[Rhodes22-list] reply to Wally's Politics

Rik Sandberg sanderico at earthlink.net
Wed May 5 18:20:10 EDT 2004 

Slim,

I don't think you can give the blame for the California thing to Bush, or 
really even the federal gov't. They did that to themselves. This touches a 
little bit on what Roger and I were talking about a couple days ago about 
big centralized power systems. IIRC they couldn't or wouldn't pay their 
bill, and somebody cut them off.

CA has refused to allow any new power plants in their state for a long 
time. Most of their power is bought from somewhere else and transmitted in 
by wire. Californians could cure the problem quite simply by either 
allowing some new power plants, OR shutting off their damned air 
conditioners. I think they kinda have to decide weather they'd rather have 
tree huggers or air conditioners :-) Can't have both, apparently.

Seems to me there are enough oil companies out there, it's pretty hard to 
call this a monopoly.

Rik


At 03:04 PM 5/5/2004, you wrote:
>Rik,
>
>Sorry, I meant to say at the expense of consumers, not taxpayers.  I can't
>be held responsible for the things I write before noon.  8-)
>
>Consider this example:  Right after Bush took office, California suffered a
>severe "energy crisis."  I really don't know exactly what he did or didn't
>do about that but the timing was sure suspicious.  At the same time of the
>crisis, the energy companies were posting some of the biggest profits ever.
>This just pisses me off.  Sure, any business should go after profit, but the
>energy companies are not just any business.  They are monopolies that hold
>the consumer hostage.  You're right, this is a private industry--not
>public--but IMO they have a responsibility to the public.  People become
>outraged when they're being gouged.
>
>I'm blurring the lines here between the power companies and the oil
>companies, but it looks like they operate at the same level.  I don't have a
>problem with lease holders.  I don't even have a problem with the middle
>men.  And I surely don't have a problem with the jobs it creates.  It's what
>happens at the top that costs us so much more than it should.  These fat
>cats broker deals with the politicians to increase their profit and in turn
>they donate gigantic sums to the politicians.  At best, this is
>opportunistic and at worst, it's corruption.  I can't name off "Bush's
>partners" in the oil business (although it wouldn't take much research--just
>check the campaign contributions) but Halliburton is a good example of the
>kind of cozy, closed-door deals I'm talking about.  Halliburton OWNS Bush,
>bought and paid for.
>
>When the government is in bed with industry, and motivates the public by
>fear and strips away their civil rights, it's called Fascism.
>
>Slim
>
>On 5/5/04 1:02 PM, "Rik Sandberg" <sanderico at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > At 11:32 AM 5/5/2004, you wrote:
> >> Rik,
> >>
> >> I suppose it doesn't matter who makes the money if the project is truly
> >> necessary, but I suspect that it's not.  When we have capped oil wells
> >> galore, no more is needed now.  Drilling in Alaska would only be 
> lining the
> >> pockets of special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.
> >
> > I don't see where anybody's pockets are being lined by this at the expense
> > of taxpayers. It seems to me that this is a legitimate business who makes
> > it's money by selling a product that most of us need. It is not their fault
> > that we have gotten ourselves into a position of needing their product more
> > than we are comfortable with, but you gotta admit, it's a position many of
> > us would like to be in. I don't feel that it is my place to decide whether
> > the project is "needed" or not. Obviously, somebody has already invested
> > some money in this deal. I would imagine that they would like to see some
> > return on that investment. Can't hardly hold that against them. If we feel
> > the oil companies are making too much money, we can always choose to use
> > less of their product.
> >
> >
> >> Of course the Dems have their special interests too, and whenever we 
> see this
> >> happening, left or right, it's time to cry "foul!"  As far as Texas vs.
> >> North Dakota goes, I'll bet the ranch that any drilling in Alaska will 
> be a
> >> no-bid contract for Bush's partners.  It's your money.
> >
> > I have to ask....Just who are "Bush's partners"?? I don't think this can
> > really be considered a public job. Why wouldn't or shouldn't whoever is the
> > holder of these leases contract with whoever they wish for this work?? If I
> > was the lease holder, I wouldn't expect to be told by the public who would
> > do this work. I don't expect to be told by the public where to get my
> > trucks fixed and I'm sure you don't expect to be told where you have to
> > take your amplifier when it shorts out. The only thing, it seems to me,
> > that the public has to say about this, is whether the drilling should be
> > allowed at all on public land. If the answer is no, than it should be no,
> > no matter what. Not no now until we all get nervous about the oil supply
> > again, then yes. Once this is decided, then it is up to each business
> > entity involved to decide what works best for them, just like any other
> > business.
> >
> > Rik
> >
> >
> >> Slim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/5/04 7:13 AM, "Rik Sandberg" <sanderico at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Slim,
> >>>
> >>> I'm at a bit of a loss here...... What difference does it make who
> >> makes money
> >>> on this oil, or where they are from??? I would imagine that the oil
> >> leases on
> >>> this ground have probably been owned by whoever has them, for a long 
> time.
> >>> So, I doubt that there is really any question about WHO will drill 
> for this
> >>> oil, only WHEN they will be allowed to. If you or I had been smart
> >> enough to
> >>> take the risk and buy up these leases, then it would be you or I that 
> would
> >>> make the money. I wasn't smart enough. I don't know what you were 
> thinking
> >>> either. :-)  I guess I hope that someone is able to make a buck
> >> bringing this
> >>> oil (or any oil) to the surface, cuz when they can't they will stop
> >> doing it.
> >>> Then you and me are going to be riding our old bicycles.
> >>>
> >>> Are you sure there aren't some Democrats that have "oil buddies" too??
> >> Last I
> >>> heard, Al Gore's family was the largest stockholder in some oil company,
> >>> Occidental Petroleum(?), if I'm not mistaken. Seems there are many 
> here who
> >>> would have liked to see him elected. I'd bet the oil companies would
> >> still be
> >>> making a buck or two if he were in office instead of Bush. Would that be
> >>> somehow different....or better????
> >>>
> >>> As far as the idle oil wells around the country are concerned, you are
> >> right.
> >>> If it costs more to bring the stuff up than one can sell it for, why 
> would
> >>> one do it? I'm pretty sure there is nobody posting to this list who
> >> does (or
> >>> did) his particular job of work and expects no financial reward for his
> >>> efforts.
> >>>
> >>> Rik
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 04 2004 11:22 pm, Steve Alm wrote:
> >>>> Steve,
> >>>>
> >>>> I traveled a lot throughout the Dakotas and Montana and I can attest
> >> to the
> >>>> fact that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of oil wells lying idle in
> >>>> that area.  There's a great deal of oil in that region.  Why are they
> >> idle?
> >>>> It's got nothing to do with the dems or the environmentalists! It's the
> >>>> economics.  It's less expensive to import foreign oil than it is to
> >> produce
> >>>> it here in the US.  If prices continue to rise, there may come a 
> point at
> >>>> which it will become cost-effective to uncap the wells in the 
> Dakotas and
> >>>> Montana and elsewhere, but at this point, it's wiser to buy it from the
> >>>> middle east.
> >>>>
> >>>> Drilling in Alaska is nothing but redundant at this point. We don't need
> >>>> Alaskan oil.  We have plenty.  The only reason Bush wants to drill in
> >>>> Alaska is to benefit his Texas oil buddies that put him in
> >> office.  Mark my
> >>>> word--if he passes the Alaska drilling bill, who do you think will 
> get the
> >>>> contract?  A North Dakota company?  Yeah, right!
> >>>>
> >>>> Slim
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/3/04 11:00 AM, "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Roger - you shouldn' unset poor Wally like that.  War
> >>>>> is for Oil; Wally is lible to start believing that:-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the record, the US is the 3rd largest producer of
> >>>>> Oil in the World.  Yes, we import a lot of oil and
> >>>>> natrual gas but those are the only two.  All other
> >>>>> energy sources, the US is self reliant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also for the record, we don't need the middle east
> >>>>> oil.  We have the cability to produce our own
> >>>>> stockpiles there in the US.  The fact that we don't;
> >>>>> just thank your Democrats & Enviormentalist.  Also, we
> >>>>> can produce enough energy to last 250 years if we
> >>>>> swithch over to utilize Coal.
> >>>>> Steve
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- ed kroposki <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Wally:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For those with no connection to New York City, nor
> >>>>>> ever having seen
> >>>>>> the twin towers, it appears easy to forget the part
> >>>>>> of the equation that
> >>>>>> deals with terrorist.  Many say Iraq had no
> >>>>>> connection.  I beg your pardon.
> >>>>>> One terrorist wanted for questioning fled to Iraq
> >>>>>> and was given asylum and
> >>>>>> sanctuary by Sadaam.
> >>>>>> Loud voices say no weapons of mass destruction were
> >>>>>> found. Just two
> >>>>>> weeks ago in Jordan a plot to use chemical weapons
> >>>>>> was stopped in Jordan.
> >>>>>> Analyst determined the weapons came to Jordan thru
> >>>>>> Syria.  The chemicals
> >>>>>> were determined to have been made in Iraq in what
> >>>>>> the news media called a
> >>>>>> fertilizer factory.
> >>>>>> I say it is better to take the fight to terrorist
> >>>>>> where they come
> >>>>>> from and not allow them to do their dirty tricks in
> >>>>>> America.  Maybe you
> >>>>>> think the middle of Tennessee is safe.  But where is
> >>>>>> Oak Ridge?  Are you
> >>>>>> willing to let terrorist get inside and control of
> >>>>>> the plant?  I imagine
> >>>>>> that they could made a bang there.
> >>>>>> This problem is not only about oil.
> >>>>>> Humpf!
> >>>>>>                Ed K
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >>>>>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Wally Buck
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 7:59 AM
> >>>>>> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] More Politics
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Roger,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would have much more respect for the war
> >>>>>> supporters if they all admited
> >>>>>> that it was about oil. If you listen to folks like
> >>>>>> Steve one can see they
> >>>>>> are blinded by party line. To me their viewpoint is
> >>>>>> the one that is naive.
> >>>>>> They are buying into all of the other reasons like
> >>>>>> freedon, WMD, and so on.
> >>>>>> Your post supports my belief, that oil is blood and
> >>>>>> we are the ones
> >>>>>> attacking over it. Some just need to wrap their arms
> >>>>>> around that!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wally
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: "Roger Pihlaja" <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
> >>>>>>> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] More Politics
> >>>>>>> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:20:27 -0400
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Gentlemen,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The world population is currently at about 6.2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> billion people & continuing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to grow exponentially.  Depending upon which study
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> you believe, that's
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> 2X - 3X the size of the population that could be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> supported W/O modern
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> technology.  Like it or not, that means
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> transportation, energy systems,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> infrastructure, & products that run on crude oil.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the civilized world
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> does not take steps to assure the uninterrupted
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> flow of crude oil from the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Middle East; then, more people are going to have to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> die off than have died
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> in all of the wars and all of the plagues
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> throughout human history
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> combined!
> >>>>>>> Please keep that in mind as you go on & on about
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> how there should be no
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> blood for oil.  The plain, unvarnished,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> irrefutable, inescapable truth is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> that OIL IS BLOOD!  Wrap your arms around that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> concept & learn to deal with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it.  Any other attitude is so naive that it must be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> considered childish.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For everything else that G.W. Bush has done wrong,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> he clearly understands
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> that basic truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Roger Pihlaja
> >>>>>>> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: "Wally Buck" <tnrhodey at hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 9:40 AM
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] More Politics
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Steve,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wouldn't call Bush's taking us to war over
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> false hoods a "minor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> lapse".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Talk about understatement!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree that the French and Russians were on the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> take. At least when the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> French and Russian's were on the take no
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Americans were getting killed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> have said all along this war is about oil and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Paul's post supports my
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> view
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> point. WMD, human rights, freedom and so on all
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> sound good but if there
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wasn't a drop of oil in the area the US, France,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and Russia wouldn't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> give
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> flip.So now we are at "war " and the US controls
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the oil. I don't see
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this is a big improvement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wally
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Steve <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> >>>>>>>>> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] More Politics
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Very interesting, Paul.  You know, I figured it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> was
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> only a matter of time before this came out.  A
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> country
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> such a French putting monetary issue before the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> safety
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of the world.  We should all get down on our
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> knees &
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thank God that we have our President (and a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GREAT
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> President at that) & Tony Blair over in England
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> was willing to take a stand for whats
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> right!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where me a flag; I feel like saluting it:-)
> >>>>>>>>> Steve
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --- pdgrand at nospam.wmis.net wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Forgive me if you receive this twice.  I
> >>>>>>>>>> accidentally left out the subject
> >>>>>>>>>> on the first try. - Paul
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> April 28, 2004 -- ANYONE who pines for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> genuine
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> international
> >>>>>>>>>> multilateralism would do well to follow the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> bribes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> now being uncovered in
> >>>>>>>>>> the United Nations' Oil-for- Food scandal.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> topple
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Saddam Hussein's regime?
> >>>>>>>>>> And why did they press constantly,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> throughout the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> '90s, for an expansion of
> >>>>>>>>>> Iraqi oil sales? Was it their empathy for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> starving children of that
> >>>>>>>>>> impoverished nation? Their desire to stop
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the United
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> States from arrogantly
> >>>>>>>>>> imposing its vision upon the Middle East?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It now looks like they it was simply because
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> were on the take. Saddam
> >>>>>>>>>> was their cash cow. If President Bush has
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> suffered
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> some discredit over his
> >>>>>>>>>> apparently false - but not disingenuous -
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> claims of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Iraqi weapons of mass
> >>>>>>>>>> destruction, the lapse is minor compared to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> outright personal
> >>>>>>>>>> selfishness and criminality that appears to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> motivated many of those
> >>>>>>>>>> who opposed his efforts to rid the world of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> one of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> its worst dictators.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Throughout the '90s, France and Russia
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> badgered the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> United States and
> >>>>>>>>>> Britain to increase Iraqi oil production.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> President
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bill Clinton and Prime
> >>>>>>>>>> Minister Tony Blair fought them at each
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> step, but
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> then reluctantly gave
> >>>>>>>>>> way. First Iraq was allowed to sell 500,000
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> barrels
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> daily. Then, on Franco-
> >>>>>>>>>> Russian insistence, it was raised to 1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> million, then
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to 2 million and,
> >>>>>>>>>> finally, to 3 million barrels a day.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Each time, America and Britain - the nations
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> now
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> accused of coveting Iraqi
> >>>>>>>>>> oil - resisted the increases in Iraqi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> production and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> urged tighter controls
> >>>>>>>>>> over the program. Each time, the French and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Russians prattled on about
> >>>>>>>>>> the rights of Iraqi sovereignty and the need
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> to feed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the children.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now we know why the French and Russians were
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> so
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> insistent. Iraqi government
> >>>>>>>>>> documents (leaked to the Baghdad newspaper
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Al Mada)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> list at least 270
> >>>>>>>>>> individuals and entities who got vouchers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> allowing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> them to sell Iraqi oil -
> >>>>>>>>>> and to keep much of the money. These
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> vouchers, and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the promise of instant
> >>>>>>>>>> great wealth they carried with them, bought
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> vital
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> support in the United
> >>>>>>>>>> Nations to let Saddam stay in power.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The list of those receiving these bribes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> includes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> France's former French
> >>>>>>>>>> Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (who's a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> leader of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Chirac's party) and
> >>>>>>>>>> Patrick Maugein, the head of the French Oil
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> firm
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Soco International.
> >>>>>>>>>> France's former U.N. ambassador,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jean-Bernard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Merimee, got vouchers to sell
> >>>>>>>>>> 11 million barrels.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In Russia, the payoff chain reached right
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> into the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "office of the Russian
> >>>>>>>>>> president." President Vladimir Putin's Peace
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Unity Party also got
> >>>>>>>>>> vouchers, as did the Soviet-era Prime
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Minister
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nikolai Ryzhkov and the
> >>>>>>>>>> Russian Orthodox Church. Nationalist leader
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vladimir
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Zhirinovsky shared in
> >>>>>>>>>> the largesse.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not to be left behind, the Rev. Jean Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Benjamin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> of the Vatican got the
> >>>>>>>>>> rights to sell 4.5 million barrels as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> recompense for
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> setting up a meeting
> >>>>>>>>>> between Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> pope.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed, the list indicates that Benon Sevan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> United Nations official in
> >>>>>>>>>> charge of the Oil-for-Food program. received
> >>>>>>>>>> vouchers. He denies the
> >>>>>>>>>> charge, but has decided to retire next month
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> At the start of the Oil-for-Food program,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> America
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and Britain proposed that
> >>>>>>>>>> the money flow only to accounts entirely
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> controlled
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> by the United Nations.
> >>>>>>>>>> Soon this standard was lowered to include
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> accounts
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> not actually controlled
> >>>>>>>>>> by the United Nations, but only monitored by
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then-Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) warned
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "oil is fungible" and
> >>>>>>>>>> noted that once Iraq was allowed to pump and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> sell
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it, Saddam could sell all
> >>>>>>>>>> he wanted outside of officially sanctioned
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> channels
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and nobody could tell
> >>>>>>>>>> which black liquid was legal and which not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> nobody imagined that there
> >>>>>>>>>> were actual bribes going to specific French,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Russian
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and U.N. officials as
> >>>>>>>>>> part of the program.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now it appears that Secretary-General Kofi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Annan's
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> sanctimonious posturing
> >>>>>>>>>> may have concealed oil bribes which reached
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> high up
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> in the ranks of the
> >>>>>>>>>> U.N. organization itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The defect of international coalitions is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> that they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> include the just and
> >>>>>>>>>> the unjust, the bribed and the honest, the
> >>>>>>>>>> democratic and the autocratic.
> >>>>>>>>>> And their members cannot be trusted equally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> group that stood up and
> >>>>>>>>>> backed the invasion of Iraq was nicknamed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Coalition of the Willing."
> >>>>>>>>>> Now it appears it was also "the Coalition of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Honest."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
> >>>>>>>>> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Express yourself with the new version of MSN
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Messenger! Download today -
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it's FREE!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get
> >>>>>> it now!
> >>>>>> http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>>>>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
> >>>>> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> >>>>> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
> >>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list