SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (19205)2/11/2003 5:00:40 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 23908
 
Iraq Cancels LUKoil Contract Again
Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Baghdad on Monday again pulled the plug on LUKoil's $3.7 billion project to develop the massive West Qurna oil field, saying this time it is final, but also held out hope of signing a trade agreement with Moscow worth up to $40 billion over the next 10 years.

"The LUKoil contract is finished, and the contract has been scrapped, and there is no room for discussing it again," acting Iraqi Oil Minister Samir Abdulaziz al-Najem told reporters in Baghdad. "The company has failed to fulfill its commitments."

LUKoil had held the contract initially until mid-December last year, when Baghdad reneged, saying the No. 1 Russian oil major had broken the terms of the deal by not beginning development work.

Monday's announcement seemed not to effect LUKoil's determination to pursue the West Qurna oil field, which holds 7.8 billion barrels (1.11 billion tons).

"Our contract is still valid," LUKoil president Vagit Alekperov said Monday, Interfax reported.

Dmitry Dolgov, a LUKoil spokesman, said Iraq has not formally informed the company of any changes. "And if there are any, it would be a subject for the arbitration court in Geneva to decide on," he said.

Iraq's decision in December to break off the West Qurna project with LUKoil coincided with Russia voicing a tougher stand regarding Baghdad's disarmament.

It was unclear whether Monday's announcement was related to President Vladimir Putin's visit to Germany and France, where he was expected to discuss United Nations arms inspections and the escalating conflict between the United States and Iraq.

The government did not comment officially on the West Qurna decision. But a government source, who declined to be identified, said Russia was unlikely to give up on the oil field.

"Russia still sees the project with LUKoil's participation as a priority," the source said, Interfax reported. "Breaking it would have a very negative effect on trade and economic ties between Russia and Iraq."

The source also said LUKoil's work on the project has been slowed down by the UN sanctions against Iraq and that replacing the oil major with another company would be unfair.

However, al-Najem said that giving the West Qurna deal to another company is possible. "Concerning other companies, the door is still open," he said.

Iraq has signed a number of contracts with Russian oil companies.

In January, Baghdad awarded a contract to state-owned Stroitransgaz to develop a field in western Iraq.

Iraq also signed a deal with state-owned Soyuzneftegaz to extract 200,000 barrels per day from the Rafidain field in the south of the country and with Tatneft to develop a field in the west.

Iraq has begun negotiations with Zarubezhneft, a state-owned holding company for foreign projects, on the giant Bin Umar oil field. Al-Najem said the field is estimated to hold 450,000 bpd of recoverable crude.

He also said Iraq had reached the final stage with another Russian company on developing the al-Kharraf oil field in southern Iraq, which has reserves of 100,000 bpd.

Russia and Iraq are discussing a total of 67 projects, 17 of them in the oil sector, al-Najem said.

Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammad Mehdi Saleh said Monday that Baghdad hopes to sign a 10-year, $40 billion deal with Russia on cooperation in the oil sector, Prime-Tass reported.

Al-Najem said Iraq bought from Russia a total of $1.2 billion worth of oil equipment under the UN oil-for-food deal.

"There are still large prospects for Russian firms to invest in our gas fields and sell oil equipment under the oil deal," he said.

themoscowtimes.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (19205)2/12/2003 3:15:21 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Respond to of 23908
 
Re: If he cares about his people back home, he'd better toe Saddam's line.

Ditto: If George W. Bush cares about his people back home, he'd better toe Sharon's line or else.... 911/anthrax Part II.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (19205)2/12/2003 9:41:01 AM
From: lorne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
The danger of relying on the U.N.
February 11, 2003

Recent polls show that all-too-many Americans believe that the United States should not go after Saddam Hussein militarily unless the United Nations goes along. It's alarming to think that so many Americans are actually willing to subrogate our nation's ability to act in its own interests on matters of national security to the United Nations! Are we going nuts?

Speaking plainly (easy for me): This is idiotic. In order to maintain any faith at all in the American people, I have to force myself to believe that the "not unless the United Nations says so" crowd is merely reacting mindlessly to the words they hear from leftist politicians, Hollywood foreign-affairs "experts" like George Clooney, and liberal pundits.

It's easy to understand when that bloated icon of the left, Ted Kennedy, mumbles, "Whatever we're going to do ought to be done within the United Nations." This is a man who has fought hard to weaken the strength and sovereignty of the United States at every turn. But what's your excuse?

It's time for some strong talk about the United Nations – time for you to learn some things you probably didn't know.

The United Nations was designed to be, has operated as, and stands today as a fundamentally anti-American institution. Since its inception, the taxpayers of the United States have been paying the lion's share of U.N. operating costs while Third World nations have used it as a sounding board for their Yankee-go-home rhetoric.

Here's a few "betcha didn't know that" facts to chew on.

When the United Nations was formed, every single member nation got one, and only one vote in the United Nations General Assembly. Every single member nation that is, except one. That one nation was the Soviet Union. The USSR got three votes.

No single member nation is allowed to have more than one citizen sitting as a justice on the United Nations World Court at any one time – except, that is, the Soviet Union. Until the USSR dissolved, they were allowed to have three citizens sitting on the World Court.

Are you getting the picture here? From its very inception, the United Nations was designed to give the Soviet Union a greater voice in the General Assembly, and stronger representation on the World Court than the United States.

In late 1999, Bill Clinton held a little ceremony at the White House. The purpose of this gathering was to honor the greatest document in support of freedom in the history of civilization. So … which document do you think that Clinton chose to honor? The Declaration of Independence? Nope. How about the Constitution of the United States? Wrong again. OK, then, it must have been the Magna Carta. Sorry, you're out of guesses.

Clinton's affections were bestowed upon the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a document completely unknown in any detail to all but a handful of Americans.

So, just what do we get from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Well, for starters we get the "right to live, liberty and security of person." So far, so good. We also get the "right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."

We are generously given "the right to own property" and "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." There's also the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" and "the right to peaceful assembly and association."

It all sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Pretty good until you reach Article 29 (3), which reads: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

So, there you have it. Your right to live, your right to liberty, your right to own property and to think as you please, your right to express your opinions and to gather peacefully with others are all gone … eliminated … if your exercise of those rights places you at odds with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

We can rewrite the entire human-rights declaration in one sentence. "You folks are pretty much free to do what you want to do unless it interferes with what the government is trying to do." And this is the document that Bill Clinton hailed as the greatest document in the history of free men.

If you're still enamored of the United Nations – if you still think that our president simply must get the stamp of approval from the U.N. before he can act in what he believes to be the best interests of the United States – then consider this: Several years ago, the United Nations removed the United States from the Human Rights Commission and replaced us with … Syria.

In a few months, the United Nations is going to crank up a conference on disarmament. There will be two countries chairing this conference. One country will be Iran. The other country co-chairing the disarmament conference? Iraq.

So, tell me. Do you still want to submit our national interests to the veto of the United Nations?
worldnetdaily.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (19205)2/13/2003 8:57:33 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 23908
 
Will the real Muslims stand up?
February 13, 2003

Despite the massive efforts of the United States to remove Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization, they are still very much with us. I don't mean to suggest that U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere are faulty, but rather to emphasize how complex and difficult it is to combat this new kind of enemy.

In World War II, we saw how difficult it was to confront the fanatically motivated Third Reich of Nazi Germany. Their leaders and a good part of the populace were uniquely motivated by their Aryan doctrine of the "Master Race" and their destiny to rule the world. Few realize how occultic the inner workings of this regime were. This belief contributed greatly to their successes. It was largely because of it, they nearly defeated the combined forces of the whole world.

The Japanese religion, or emperor and ancestor worship, and their faith in the mystical power of the Samurai warrior also made them a formidable enemy. It inspired the Japanese soldiers to fight to the last man on many battlefields, rather than to disgrace their ancestors. It also inspired the suicidal kamikaze pilots that wreaked such havoc on our naval forces.

But we face a greater threat from Islam than all of these past enemies put together. Now I am aware of the fact that most Muslims are not seeking to conquer the world and either subject or kill the infidel. Thank God, and I do mean Jehovah, the God of the Bible.

But we do have to confront the fact that inherent within the most foundational doctrines of Islam are elements that have produced violent Muslim movements in every generation since Muhammad. We have to reckon with the historical fact that Muhammad both taught and practiced violence, which he saw as part of the religion he founded.

We must learn from the early history of Islam. With the death of Muhammad in A.D. 632, there arose the "Khaliph Rasul Allahs," which means "the Successor of the Messenger of Allah." The first four Khaliphs are called "the Divinely Guided Ones." Omar ibn al-Khattab, the second Khaliph reigned from A.D. 634 to A.D. 644. He drew his sword and, with his Bedouin army, exploded out of the Arabian Peninsula.

George Grant, in his book "The Blood Of The Moon," chronicled Omar's amazing conquests: "Before his death in A.D. 644, Omar had spread the dominion of Islam from the Euphrates across the North African Littoral. He had conquered all of Iraq, brought Persia to the brink of collapse, controlled the southern Mediterranean coastline, and put Christendom on the defensive at every turn. In addition, he left his successors a tumultuous momentum that gave them expansive new conquests in Spain, Sicily, Crete and Italy." He also captured Jerusalem and all the Holy Land in A.D. 635.

This "Divinely Guided One" did not convert people to Islam by evangelistic preaching, but by giving them a choice of convert or die. Within 100 years after the death of Muhammad, the "Divinely Guided Ones" took Islam to the borders of China in the east; to the coast of the Atlantic in the west; and to the gates of Vienna in Europe. This was all done by violent conquest, not by preaching a message of peace.

They left behind a trail of hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Christian and Jewish "infidels." One Christian church after another was desecrated and turned into a mosque – including the greatest church edifice of early Christendom, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (Constantinople). On the ceilings were hung Arabic plaques that quote from the Koran, "All praise be to Allah who never had a son."

The Muslim today who proclaims that Islam is a religion of peace has to turn a blind eye to many specific verses in the Koran that order the faithful to kill the infidel. They have to ignore the example of Muhammad and the most venerated Khaliphs that followed him.

This is why those we call "Islamic fundamentalists," "radical Islamists," "Muslim militants" or whatever, are growing in number in every part of the world. They come with the zeal and fiery conviction of those who can point to all that is considered holy in Islam as the justification for their faith and action.

As an unbiased observer who has thoroughly studied all of these things, I have to say that the Islamic fundamentalist is the true Muslim. Osama bin Laden quotes the Koran and refers to the example of Muhammad with skill and precision.

The fundamentalist can silence the Muslim dissenter very quickly and leave him with real guilt. The ones we call "moderate" Muslims are apostates. This is how bin Laden referred to them in his most recent audio tape: "I also assure those true Muslims should act, incite and mobilize the nation in such great events, hot conditions, in order to break free from the slavery of these tyrannical and apostate regimes, which is enslaved by America, in order to establish the rule of Allah on Earth. Among regions ready for liberation are Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, the country of the two shrines [Saudi Arabia], Yemen and Pakistan."

You may think that these are the words of a fanatic to whom no one is listening. But the evidence is that the average Muslim around the world is converting to his example of faith in great numbers. At least 10 percent of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are fundamentalists. That means that al-Qaida has at least 130 million of the faithful to draw soldiers and support from.

If you think they're not successful, just look at the cities of the world that are on "High Alert" for major terrorist attacks at this moment: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia, Houston, London, Manchester, Paris, Berlin, Frankfurt, Rome, Milan, Singapore, Sydney, Manila, Amman, Kuwait City, Qatar – to name a few.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim – at least those of major world concern today. This forces upon the "moderate" Muslims a unique situation. We are not going to find Muslim terrorists outside of the Muslim communities. It is critical therefore that we utilize our limited resources to the fullest on the Muslim communities.

We should, of course, be careful not to treat anyone as guilty until there is evidence of guilt. But Muslims in this country need to stop crying about their rights and start willingly cooperating with all efforts to find the terrorists cells among their numbers. They should realize it is for their protection as much as it is for the rest of Americans. There is no other way to find those Muslims who are dangerous. Either Muslims are Americans first, or they should find another country.
worldnetdaily.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (19205)2/19/2003 12:44:17 PM
From: Thomas M.  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 23908
 
That has been true ever since the Baath Party rode into office "on the CIA train".

Tom