dianavan - 06 Dec 05 - 10:48 PM

Oh Dianavan so you are only talking about intent, something that some people would like to see happen in the future, not something that has already happened.

It appears that you can state such things and make inference/refer to supposed deals that have been pushed through, whereas when a certain other person describes a set of circumstances that may lead to something in the future he is lying and guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. How very convenient for those wishing to present that as an arguement.

Don't you think its a little suspect that the man who gave false information about Iraq to the U.S. is now the man in power? He is likely to be in power after Dec. 15th too. How coincidental!


And Dianavan:
"Hassan Awad (Iraq trade unionist) doesn't seem to trust the U.S. either.

"The US has decreed that only its companies can bid for oil contracts, sidelining the companies of other countries, whether from Europe or elsewhere.

Only two months after their troops crossed the border, US companies —Kellogg Brown & Root and Halliburton — arrived to take control over our industry. These US companies are the real beneficiaries of the invasion."

What was being referred to here was essential repair work in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. The CPA days, which have long gone, the US now has absolutely no control over who the current Interim Iraqi Government, or the incoming duly elected Government of Iraq, award contracts to. In the Thread "What is really happening in Iraq" we have been through who has been awarded work and so far it has not gone to one major US or UK Company, and on many Halliburton has not even been invited to tender.