PDA

View Full Version : Could it be TRUE, people have ulterior motives??


DjMichael
03-16-2003, 07:51 PM
Before you read this and dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory, you should know that I did some investigation of my own.


They discuss a group known as PNAC (Project for the New American Century) formed in 1997, check out there website at www.newamericancentury.org
Their whole agenda is there for everyone to see, while they dont come out and tell you exactly what they are doing, anyone with half a brain can put two and two together. If you are just another person who takes everything at face value and never question then go ahead and read another post cause this one is not for you.






Taken from www.voice4change.org


**************************************************


George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration.


In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed.


The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.


PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.


Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.


Who is PNAC? Its members include:


Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;

I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;

Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;

John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;

Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;

Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;

Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;

William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.

The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.


The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.


The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.


Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."


This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.


Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.


At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.


Thus, the payout.


It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.


Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.


More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.


Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.


Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.


Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.


Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.


One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems, amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.


In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.


Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.


This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.


There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.


This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.


Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been governed for 227 years.


And yes, of course, a great many people will die.


It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.


Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."


Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.


Would that we Americans could be so wise.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

Vada
03-18-2003, 03:53 PM
So we are going to force democracy on the middle east....sounds more like a dictatorship. I thought we were fighting AGAINST that? Guess not....

cpud
03-18-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Vada
So we are going to force democracy on the middle east....sounds more like a dictatorship. I thought we were fighting AGAINST that? Guess not....

the definition of democracy doesn't allow for a dictatorship/totalitarian regime. The Iraqi people need to be given the opportunity to rule for themselves for once.

Vada
03-18-2003, 05:53 PM
When our country decided to begina new form of government by the people, for the people, it was ourselves that stood up and faught. It is not the Iraqi people revolting against their leader. Of course, most of them are too afraid. BUT...by going into their country, deciding that they should follow OUR ideals of government....that is not a democracy. Or at least not what democracy used to be. I'm not saying that they should have a dictatorship, or communist state....those just don't work (communism especially).
Do you really beleive that after (or if) we do throw Saddam from power....that we are going to just sit back and let them decide who will be their leader? I don't. The US will have most of the control in that decision.

cpud
03-18-2003, 06:13 PM
we're going to help them build a proper democratic government. there's going to be a 1 year timeline that we're going to attempt to follow that will establish a new government in Iraq. I trust our government will do what's necessary to make that happen....

i put my trust in our government rather than empathize wit the Iraqi government, which is what a lot of this anti-war yarble seems to be based upon.

Polytrickster
03-18-2003, 06:47 PM
*WE* don't even have a "proper democratic government". We have a republic. Completely different.

Consumer
03-18-2003, 06:53 PM
Corporations are the rule of this land; not the people.

DjMichael
03-18-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by cpud


i put my trust in our government rather than empathize wit the Iraqi government, which is what a lot of this anti-war yarble seems to be based upon.




This is exactly the kind of mentality that scares me.

How can you blindly trust your government and think that they always have YOUR best interests in mind? The anti-war sentiment isnt just about the innocent lives that will be lost. Its about a few people who are in power that are making ALL the desicions for the rest us, based on thier personal gains. The government and corporate America are in bed together right now, and for a true democracy to work this cant happen.


If anything, take some time to question whats going on. Try diggling a little deeper than just watching what unfolds on CNN.
Its not Un-American to disagree with the current administration and how they are taking us in the wrong direction.

Also, just so you dont take anything personal. Im not attacking your character in any way. We both have the right to disagree and say whats on our mind. Thats why I love this country so much, and feel its in all of our best interests to keep it that way.


Peace is Patriotic


Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

f3/\r teh Phorced Access
03-18-2003, 07:13 PM
I like ice cream

cpud
03-18-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by DjMichael
This is exactly the kind of mentality that scares me.

How can you blindly trust your government and think that they always have YOUR best interests in mind? The anti-war sentiment isnt just about the innocent lives that will be lost. Its about a few people who are in power that are making ALL the desicions for the rest us, based on thier personal gains. The government and corporate America are in bed together right now, and for a true democracy to work this cant happen.


If anything, take some time to question whats going on. Try diggling a little deeper than just watching what unfolds on CNN.
Its not Un-American to disagree with the current administration and how they are taking us in the wrong direction.

Also, just so you dont take anything personal. Im not attacking your character in any way. We both have the right to disagree and say whats on our mind. Thats why I love this country so much, and feel its in all of our best interests to keep it that way.


Peace is Patriotic


Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

blindly trusting and supporing are two different things. There's enough evidence as far as I'm concerned to warrent military action. I know most people I talk to on a daily basis don't agree with me on that, however I've not heard one valid argument that supports no military action.

Take the "Inspections work, war doesn't" commercial... it's complete bullshit. He has violated EVERY UN Resolution passed after the gulf war in 1991; clearly, inspections do not work... but the security council did nothing. It's time someone stepped up and dealt with Saddam, lest something Hitler-esque happens. We learned the hard way last time we let an extremeist regime control a nation for too long.

cpud
03-18-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Polytrickster
*WE* don't even have a "proper democratic government". We have a republic. Completely different.

our senate and state reps are determined by popular vote. thats democratic if you ask me.

cpud
03-18-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by deepfreq
Corporations are the rule of this land; not the people.

well after all, it is capitalism.

DjMichael
03-18-2003, 07:46 PM
Politicians are bought and sold just like any other service out there.


And I understand your concerns with Iraq. The problem we face though is not what he could of done if left alone, is what is going to happen in the result of the backlash we will face for OUR actions.


The world is splitting, the old alliances are collapsing. If World Peace and True Democracy are ever achieved then we cant just have one Superpower in the world, it dosnt work.

There is always another way.




Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

X-Gote
03-18-2003, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Dj_Access
I like ice cream

Me too!

A view to consider... We don't have any aythority over anything on the macro scale of politics. Whats really going on in Iraq? What are the actual turn of events that lead to that situation that we hear about on the news? Do you trust what's reported on? I meen sure you have genuine news. You see actual events, valid media backing edited speculation documenting what they others believe are valid and real experiences. Which, in any case, just as well may be valid and real. My point, why should you believe anything you haven't experienced first hand or have an accurate perspective from all relevant angles? Without an omnipotent perspective, meening and context can not be percieved with 100% accuracy. If thats true, you can assume that by the time any information you have percieved can't be the 100% truth. Consider the multiple sources of information thats available to average Joe US citizen. He (or Joe can be a "she" if you want) has only the information from a second hand source at best. In most cases, information is passed along through many different people with many different points of view. I'm not saying that I question journalistic ethics or that you shouldn't believe anything you read, hear or see from mass media, im saying how valid do you consider your perspective with the information you have available to you?

With this view in mind, whats the point of heated speculation over a situation you don't have control over and limited perspective on?

f3/\r teh Phorced Access
03-18-2003, 08:22 PM
Dave, You still havent called.......
I WILL STEAL YO KITTY!

cpud
03-18-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by DjMichael
Politicians are bought and sold just like any other service out there.


And I understand your concerns with Iraq. The problem we face though is not what he could of done if left alone, is what is going to happen in the result of the backlash we will face for OUR actions.


The world is splitting, the old alliances are collapsing. If World Peace and True Democracy are ever achieved then we cant just have one Superpower in the world, it dosnt work.

There is always another way.




Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

politics is one thing, i wont argue that. the vast majority are out to build careers, not a nation.

and one superpower doesn't work, but don't forget about China... they're still there and as Commie as ever.

however in regards to this Iraq issue, I don't think there's any other way... we've tried every other way, and Saddam has manipulated every method we've used.

Make no mistake, he brought this on himself.

cpud
03-18-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by X-Gote


With this view in mind, whats the point of heated speculation over a situation you don't have control over and limited perspective on?

because this is America, and we're free to speak our minds. I exercise that right as much as I can, not to mention I stay informed and it's usually pretty engaging discussion.

DjMichael
03-18-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by cpud
because this is America, and we're free to speak our minds. I exercise that right as much as I can, not to mention I stay informed and it's usually pretty engaging discussion.




Word to that. :up





If nobody had any opinions (and that goes for both sides of the argument) then life would be pretty dull. If not for debate and discussion how can you ever expect our country, culture, society to grow???




Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

X-Gote
03-18-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by DjMichael
Word to that. :up





If nobody had any opinions (and that goes for both sides of the argument) then life would be pretty dull. If not for debate and discussion how can you ever expect our country, culture, society to grow???




Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

I cant disagree that debate is a great way to amuse one another. I just mearly suggested "what if you consider this angle" not argue that perspective of I take no part in politics (which I try not to) if that was implied. I was not suggesting that you should suppress your freedoms as a US citizen either.

Vada
03-19-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by cpud

and one superpower doesn't work, but don't forget about China... they're still there and as Commie as ever.


But who's to say they won't be next on this list of countries the US feels should be reformed.

And Saddam has brough this war to be because of his past actions, but what will our current actions to take him out of power do?

What about the terrorist cells here and all over the world ready to kill for their "leader". What actions will they take to rectify their loss? Another 9/11....or possibly worse.

Russia, still trying to build itself up again, has invested 6 bil in Iraq (the reason they aren't backing us). If we take Saddam out of power, they will be out another 6 bil....they can't afford to take that loss. And who will they turn to for support when they fall again? The US. So theres another 6 mil out of all of our pockets for a country that supported a madman.

cpud
03-19-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Vada
But who's to say they won't be next on this list of countries the US feels should be reformed.

And Saddam has brough this war to be because of his past actions, but what will our current actions to take him out of power do?

What about the terrorist cells here and all over the world ready to kill for their "leader". What actions will they take to rectify their loss? Another 9/11....or possibly worse.

Russia, still trying to build itself up again, has invested 6 mil in Iraq (the reason they aren't backing us). If we take Saddam out of power, they will be out another 6 mil....they can't afford to take that loss. And who will they turn to for support when they fall again? The US. So theres another 6 mil out of all of our pockets for a country that supported a madman.

Iraq is still going to be Iraq once Saddam is out of there.. Plus, Russia is currently run by the Russian mob, so its no big suprise that they had dealings with Iraq. The only difference now is that they wont have to deal with a maniac.

Vada
03-20-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by cpud
Iraq is still going to be Iraq once Saddam is out of there.. Plus, Russia is currently run by the Russian mob, so its no big suprise that they had dealings with Iraq. The only difference now is that they wont have to deal with a maniac.

We're reading the same book, but you're on a different page.

Iraq might still be Iraq...but (just like Hitler) Saddam does have some followers that he managed to brainwash into serving him. When he is either killed or taken out of power with brutal force, then those "terrorist cells" will attempt to avenge their leaders demise. That's going to effect not only the US, but all the other countries that backed us. So we will be saving the suppressed Iraqi people, but in turn...harming others that were not previously effected by him. Not to say that he should be left in power-just want to make that clear.

And the Russian mob...they're madmen themselves...they're a mob. Have you ever dealt with the mob? I have. They're all fucking crazy. They probably liked Saddam and they're gonna be pissed that they lost out in 6 bil. Same with France, they've got appx 35 bil invested in the Iraq oilfields, and by taking him out it's going to cause a huge mess with those we consider allies.
And since they are our allies....we'll foot the bill. Yippy :rolleyes

I wish it were as simple as bomb, kick Saddam out, the world rejoices. But it's not. Only time will tell.....

Polytrickster
03-22-2003, 12:03 AM
I welcome the backlash.

MCAtombomb
03-22-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by cpud
well after all, it is capitalism.

Before that you said our system was democratic. Well which is it?
A system cannot be for the people while at the same catering to the business intrests of a select few.

Dub-U-Eff
03-25-2003, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by mentat23

It's also not surprising to note that most american presidents have been lawyers. ...and a few have been total dumbshits but oh well.

DjMichael
03-26-2003, 01:01 PM
I guess PNAC is moving faster than I expected.


Check it.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A665-2003Mar20.html



"The agency almost always awards American companies a large portion of its contracts, but international criticism erupted after recent news reports that the USAID had limited the selection process for the biggest contracts to a handful of huge U.S. multinational firms, some of which are well connected to the Bush administration. Those firms include a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the company once headed by Vice President Cheney."



Here is another one.


http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5869



-Taken from the first post above-

Talk about foreshadowing:

"It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service."






Kind Regards
Michael - DTS

cpud
03-26-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by MCAtombomb
Before that you said our system was democratic. Well which is it?
A system cannot be for the people while at the same catering to the business intrests of a select few.

a free society needs to be free in all aspects, not just civil liberties. And whether its an oligarchy, dictator, government, or corporation or not doesn't matter: it's who has the money.