege he's still getting from Haliburton and you can't remember how much money he's getting, perhaps you CAN remember where you found that little tidbit of information.

posted April 10, 2003 09:35 PM            

The problem with refuting information furnished by the leftist crowd is that they don't really believe what they say anyway. Anything that blemishes the opposition is fair game. If they see it, they think they can use it, no matter how unreliable the source. Notice how they flit from subject to subject? Puncture one of their allegations and they come up with another reason to hate America.

I think people who were initially taken in by all the rhetoric of the so called anti war crowd are beginning to find out most of what they said was untrue. Events caught up with them. Additionally, the core of the war protester cadre was exposed to be the communists, terrorists and drug dealing communists from South America. Who the hell wants to lend their voice to groups bent on the destruction of our economic and governmental system---except the terrorists and communists, of course.

jwhop

posted April 10, 2003 10:58 PM            

So here's what I found about Cheney still being on Haliburton's payroll -

quote:

---

Cheney retired from Halliburton in August 2000. He received $4.3 million in deferred compensation that year, plus $806,332 in salary. He subsequently sold more than $40 million in stock options.

Even though he's no longer in Halliburton's executive suite, Cheney reported on his 2001 tax return that he received nearly $1.6 million in deferred compensation from the company last year.

Cheney is still receiving deferred compensation from Halliburton, but neither the company nor the White House would specify how large his payment will be this year or how long the payments will continue.

---

Seems like a pretty big conflict of interest if you ask me, even if he weren't still on their payroll.

posted April 11, 2003 12:13 AM            

No conflict of interest exists. Unless you think Cheney isn't entitled to the money he had ALREADY earned prior to leaving Haliburton.

As for the suggestion Cheney did something wrong by running Haliburton and bidding on government contracts through Haliburton or any of it's subsidiaries just because he was a FORMER government official, hogwash! If that standard were applied, almost every Cabinet level official, plus most members of Congress would be in jail, since most of them wind up as lobbyists for various companies or industries.

Further, those government contracts you're complaining about were let to Haliburton subsidiaries before Cheney became Vice President and will run for 10 years.

Face it Harpyr, when you post factually inaccurate information, you're getting the level of respect you deserve.

posted April 11, 2003 12:23 AM            

Most Americans, if they had access to what you've said on this site, wouldn't really give a damn what you think. They would think you incapable of rational thought.

But not me "evil", I'm much too nice a guy to think something like that about you.

posted April 11, 2003 03:40 AM            

quote:

---

Face it Harpyr, when you post factually inaccurate information, you're getting the level of respect you deserve.

jwhop

---

Jwhop, you are free to point out what you call "inaccurate information" all you want; however, please refrain from personal jabs, because that places me in the unenviable position of having to follow through on my promise to oust the next person who does so. One could infer that your statement above not-so-subtly implies that Harpyr is not deserving of respect. In giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would ask that choose your words more carefully in the future. Thanks!

posted April 11, 2003 05:30 AM            

Totally aside from anything having to do with this thread or forum, I've had a *really* hard day. I was wondering why I even bothered coming in here, with all the disrespect spewed forth at times..(some strange masochist fascination? Idunno) I've been letting it get to me more than I should, but then I saw your comment and it brought a warm feeling to my heart.

It's hard standing firm in one's convictions even when they run so directly counter to the the majority.
I take comfort in knowing that just because the majority feels one way, it doesn't mean it's necessarily right. I mean, look at Socrates, his ideas weren't popular in his time, so much that the majority ordered him executed, but look at how history remembers him. I'm not trying to say that I'm as brilliant as Socrates but just using that example of how wrong the majority can be sometimes.

posted April 11, 2003 10:44 AM              

Please know you are not alone in your opinions. It IS hard to be in the minority but if that's where your convictions put you then so be it.

I think it's safe to say NONE of us know what's really going on. We just have our gut reaction and media that will "play" to both points of view depending on which one you read/watch/listen to.

posted April 11, 2003 11:18 AM            

It was reported on the news today that a war protester being interviewed in San Francisco said "The real oppression of the Iraqi people has just begun."

Does that pretty well sum up your opinion on the matter as well?
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/11/100450
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/220438.shtml

posted April 11, 2003 12:28 PM              

I think it's just plain stupid... oops, I mean silly, that people are bickering over whether or not the VP is related with Halbutron or whatever it is...

Does that really have anything to do with what's happening or what's gonna happen... I would venture to guess no.

I would be critical of an argument that marks this as an important point, simply because it is negative, does nothing but criticize & point blame, and most importantly it is in the past... it's done.
And I would be critical of anyone who feels they need to rebutt that Halburton statement, who cares, it's really off topic & does not deserve our attention.
We just need to focus on the present & that nothing shady involving the VP & Halburton happens from here on out.

And to be honest...

posted April 11, 2003 02:39 PM              

Harp, it is not easy to be the underdog. Don't let yourself be led and/or corraled bythe mainsteam that gets it's news from FOX or shall I say FAUX! Getting led to a slaughter isn't hard!

posted April 11, 2003 03:19 PM            

Nobody (ie - the media & gov't, so by extention, the public at large) gave the protesters any attention back then and now everybody is criticizing them for not protesting his atrocities now.
Well, WAR is an atrocity and I for one do not think that two wrongs make a right, to put it in perhaps an overly simplistic wording.

I believe we could have forced human rights inspectors into the country. Lifted some of the sanctions so that the people could get things like medicines to alleviate their suffering and why the heck couldn't we get some kind of covert operation in there to just off the guy? Heaven knows we've done that sort of thing before when it served our purposes.

The reason we couldn't have solved this with a single bullet is because this administration and the people most firmly behind this administration, like CEOs of Haliburton, GE and other military industrial complex components who profit so much off war, NEEDED this conflict.

I'm sorry, but I think it is important to discuss how closely tied to the military industrial complex Cheney and others are because that is the only way we can get the BIG picture (to use one of your favorite terms, LL ) as to what sorts of things could be motivating our leaders. It's not like it's ancient history; in Cheney's case, he is still receiving deferred compensation from a corporation that is about to be awarded, if it hasn't already, a billion dollar contract to clean up the mess war (and a decade of sanctions) has left behind.

Does anyone really think the pressure from these companies on their former henchmen to sway in favor of war over alternatives would not be considerable? I use the term henchmen because I find it very suspicious that Cheney is fervently refusing to release alot records of his time as CEO of Haliburton to an investigative probe. In light of the Enron debacle I think it is important to ferret out all these conniving, thieving CEOs and other bigwigs, of which I believe there are many, many more than yet revealed to us- the public. Even if you admit that the pressure from the corporations would be considerable, (especially in light of the hundreds of thousands of dollars many of them contributed to campaigns, like Enron, amongst others..I know..they contributed to Gore's campaign as well but democrats are just republicans in sheep's clothing ) if you think that our elected officials would not be swayed by the allure of making buttloads of money then you must think them saints. They are only human afterall and I think if the most morally upstanding of persons would struggle not to sway under such pressure.

posted April 11, 2003 03:28 PM              

The reason i'm so irritated about this whole thing is just the farcical value of it all...congrats, you toppled another tin-pot dictatorship, pat yourselves on the back. Going after China next? oh...please tell me you wont just give up...you've all done so much for the world already...sickening.

And just let me explain my nickname here. a weevil is a small beetle-like insect. It kindof speaks volumes about ones literary aesthetics just to pick out the "evil" bit - call it a litmus test, if you will.

posted April 11, 2003 03:28 PM            

What I said is totally different that what NW said. I tore apart your allegations by stating fact. I pointed out your extreme hatred and bitterness at conservatives and the Bush administration.

Not once did I call you a degrading or demeaning name. Not once did I launch an attack on any of the past administrations or personally attack anyone that has ties to any political party, other than pointing out where the line was crossed between fact and fiction. What I did was constructively and honestly point out where your argument was totally flawed.

Not once did I resort to any level of personal attack. It was your argument and bitterness that I tore apart. What I find to be absolutely disgusting is that the level of narrow-mindedness exuded by some people is so prevalent that if you do not submit to their ways of believing then that is perceived as a personal attack.

I do not condone an unilateral hatred of someone or a group because they do not believe what I believe. I try to keep an open mind and search the truth out on my own, gather the facts and then post / respond, rather than discredit myself or my political point by posting half-truths.

Unlike NW I do not call for the hatred of any party, any person or any country ( I do call for the hatred of terrorists like Saddam and Osama).

People like Donna, Alena, Jwhop, Lost Leo, 1Scorp and others have stated their points factually and without resorting to name-calling (for the most part, there are times when people do cross the line but I have always seen them apologize unlike others from the far left). That is a truth not a mistatement.

Think about this Harpy. You're hatred towards the Bush family borders on pathologic, almost like the way a KKK person feels about an African American. If one substituted the word Bush for Black your posts would be exposed for the hate filled diatribes that they really are.