BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:09:25 GMT, "Mike" wrote:

Prove it Rata, give me the facts, name the names. You have no facts Rata
all
you have are **** poor excuses.

from http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/584/584p14.htm

"However, this does not explain why Bremer - who answers directly to the
White House - would have approved the raid on Chalabi's home and offices."

It seems as though that article is saying that Chalabi's home was raided
because he had documents implicating illegal US dealings. While that may be
true, to suggest that we need an explanation to raid someone's home *beyond*
the accusation that he was proving false intelligence to the US while
providing US intelligence to Iran is slanted at best.

In November 2000, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported that while
Dick Cheney was its CEO, the Halliburton oil services company engaged
in illegal business dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime under the UN
oil-for-food program...

Actually the article says that the dealings were legal. Although the use of
the term "legal loopholes" implys that it goes against the spirit of the
law.

"Of course, U.S. firms aren't generally supposed to do business with Saddam
Hussein. But thanks to legal loopholes large enough to steer an oil tanker
through, Halliburton profited big-time from deals with the Iraqi
dictatorship."

I'm all for prosecuting illegal acts like this, but honestly if they had
anything of substance over Cheney the democrats would be all over it like
flies on poo. I'm not saying I do or don't think Cheney is a shady
character. I would be happy to see him replaced. I'd be happy to see Bush
replaced if the replacement gave me confidence that he would stay the course
in Iraq.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:33:47 GMT, "FLY135" fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com wrote:

It seems as though that article is saying that Chalabi's

Hmm, yeah, Chalabi, I haven't delved into that one, apart from reading
about him feeding the US with false intelligence.

Actually the article says that the dealings were legal. Although the use of
the term "legal loopholes" implys that it goes against the spirit of the
law.

Yep.

I'm all for prosecuting illegal acts like this, but honestly if they had
anything of substance over Cheney the democrats would be all over it like
flies on poo.

It's indeed difficult to make a case out of something which was done
through a legal loophole. No judge will burn their fingers on such a
thing, especially if there are powerful people involved. The only
thing one can do is to call on the moral of the people, to let their
opinion speak out, the next elections, by exposing such immoral acts.

I'm not saying I do or don't think Cheney is a shady
character. I would be happy to see him replaced. I'd be happy to see Bush
replaced if the replacement gave me confidence that he would stay the course
in Iraq.

That last one is debatable. OK, there is a mess now, which should be
dealt with. IMHO it would be better to gather the opinion of a whole
bunch of specialists, people who understand what is happening in the
ME, to determine the course of the future, whether it's best to stay
in or leave, and if staying or leaving, what's the best thing to do
next. The people who went into this war, went because of personal
issues, and if they would have listened to the ME-specialist, they
would have known it would turn out ugly.

rr