Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (42247)	9/5/2002 10:47:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Even as politically-motivated charges go, the charges against Cheney are such a steaming pile of crap, they can only be sold to someone who knows nothing about business Cheney sold his stock in a forced sale when he reentered government...and then it went down! (before going back up), it's a crime! Haliburton bought another company when Cheney was CEO and it turned out to have unexpected liabilities...it's a crime! Haliburton bought a "stake" in a foreign oil services company that did business with Iraq, and they didn't dump their existing contracts on the instant...it's a crime! Haliburton's bookeeping, as far as I can see, did nothing that wasn't standard in the industry, but what the hey...it's a crime! Haliburton used its government connections to lobby the Congress. If that's a crime, you're going to be arresting a whole lotta people.

To: Rascal who wrote (42247)	9/6/2002 12:13:42 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And don't , as Vice President,recharacterize Iraq (Saddam) as an lying evil-dooer who must be removed when the truth is Saddam was an excellent customer who made Cheney rich a scant 3 years ago. Oh cut it out... $73 Million over the course of several years, as compared to their annual $6.3 Billion revenue was hardly sufficient revenue to "make Cheney rich". The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program. And furthermore, awarding those contracts to American companies maintained US influence in the UN "oil for food" program. It certainly had NOTHING to do with how Saddam siphoned off funds to build his palaces and and pay off his military at the expense of his own people. Saddam is a evil person. I can find nothing redeeming about the guy and the only way he can be dealt with is by keeping him under our thumb and unable to threaten anyone, let alone the US. If you understand Saddam's mentality, he HAS TO obtain revenge in order to maintain his "prestige" as the "baddest Iraqi out there".. And there is substantial evidence that he was behind the WTC bombing in '93, which suggests that Bin Laden had more than tacit support for the 9/11 attack. Just because he is clever enough to undertake such attacks through "false flag" operations with non-state actors that seek to maintain "deniability" is not sufficient reason for us to utterly ignore the threat that he poses. Hawk