Saddam Arrested

[Natoma]

If you punish your child for being disobedient today, and afterwards you find out that your child had actually not done anything wrong, wouldn't you owe your child an apology? Or would you say that the beating was justified because of a transgression from last month which went unpunished

Well I dunno . If what he did last month was kill thousands of people and make a mass grave in his room then yea. I would

Ahem,

If you punish your child for being disobedient today, and afterwards you find out that your child had actually not done anything wrong, wouldn't you owe your child an apology? Or would you say that the beating was justified because of a transgression from last month which went unpunished?

Should we apologize to Saddam? Hell no. He deserved what he's getting. Should we apologize to the UN and the countries we insulted in the process if we find no WMD? Definitely.

We beat the world over the head with the imminent threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. We beat the world over the head with the imminent threat of terrorist ties even though our intelligence said that was shaky in the best case scenario.

If it turns out that both were not true, as it has thus far, then we do owe the UN and the countries we insulted in the process an apology imo. Getting rid of Saddam and bringing Democracy to the middle east was never the primary goal, nor was it what this whole process started off with. WMD and terrorist ties were, though primarily WMD.

 

[Silent_One]

Silent_One wrote:

I do have a point, and you just proved it.

You do, and I did how exactly?

Keep going Grall, your doing great

 

[jvd]

Oh sorry natoma I was distracted by michelle branch on the cover of maxim and I blocked out most of your post

 

[Natoma]

So that's what you meant by your aim to me.

 

[pax]

Absolutely... Every major power had its proteges. And level of brutality wasnt a consideration for application.

Of course, hense the complete political invalidation of the agency outside of commerce concerns.

However you blame the UN and not the member states. Especially the major founding nations. Thats the single biggest blunder I keep seeing repeated by those who criticize the UN. Instead of puttnig the onus on the founding nations to create a more democratic institution that has no elite members like the security council you simply blame the 'UN' for major policy issues that are actually the result of failed policies of those major member states.

The UN needs reforming there is no doubt but the US first and foremost would never allow an institution with any teeth or authority to do anything of consequence to bring about law and order and social justice. Because precisely it gets in the way of big business. So many are content with simply leaving the UN as the wipping boy of the ignorant...

 

[Natoma]

Here's an article regarding the Iraqis a day after Saddam has been caught.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3708757/

We're already facing the consequences of Halliburton overcharging. It's also one reason why I said if the Iraqis can get their own oil, and their own equipment for far cheaper prices, they should be allowed to do so. They aren't stupid.

As hundreds of drivers lined up to get gasoline, many repeated complaints about chronic fuel shortages in a country with the world's second-largest oil reserves, as well as of their treatment at the hands of troops who have killed civilians while hunting suspected Saddam partisans or pursuing criminals with Iraqi police.

"It's great that he's caught, but it wasn't him who screwed up the petrol and the electricity and everything else so badly, so now a canister of gas that was 250 dinars costs 4,000, if you can get one," said Ghazi, a 52-year-old dentist. "This is an oil country and it should be rich. It should not be Afghanistan."

So as I said earlier, there's still much work to be done.

 

[RussSchultz]

Never mind that the costs are skyrocketing not because of Haliburton "overcharging" (It appears they actually got "overcharged" by Kuwaiti drivers who had to break contracts to take on the Haliburton ones), but because of the morons who attack the oil pipelines, looted the refineries, and continue to "resist the occupation".

 

[Natoma]

When the Iraqis can get oil for 70-90 cents, and the army can import oil for $1.25, then yes, Haliburton charging $2.60 for oil is overcharging. No quotes required.

 

[RussSchultz]

Get. facts. straight.

Haliburton/KBR is importing gasoline, not oil.

Beyond that, sure--gasoline can be imported at $.90, but at the same terms dictated to Haliburton/KBR (in terms of amount, scheduling, and length of contracts)? I don't know, and neither do you.

But regardless, Haliburton overcharging importing gasoline has zero to do with liquid propane, which is why I question you linking the two together.

 

[Natoma]

Oil, Gasoline, Whatever. The point is the price overcharge. And Ahem. The man said petrol. What is petrol? Another name for Gasoline. What the hell are you talking about wrt liquid propane? Who's talking about liquid propane?

And frankly I don't care about the terms dictated in the contract. I care about the end price not only to us but to the Iraqis.

 

[Legion]

However you blame the UN and not the member states. Especially the major founding nations.

If i were to blame them, the majority, and the dictatorial states i'd be playing practically every nation in the UN constituting the UN itself.

Thats the single biggest blunder I keep seeing repeated by those who criticize the UN.

If that is the biggest blunder you can see you have little argument against their positions.

Instead of puttnig the onus on the founding nations to create a more democratic institution that has no elite members like the security council you simply blame the 'UN' for major policy issues that are actually the result of failed policies of those major member states.

It is a failure of the policies and the members for not enforcing better policies.

The UN needs reforming there is no doubt but the US first and foremost would never allow an institution with any teeth or authority to do anything of consequence to bring about law and order and social justice.

The Onus isn't on the US to allow this agency to funciton legally. The very political nature of the UN is what fuels US fears concerning issues such a the world court. I see that their fear are justified. Such a power would be used for political means.

Because precisely it gets in the way of big business. So many are content with simply leaving the UN as the wipping boy of the ignorant...

I see that the justice issue has little to do with big business. I wouldn't suggest the "big business issue" was a major issue for why the US is refusing to provide more legal power to the UN. More than likely the legal issues are fueled by other nation's puppet use of the UN to futher their political agendas and corrupt business practices while appearing behind the facade of peace and diplomacy. The US' goverment isn't acting in favor of big business by refusing the UN political power, it is acting in favor of the constitution and the safety its people by providing them political protection from UN World Kangaroo Courts.

 

[RussSchultz]

Oil, Gasoline, Whatever. The point is the price overcharge. And Ahem. The man said petrol. What is petrol? Another name for Gasoline. What the hell are you talking about wrt liquid propane? Who's talking about liquid propane?

And frankly I don't care about the terms dictated in the contract. I care about the end price not only to us but to the Iraqis.

"Canister of gas". Liquid propane. You don't buy gasoline/petrol in canisters, do you? (http://www.cidi.org/humanitarian/hsr/iraq/03a/ixl121.html, for extra information. Note the same original cost of these "gas canisters"--250 Dinar--is the same)

As for the terms of the contract: allow me to let you in a little secret of dealing with the government. They demand things, in particular ways, and you must meet their requirements to get the contract. Sometimes, these requirements end up elevating the cost such that, to the layman, it appears the government is stupid and/or getting ripped off.

Hammers for $2000!? 8051 microprocessors for $5000!? Screws and bolts for $50!?

Its because the government demands certain testing, qualifications, schedules, materials, certifications that make a simple item like a hammer become a nightmare. I saw it all the time working at NASA. A hammer for the space station would cost a bundle because it needed to be certified to certain tolerances, go through testing, be made of certain materials. We paid $5k for 8051 on one project I worked on, because thats how much radiation hardened CPUs cost. And it isn't because of materials, its because of all the certifications involved.

But to the point at hand, apparently the shipping contracts for KBR were required to be 30 day contracts for some reason or another, and 30 day contracts are apparently expensive compared to long term contracts. Is that KBRs fault? Or the government?

Beyond that, perhaps KBR was required to guarantee a certain amount of gasoline, or be held in breach of contract, and the only way to obtain guarantee from the shippers was pay extra.

Maybe the short term immediacy required KBR to pay more because of the contracts the shippers had to cancel to fulfill KBRs.

Or maybe the local shippers don't want to deal with KBR and the 'occupation'.

But I guess its easier to just stick with "Haliburton overcharged"

 

[pax]

Well def legion the us had its couple dozen brutal right wing dictators it inducted and demanded be included in the UN.

So if you agree the UN has no real power of any sort out of fear of such things as the world court. How can you then blame it for failures? The failures are those of the states that run the UN.

But its obvious to me its kind of like a corporation. No individual gets blamed but the incorporated unit for any failure. Even tho its completely the fault of individual leaders at the helm...

If you think Ill see the corrupt business practices of some countries, and Im sure you meant France there, and not the far more glaring examples of us businesses Im sorry I cant be that blind. The US in the name of business has been a far worse obstructionist in the UN than countries a fraction its size.

As for the 'kangaroo' court its odd that French or other countries soldiers can be dragged in front of it but not US soldiers. For people who believe in a carrot -and- stick approach to life its pretty pathetic to only want that kind of discpline for others.

 

[Legion]

So if you agree the UN has no real power of any sort out of fear of such things as the world court. How can you then blame it for failures? The failures are those of the states that run the UN.

THe Un is comprised of the countries that run Pax. If i blame them i am also blaming the UN.

If you think Ill see the corrupt business practices of some countries, and Im sure you meant France there,

Not just France but Russia as well.

and not the far more glaring examples of us businesses Im sorry I cant be that blind. The US in the name of business has been a far worse obstructionist in the UN than countries a fraction its size.

Well considering a country "a fraction its size" would have a fraction of the business i could see why not.

I don't see whats wrong with them obstructing the actions of the UN. There isn't anything inheritly wrong with opposing the UN's puppet mandate.

As for the 'kangaroo' court its odd that French or other countries soldiers can be dragged in front of it but not US soldiers.

Why is that odd? The French signed over their a great deal of their people's rights to it.

It appears countries with nothing to lose from it support the world court. Of course France will sign over rights to the UN court. THeir soldiers won't be involved really anywhere so what do they have to fear?

For people who believe in a carrot -and- stick approach to life its pretty pathetic to only want that kind of discpline for others.

Why do you think i would want that discipline for others?

 

[pax]

I have a problem with those who assign blame to an institution that is little more than a convention center. Blame the countries that are in fact responsible. The ideal behind the UN is just about the best one humanity has come up with. That the UN ultimately wasnt created to reflect that ideal and in fact cant reflect anything is the true tragedy.

You cant say the UN has a puppet mandate and not reflect that criticism on the most powerful member of all.

Frenchsoldiers do a lot of overseas peacekeeping... that the US is the only western country thats hasnt signed on has more to do with desire of the US to do what it pleases on the world stage than any serious reason that the court is in anyway illegitimate. The world court is a great idea... It wil go a long way to provide the incentive to humanize the tactics and startegies used in interventions. Itll push the technological envelop and force the western world to carry out much better modernizations of their armed forces than they would otherwise.

 

[Natoma]

Russ,

Again, if the Iraqis can get it cheaper, let them. Why deal with all the overhead when it's not necessary?

 

[Legion]

I have a problem with those who assign blame to an institution that is little more than a convention center.

Its more than jsut a convention center Pax.

[qutoe]Blame the countries that are in fact responsible. The ideal behind the UN is just about the best one humanity has come up with. That the UN ultimately wasnt created to reflect that ideal and in fact cant reflect anything is the true tragedy.[/quote]

I think the true tragedy was its creation in the first place.

You cant say the UN has a puppet mandate and not reflect that criticism on the most powerful member of all.

Really? As the "most powerful member of all" supports all the ideals of the UN or even the concepts for which it is based. Even you admit the US have been far more against the UN then for it in recent times.

[qutoe]Frenchsoldiers do a lot of overseas peacekeeping...[/qutoe]

A lot compare to whom? What are the real figures and where are they deployed?

that the US is the only western country thats hasnt signed on has more to do with desire of the US to do what it pleases on the world stage than any serious reason that the court is in anyway illegitimate.

No infact proctecting the rights of the people of the US is first and foremost. Signing their protection over the world court is in violation of those rights. It is a very valid and legitimate argument to make especially in the light of the political nature of the world court.

The world court is a great idea... It wil go a long way to provide the incentive to humanize the tactics and startegies used in interventions.

Ideals tend to be good ideas. The problem comes in when people try to enforce.

 

[RussSchultz]

Russ,

Again, if the Iraqis can get it cheaper, let them. Why deal with all the overhead when it's not necessary?

I agree.

But what kind of outcry would there have been if the US didn't do anything to ensure heating and cooking fuel, or fuel for the cars?

 

[Natoma]

We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. But I'd rather be damned with a few extra million in our pockets than damned without it.

 

[Legion]

We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. But I'd rather be damned with a few extra million in our pockets than damned without it.

at the expensive of health and lives?