Author: matt605

Saddam's trial prosecutors say he killed 148, not 148,000. Just 148. [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-3 02:42:37 |Display all floors

Reply #6 matt605's post

matt605 has always been a comprehensive writer and his argument flaws are few or none, at least not obviously.

racing car has certainly dealt him a hard blow.  But to "reason" the unreasonable is simply untenable.  matt's argument:

"We can't un-invade Iraq.  We can't release those wrongly prisoned in Gitmo because, although they might not have wanted to harm America before being imprisoned, they would certainly have reason to want to harm Americans today."

is wrong and dangerous. It is like saying if you had wrongly murdered a man, you can’t undo the murder.  Now you have to go on to kill the man’s sons.  Before then, they had no reasons to kill you, but now they do.  So, MURDER them first.  Bush and Blair's mistakes of PRE-EMPTION and aren't they enough reasons for the Americans to learn?

Let me offer you help, Matt.  From a woman, she said: In life we must be brave (George Eliot).

When you have wronged, correct it.  Isn't that the reason why capital punishment was abolished in the West?

How very sad that you've simply gone round in circles?


Speak and act with your conscience, and you will not embarrass yourself.

[ Last edited by whampoa at 2006-3-3 02:48 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-3-3 02:58:25 |Display all floors
Whampoa, so tell me.  Where is the oil we're stealing?  Why has the price of gasoline in the US more than doubled since the invasion?  You know damn well no western country was "dependent" on Iraqi oil in the last 16 yrs. because Iraq was only allowed to sell a tiny fraction of it under the Oil for Food program.  So blowing up the oil fields wasn't gonna disrupt the supply, of which western countries already got very little.  And Matt, we have already released over 100 "innocent" Gitmo detainees, 12 of whom were actually recaptured fighting against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-3 04:02:00 |Display all floors

Reply #9 meiguoracing's post

racing car: "Where is the oil we're stealing?"

Are you asking for CONSOLATION PRIZE?  

Mr racing car, the oil is in Iraq and that was why Iraq was attacked and invaded.  Fortunately, America LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ.  

Of course, not every THIEF gets to keep his plunder.   So, no easy Booty for the defeated Americans and you should know better to leave Iraq immediately, and let the victors rule.  SIMPLE.

Of course, THEFT can be committed in more than one way.  Invading another sovereign state with the excuse of toppling a cruel dictator (when the invader is just as terrible) is one of them and comes at a high risk, which the Americans are now paying - the resentment, distrust and all.  

Just because you're beaten in the war, it does not mean your crime is lessened.  You're just as guilty and your crime is THEFT (and MURDER, of course).  How much have the Americans already stolen (and profited from) during Saddam's regime (America who was behind his rise) and while working with him then, God knows but time will tell.

Perhaps, the following might answer your question, Mr racing car:

Govt. Eyes Error That Cost U.S. Billions

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

Thu Mar 2, 4:09 AM

How it happened or who's responsible is a mystery eight years after the fact. But what may have been a simple error — or perhaps something more ominous — has given a multimillion-dollar windfall to a group of oil and gas companies and could cost the government billions of dollars more in the years to come.

The Interior Department disclosed Wednesday that a provision was mysteriously deleted from hundreds of federal drilling leases in the late 1990s that would have required producers to pay royalties, once prices reached a certain level, on oil or gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

In 1995, Congress exempted deep-water oil from royalty payments to spur development. But a price threshold was included in leases issued in 1996 and 1997 and again in leases sold in each year since 2000 that reinstates the royalties if market prices reach a certain level.

For some reason the language "was inadvertently dropped" from an addendum attached to more than 1,100 leases the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service issued for 1998 and 1999, Walter Cruickshank, the agency's deputy director, told a House Government Reform subcommittee Wednesday.

He said officials have not been able to determine who made the change, although he said it had to have been a human act, not a computer glitch.

"It is clear that there is no record telling people to take the language out," he said, and it was widely known that the department wanted the price threshold restriction in any oil and gas leases as a matter of policy.

In the late 1990s, when oil prices were well below the threshold, the issue may not have attracted attention.

Rep. Darrell Issa (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., the subcommittee chairman, called the whole matter "suspicious."

"This is a $7 billion word processing error," Issa told reporters. He said some of the leases issued during those two years could remain in effect for as long as 85 years, so the government will be unable to collect royalty payments from oil and gas taken from those leases for decades to come.

While providing no specific number, Cruickshank said the government already has lost "several hundred million" dollars in royalty payments from the 1998-99 leases because they lacked the threshold language. If prices remain high, lost royalties "will be in the billions of dollars," he acknowledged.

The price threshold where royalties must be paid changes yearly. Most recently it was set at about $34 a barrel for oil and $4.34 per thousand cubic feet for natural gas, according to Interior officials. The price of oil Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange was nearly $62 a barrel and the government estimates it will remain in the $50-a-barrel range for years to come. Natural gas prices have been in the $9-per-thousand-cubic-feet range.

Issa said he planned to seek more documents from the Minerals Management Service, and said the issue may need to be investigated by the Justice Department to determine whether there was any deliberate wrongdoing.

When Congress enacted the royalty relief program for deep-water exploration and development, it was embraced by the Clinton administration as a way to spur more energy production in areas where the technology and prospects of success were still somewhat uncertain.

Cruickshank said he had no explanation for why the threshold requirement was taken out of the lease language when an addendum was changed for the 1998-99 leases to reflect other regulatory changes.

"Everyone knew the (price) threshold applied" but people didn't focus on it because of low market prices at the time, said Cruickshank, who joined the agency in 1988 but was not involved in writing leases.

The mystery surrounding the 1998-99 leases is part of a broader question over whether any royalty relief should be given to the industry, given high oil and gas prices and huge industry profits.

The Interior Department estimates that as much as $66 billion worth of oil and natural gas that will be taken from the Gulf of Mexico between now and 2011 falls under the royalty relief law enacted by Congress in 1995. Much of that oil and gas will be subject to royalties under the price threshold provision, which is included in leases other than those issued in 1998-99.

Several oil and gas companies have challenged the legality of the threshold requirement in leases issued before 2001. Kerr McGee, a major natural gas producer, has given notice to the Interior Department that it will soon file a lawsuit arguing that the threshold provisions are illegal.

The Interior Department will "vigorously defend" the ability to impose royalties under a price threshold provision, said Cruickshank. "There's a lot of money at stake."


[ Last edited by whampoa at 2006-3-3 04:03 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Post time 2006-3-3 13:33:53 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-3-3 18:25:54 |Display all floors

American "Justice"

Saddam's police/army killed many more than148,
America replied by killing over 100,000. It is not the
part of America
or anyone else
to kill for "regime change" otherwise the world will be in
continuos war

Saddam was a small monster sure, but Hans Blix
said we had him beaten without the $2TRILLION cost
the 100,000 killed and counting. The attack
was for oil and Israel------get over it

Here is the oil going via--
------of course?ISRAEL

[ Last edited by christopher_104 at 2006-3-4 03:09 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-4 07:08:15 |Display all floors
What happened?

Calm down, calm down

Don't be angry ... that you've been defeated

Importantly, Don't be ABUSIVE.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-3-4 07:13:23 |Display all floors
C'mmon it can't be that you wanted to tell us

the USA won the Iraqi war?

The TRUTH speaks for itself.

It's so OBVIOUS, isn't it?

The chaotic state and reports of deaths, bombings and stalled reconstruction efforts

EVERYDAY cannot be a sign of victory, can it?


Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.