UN Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force by member states of the United Nations.

The US military has awarded seven new contracts for supplying oil from Iraq, to replace a controversial deal with Vice-President Dick Cheney's former firm.
Halliburton, once led by Mr. Cheney, is being probed for allegedly overcharging on oil brought in from Kuwait.
All seven new contracts rely on supplies from Turkey.
Six of the new deals, worth in total $200m, are with Turkish firms, with a seventh - the largest at $108.5m - going to a Texas-based operation.

And?........

ILOVEBOSE...

you are wrong. on EVERY account there.

Halliburton is NOT an oil company

They supply HARDWARE and SERVICES to the oil industry.

Fighting Well fires, supplying specialized heavy equipment, etc...

They have NOTHING to do with the import, export or sales of oil...only the equipment used to get it out of the ground...

One more thing that should be noted...Dick Cheney was NOT in ANYWAY associated with Haliburton when the original contract was awarded in 1992.

i would suggest you go HERE...and research. They VERY clearly explain their services as "gas and oil construction" [Link: halliburton.com]

I am truly independent on this whole issue, and have enjoyed BOTH sides of this argument until now, but, as with your misconceptions about what good sound and engineering is, you clearly have not opened your eyes and your head to listen to the intelligent arguments that Thon, QQQ, Tvisser, etc... have volleyed here!

rant off

good day

avdude

Daniel, please check your forum for crossed hyper-links.

I clicked on "Custom Installers Lounge".... but wound up in "Intermission". :)

Was I wrong on every count? You didn’t dismiss this;
"UN Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force by member states of the United Nations."
Also


“The US military has awarded seven new contracts for supplying oil from Iraq, to replace a controversial deal with Vice-President Dick Cheney's FORMER firm.
Halliburton, once led by Mr. Cheney, is being probed for allegedly overcharging on oil brought in from Kuwait.
All seven new contracts rely on supplies from Turkey.
Six of the new deals, worth in total $200m, are with Turkish firms, with a seventh - the largest at $108.5m - going to a Texas-based operation. “
The above quote is taken from here [Link: news.bbc.co.uk]

I researched your link as suggested and indeed your right Halliburton is a Hardware Services company.
Oh yes it has close links to the military as Dave Lesar the new CEO says on the site You linked “Halliburton has been working with the military since World War II and understands the process as well as anyone” for the outside world why keep using US companies and one that the vice president used to work for?
Can’t you see this implies it’s about money and Oil? Yes it would be pro discrimination but the rest of the world and the terrorists would have one less propaganda weapon to use on us.
But it’s not about the Oil as every one keeps telling me
The added security we all feel now we liberated Iraq is just fantastic isn’t it?! Not!
French and Germans haven’t got to worry about suicide bombers and terrorist attacks why is that?
What makes a person want to strap a bomb to themselves or kill themselves while killing many others? Oh that’s right there all just mad and religious nuts.
One post mentioned that all children are brought up in these countries to hate the US.
Are we all taught that they are a bunch of religious nutters out to kill us all for no reason?
If we have a bit more understanding can we solve this conflict? Look at the IRA in the UK a bit more understanding was introduced and there are still disputes but the bombings have stopped.

I very strongly do not agree in any way with suicide bombers or any terrorist action we must do what it takes legally and as peacefully as possible to solve the problem even going to war if necessary. More resolutions were needed; more arms inspections were needed UN1441 did not give any one country the right to go to war
9/11 was not Saddam.
Saddam was on Bin Laden’s hit list at one time!

I’m sorry but Oil was a factor in the conflict not the only factor but still a factor.
The war was illegal and I believe it will be proven to be illegal in some countries .
This isnt the place for this type of discussion i will leave it there

I really cant stand intolerance

isn't the inability to tolerate intolerance... intolerant?

so...you can't stand yourself?



This message was edited by avdude on 03/09/04 22:07.

I still am somewhat emotional because 3000 of my neighbors were murdered by some scumbag terrorists. If we have to tear up a few countries that made this attack possible through the support of their governments and populations what is the problem? Did the foreign countries in question not support terrorism by supplying land for training camps and tolerating the financial support of these scumbags? I think the UN reaction might have been different had a plane crashed into 45th St and 1 Ave. As far as our actions not reducing the terrorist threat, you might have noticed that Libya has had a change of heart. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia and Syria, countries who have long supported terrorists escaped justice inspite of the fact that almost all of the hijackers were Saudis and they were all financed through that country. My views may be extreme but they make more sense than depending on the United Nations for help. Or our Nato allies France, Germany and Canada for that matter. As you can see I've calmed down a bit over the last 2+ years but I at least haven't forgotten the murder of 3000 Americans.

This message was edited by Shoe on 03/10/04 00:57.

It didn't "not" authorize it. The UN voted for it and chickened out when push came to shove.



This is what most of you pinheads keep saying, that because "oil" is "implied" there must be something fishy (no actual evidence needed). Companies like Haliburton will make some money for doing a decidedly unenviable task. That's how business works, to say this war was orchestrated to bring this about is the sign of a truly deranged mind. I am intolerant of stupidity.

Are you suggesting that anyone else in this thread has? I sure haven't. I also haven't forgotten that the final death toll was 2749.

Points for acuracy, I counted 2751.

This message was edited by Thon on 03/09/04 23:02.

I am not accusing anyone of forgetting the death of close to 3000 Americans. I was saying that time and distance allow people to intellectualise a massive tragedy and conclude that we attacked Iraq, a country that rewarded terrorists and continually violated restrictions it agreed to abide by under penalty of military action, for some oil and money. I am admitting that I have strong emotional reaction because for me this tragedy was close and personal. In an area where people don't know people a mile a way everyone was close to either a victim or their family. I lost a friend. I see kids in the neighborhood who are fatherless and our lives are poorer today as a result of some intolerant assholes who needed to kill the "Great Satan". If anyone in this thread feels I've personally attacked them and they aren't condemning our nations actions, I apologize. If I strongly differ in my view of the matter than you do, tolerate it.
The 4000 was a typo but the 3000 number was only slightly overstated and approximate.

This message was edited by Shoe on 03/10/04 01:43.

Shoe, trying to decipher, is the US responsible for inciting terrorist actions? (I mean in your opinion) It may be true, but is that what you're saying?

The US is in no way responsible for inciting terrorist actions. Obviously our recent military actions have stopped Libya's nuclear program and caused Syria and Saudi Arabia to cut support and tolerance of terrorist organizations. The concept that those groups are more underground and therefore more dangerous is ill thought. They must expend more energy just to exist, train, recruit and finance themselves which allows less resources for operations.

the problem is that someone willing to die for a cause (no matter how insane) cannot be beaten with hatred. How many people in Iraq (or other middle eastern countries might be saying


that is what I am saying. Revenge might be sweet at the moment (and don't forget, there was no link between Iraq and the terrorists) but in the end there is nothing to gain.

I don't live in a court of law Anthony and I have no doubt that Hussein supported anti US terrorists. Revenge is fleeting but satisfying just the same. At this point it appears Iraq will have a government that will represent both the majority and minority groups in that country and to quote a convicted felonius liar, "That's a good thing." As far as people remaining willing to die for their cause 1)there are less of them now, 2)they are deprived of resources and less effective and 3)the host governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their activities because there are now consequences to be paid. Some day we will live in a peacefull world but that day is not at hand. Anthony, if fear of reprisal is your main concern you are right. Perhaps you can illustrate your contention that we can eliminate this threat through peaceful means? I can only think of 1 or two instances out of many where this may be true.