Viewing Thread:
"There you go."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm

Halliburton contract awarded without bidding expands to cover "pumping and distribution of oil". Originally awarded to cap and control oil field fires.

Sleight of hand, a few mirrors, one airlifted Iraqi kid with no arms and voila.
US troops open fire on crowd killing several, rising anti-US feeling from Iraqi civilians still without basic facilities and what happens?
"Look, we released some people from Camp X-Ray. We care about brown people"
You released people after a year and a half without charge.
*slow clap*

Hussein remains at large. Said they wouldn't kill him before the invasion.
Bin Laden remains at large.

You'll forgive my cynicism at hearing that Halliburton are now able to pump and distribute the oil. I'm sure it's all about liberating those poor civilians.

Balanced ? on the day that the statues of Saddam fell the BBC reporters on 24 were still obsessing over the alleged american attack on that marketplace, which later turned out to be resulting from Iraqi AA gun flak.....

On September the 11th one BBC program had the US Ambassador to the UK on, and the presenter, on live tv, blamed the attack on America, and the hand picked studio audience then bombarded the ambassador with similar accusations and downright abuse, none of which the presenter intervened in, and reduced the man to tears.

As for non biased reporting, well no one does that, not the BBC, not Fox, all you can do is make your own assessment of what you yourself believe to be true.

I saw the news coverage. On BBC1 of that statue being brought down.

All afternoon it was.

From where I was sitting, the BBC weren't anti-war at all. They practically had stars and stripes face paint and Uncle Sam tattoos.

So you're saying that they shouldn't have reported anything but that which made the war look good? Pardon me, but wouldn't that make them biased in favour of the war?

Balanced means giving both sides of the story. So are you still saying that, by doing that, the BBC were 100% anti war?

Halliburton. Sounds a bit like "Devil's Conglomerate Inc" dontcha think?

Another look at some of the underlying motivations of members of the US government. By all means, support the grubby little warmongers, but don't for an instant kid yourselves that compassion for the people of a nation plays any part in their decision making...

http:// www.guardian.co.uk/ korea/ article/ 0,2763,952289,00.html

But, but they airlifted that poor little kid with no head or something.
And they protected the oil wells whilst letting hospitals fall to looters.
And they annihilated more British troops than the Iraqis did.

Two words can tell you exactly how seriously the Americans took this "liberation", two words that sum up the integrity, intelligence and professional soldier mindset of the US-Coalition.

"Hammer Time"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3012609.stm

US wants sanctions lifted immediately.
Hurrah, at last a semblance of decent living standards could return.
Except the US has proposed that only it and Britain, to be known as The Authority, should decide would decide on how the income from oil sales should be split.

And "Russia and France also want the UN to follow procedures - opposed by Washington - which would require UN arms inspectors to declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction before sanctions are removed."

So Russia and France suggest that Iraq is officially declared free of WOMD before sanctions are repealed.
And Washington opposes.
But...I thought the whole point of invading Iraq was to remove these WOMD?

I'm confused.

The ironic thing will be Iraq stripped of all it's weapons and the ability to defend itself in an unstable region removed. Would we help them repel an invasion from a country wishing to capture it's oil fields?

Hammertime too: between Iraq and a hard place.

The booger with the world is that one cannot fail to be cycnical of Government actions even if they seem justified, as there is always an ulterior motive and potential scandal to shake the foundations of your ideology.

The sagacious one wrote:
> Would we help them repel an invasion from a country wishing to capture
> it's oil fields?

That's exactly what happened with Kuwait in the last Gulf war though.

Of course the Britis army would help. George Bush said so.