tj444
Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:
Not even the shooter's mum?
That nutcase sure was not hiding...Moon this type of comparison is ridiculous and typical of vince, Why does he not mention Muslims killing Muslim children in Syria as well for instance.. At least we try not to kill innocents they do it on purpose.
I feel for all the children accidentally killed in our wars but I blame their fathers…and brothers for their death just as much as our bombs…it should be a shared shame not ours alone.
Butch
How does the US dropping bombs on them and knowing there are civilians & children there who are going to be killed not doing that on purpose? 
Bush Jr invaded Iraq with lies, you cant blame their fathers & brothers for those acts.. not to mention that thru history your govt has been screwing around in ways that created that hate of America in the first place.. put the blame where it belongs, on your President(s) & fellow politicians in cahoots with Big Oil & Big War profiteers.. all the Big Business that wanted to make Big Bucks setting up shop in those conquered countries.. what are a few hundred civilian deaths over there compared to billions of dollars for US business & its subsidiaries? Do you not also see the damage it does to your country? pointless lost lives of soldiers with too many of the ones that make it thru horribly damaged, not to mention that US taxpayers are footing the bill also, that money should be used to help reduce the extreme poverty in the US instead of going into the pockets of greedy Big Business.. You all pay too high a price for what your govt does.. jmo..
Corporations Profit from Permanent War
Our country has 5 percent of the world's population but accounts for more than 40% of the military spending for the whole world.
War is Big Business
War is very big business. People know that private companies are doing much more in war. In January 2010, the Congressional Research Service reported that there are at least 55,000 private armed security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe many more - as many as 70,000 in Afghanistan alone.
But much bigger money is available to defense contractors. In 2008 alone, the top ten defense contractors received nearly $150 billion in federal contracts. These corporations spent millions to lobby for billions more in federal funds and hired ex-military leaders and ex-officials to help them profit off war.
For example, look at the top three defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. They demonstrate why perpetual war is profitable and part of the reason it continues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/corporations-profit-from_b_586896.html
========
A discreet way of doing business with Iraq
FT.com site; Nov 3, 2000
BY CAROLA HOYOS, UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT
Millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq are being channelled discreetly through European and other companies, in a practice that has highlighted the double standards now dominating relations between Baghdad and Washington after a decade of crippling sanctions.
Though legal, leading US oil service companies such as Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount and others, have used subsidiaries and joint venture companies for this lucrative business, so as to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardising their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad.
By submitting their contracts to the UN via mainly French subsidiaries, many of which do little more than lend their name to the transaction, the companies are treated as European, rather than US or Japanese, applicants.
In 1998 the UN passed a resolution allowing Iraq, the world's sixth largest oil producer, to buy spare parts for its dilapidated oil industry.
Since then, only two of the 3,058 contracts for oil industry parts that have been submitted to the UN have officially come from US companies. But the facts behind these figures tell a very different story.
US companies have in fact submitted contracts worth at least $100m to the UN for approval to supply Iraq with oil industry spare parts, through their foreign subsidiaries. Some informed estimates put that value as high as $170m.
They have used, or allowed, associated companies, mainly in France, but also in Belgium, Germany, India, Switzerland, Bahrain, Egypt and the Netherlands, to put the contracts through.
"It is a wonderful example of how ludicrous sanctions have become," says Raad Alkadiri, analyst at the Petroleum Finance Company, a Washington-based consulting firm.
"On the one hand you have the Americans, who do not want to be seen trading with Iraq, despite the fact that it is above board and legitimate, because that would contradict their image of being tough towards Iraq. On the other hand you have the Iraqis, who on the technocratic level would like to buy the best stuff on the market - in many cases that comes from the US - but politically have to be able to say they are refusing to deal with US companies," he said.
Halliburton, the largest US oil services company, is among a significant number of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago.
From 1995 until August this year Halliburton's chief executive officer was Dick Cheney, US secretary of defence during the Gulf war and now Republican vice-presidential running mate of George W.Bush.
From September 1998 until it sold its stake last February, Halliburton owned 51 per cent of Dresser-Rand. It also owned 49 per cent of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, until its sale in December 1999. During the time of the joint ventures, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump submitted more than $23.8m worth of contracts for the sale of oil industry parts and equipment to Iraq. Their combined total amounted to more than any other US company; the vast majority was approved by the sanctions committee.
Mr Cheney is not the only Washington heavyweight to have been affiliated with a company trading with Iraq. John Deutch, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is a member of the board of Schlumberger, the second largest US oil services company.
Schlumberger has submitted at least three contracts for well-logging equipment and geological software via a French subsidiary, Services Petroliers Schlumberger, and through Schlumberger Gulf Services of Bahrain.
Some of the companies, such as General Electric and Dresser-Rand, say that not only political considerations shape their decision to do business through their European offices.
"It is customary for GE to do its business for the Middle East out of its European offices," says Louise Binns, a GE spokeswoman, who acknowledged that GE does business with Iraq. Other companies the FT contacted admitted doing business with Iraq, either directly or through their subsidiaries.
US companies that use foreign associates can also reduce the risk of their contracts being blocked by France and Russia in retaliation for blocks by the US.
The US is behind nearly all the $289m of contracts delayed by the sanctions committee, which has received $1.7bn of contracts. These delays were ostensibly intended to prevent transfer to Iraq of dual-use technology that could be adapted for military purposes.
"Washington doesn't want to enable the Iraqi economy to recover, therefore it keeps the infrastructure very weak," a UN diplomat said.
However, Iraq is the US's second biggest Middle Eastern oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, making Washington uneasily dependent on Iraq's steady oil flow. Using this influence as an oil provider, as well as the ties it has developed with US business, Iraq has tried to acquire lobbying power in the US.
Despite the US business ties to Iraq, however, fear of official US disapproval of contacts with Baghdad has also prompted one US ally - Japan - to do its trade through third parties.
Tomen, the Japanese company supplying industrial transport equipment to Iraq, submits its contracts through its French subsidiary, Tomen France.
US companies have themselves been among those which have suffered from the US practice of blocking contracts. But they have an edge when it comes to arguing for the approval of their contracts, diplomats say.
By temporarily dropping their guise as European companies, they have managed to reverse the blocks by going directly to US officials, rather than having their case argued by the European mission on behalf of their subsidiary.
At least two US companies have recently managed to reverse Washington's objections over their contracts. In an exchange of letters between company officials and one UN mission, seen by the FT, it became clear the US companies had resolved its case directly with Washington. Few non-US companies have been able to exercise similar influence.
_____________________________
As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”
|
RE: Muslim Children vs Newtown Children - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread