like we don't see any rants on here :) I will look at your links, though it will take me a while. However, if the oil was seized by ships paid for by the US taxpayer and fueled by the taxpayer and manned by sailor whose salary is paid by the taxpayer then it isnt exactly a freebie for the taxpayer is it?
Dana Nick McClure writes: > Keep in mind, this is not something that started with the current > administration, this was part of the UN embargo after the invasion of > Kuwait. The resolutions began under President GHW Bush, continued through > President Clinton, and have been removed by the current President GW Bush. > > This was setup as part of UN Security Council Resolution 665, which enables > any UN member state to US force against Iraq to enforce any UN resolution. > > The waters were being patrolled by a multi-national force: Argentina, > Australia, Kuwait, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UAE, the United > Kingdom, and the U.S. > (http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2000/000919tf.pdf) > > This ABC news article notes that the sale of the oil goes to pay for the > anti-smuggling operation. So the US Taxpayers are actually not paying the > bill. The sale of the oil does. > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/iraniraqoil000715.html > > How you can claim the current administration is behind this is beyond me. > The current administration actually got the sanctions lifted. The sanctions > were added in an attempt to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait without in > invasion, it authorized the use of force to do so. The resolutions stayed as > a way to prevent Iraq from bypassing the Oil for Food program. > > There are plenty of fact, the article we were sent didn't have any. It was > rant by a guy who was pissed off. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:00 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Iraqi oil - from the trenches > > > > You are correct that the post is based more on suspicion than fact. And > > the > > facts are not currently available so... we will see what comes to light. > > So > > far assuming that this administration is crooked and that it lies has led > > to conclusions that have proved correct. Nuff said. > > > > Dana > > > > Nick McClure writes: > > > > > Where is the windfall? You are making it sound like these companies are > > > getting all their extra money on this. It is only 2 days worth of oil we > > are > > > talking about, it's not like these companies live or die based on this > > > stuff. It probably doesn't even affect the market cost of the oil. > > > > > > Companies buy oil on the market, refine it, and sell it back on the > > market. > > > > > > There is no windfall, there are corporations employing people. Sure > > there is > > > a CEO that makes more than the rest of the people there. But shouldn't > > the > > > CEO make the most, that person has the most responsibility as far as the > > > company goes. > > > > > > The conspiracy theory here just doesn't hold water. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 11:21 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: Iraqi oil - from the trenches > > > > > > > > and the taxpayer that works at that oil refinery probably isn't > > benefiting > > > > much from that windfall. Chances are it is all going to bonuses for > > the > > > > executives :) > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
