PBH / colombia (travelguide, pictures) / post

Chavez Threatens US Oil Cutoff

By SANDRA SIERRA
Sunday, February 10, 2008

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States in an "economic war" if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.

Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts as it challenges the nationalization of a multibillion dollar oil project by Chavez's government.

A British court has issued an injunction "freezing" as much as $12 billion in assets.

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

"I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States," Chavez said Sunday.

"The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us," Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has argued that court orders won by Exxon Mobil have "no effect" on the state oil company PDVSA and are merely "transitory measures" while Venezuela presents its case in courts in New York and London.

Exxon Mobil is also taking its claims to international arbitration, disputing the terms it was granted under Chavez's nationalization last year of four heavy oil projects in the Orinoco River basin, one of the world's richest oil deposits.

Other major oil companies including U.S.-based Chevron Corp., France's Total, Britain's BP PLC, and Norway's StatoilHydro ASA have negotiated deals with Venezuela to continue on as minority partners in the Orinoco oil project.

ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, however, balked at the tougher terms and have been in compensation talks with PDVSA.

By tasco66 on Feb 10, 2008, 13:55 in Politics & the war.

el torcido says on Feb 10, 2008, 14:16:

exxonmobile robbed the american public last year too.
anyone care to post what their profits were?
obscene. this sounds like another war fixing to break out to me. hilary should be taking spanish classes.

don't know much about 'conomy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Medellin Traveler says on Feb 10, 2008, 14:20:

el torcido, agree Exxon continues to post record-breaking profits, always outdoing themselves each quarter.

I'd like to make a suggestion.... why not post all Hugo Chavez articles in the Off Topic. It seems there's a few people who think there's too many Chavez and Venenzuela on a Colombian website. Just a thought.

"Huevos Rancheros en Medellin, No Quiero Taco Bell." - www.medellintraveler.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 10, 2008, 14:40:

About oil profits:

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

athensugadawg says on Feb 10, 2008, 14:58:

Record profits, but they are a HUGE company....just look at the market cap. Strange that you do not hear anyone complaining when they are not making a profit...and keep in mind that profit is not a four letter word...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jorgegdiaz says on Feb 10, 2008, 15:07:

Yes, EXXON posted humongous profits !
The suit that EXXON won in the UK and Nederlands was to compensate an expropiation Chavez did a couple of years ago to Mobil and CONOCO. Those 2 were partners with PDVSA in exploration along Orinico´s river bed. When an estimate of the new field was made Chaveztia decided to deny rights to the companies and nationalized the field.
The estimated reserves in the mentioned field are about 200 billion barrels, making them the biggest in the world so far.

"To err is human - and to blame it on a computer is even more so."Robert Orben

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jorgegdiaz says on Feb 10, 2008, 17:03:

OMG, CAS is not making any comment ?

"To err is human - and to blame it on a computer is even more so."Robert Orben

0 funny, 0 helpful.

athensugadawg says on Feb 10, 2008, 17:50:

The coca paste must really be getting to him by now. Looks like it's time for Evo to pay a little visit, kind of like the old VU song "Waitin' for the Man"....

0 funny, 0 helpful.

fecherklyn says on Feb 10, 2008, 17:50:

People and the media need to get real about this news. It is NOT so sensational as it sounds.

These court orders "freezing" PDVSA assets is NOT such a big deal as it sounds; it is a fairly normal legal exercise during the early stages of international arbitration hearings.

These orders only deny PDVSA the right to DISPOSE of assets in the targetted locations. Thus, whilst PDVSA cannot sell these assets (which could be the vital consideration for any arbitration award against them) they can continue to use and operate them. Result....PDVSA operations are in no way affected although their financial costs could be increased by virtue of the markets increasing their risk premiums.

This has become a media circus with the popular press trying to generate headlines based on exaggerated risks. Chavez has likewise seen (yet another) opportunity to lambast capitalism and its empire. Don't fall into the trap.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 10, 2008, 18:17:

chavez...what a twit!

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 10, 2008, 18:24:

Tasco66, excellent video! and Glenn Beck is exactly right\ about Chavez.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 10, 2008, 19:13:

God, I thought I was watching Fox News for a minute there. I squinted my eyes and it was just like the O'Reilly rant. . .

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 10, 2008, 19:13:

God, I thought I was watching Fox News for a minute there. I squinted my eyes and it was just like the O'Reilly rant. . .

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 10, 2008, 19:14:

God, I thought I was watching Fox News for a minute there. I squinted my eyes and it was just like the O'Reilly rant. . .

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro says on Feb 10, 2008, 20:04:

Just dumb rhetoric by Chavez.

So imagine he carries out his threat. Now Chavez sells his oil to some third party country instead. And the US will source its oil from somewhere else. Net effect - zero. Supply and demand hasn't changed. Maybe a slightly less efficient shipping cost for the oil to reach its destination. That's it.

For all those people applauding the stripping of Exxon's assets. Private property rights are absolutely fundamental for a healthy economy. How would you feel if someone tried to strip you of your house, or your bank account that you worked hard for?

The only thing that says it's your house is some title somewhere. The fact that this is universally respected is what underpins the whole economic system that provides you your generous standard of living.

que nota!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 10, 2008, 21:16:

" It seems there's a few people who think there's too many Chavez and Venenzuela on a Colombian website. Just a thought."

They are easy to ignore, just don't click on them if they bother you. Just a thought.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 10, 2008, 21:17:

Good points Pedro.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 10, 2008, 21:47:

Pedro If it only was that easy... I don´t think this could be realized so easily by either party. This is a huge logistic operation and that´s also the reason why it just won´t happen (at least not within a short period of time)

What I have, I do not want to lose, but Where I am I do not want to stay, but those I love, I do not want to leave, but those I know I no longer want to see, but Where I die, I do not want to go;I want to stay where I have never been

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 11, 2008, 02:52:

siv dont repeat yourself, yourself , yourself.

Glenn makes perfect sense.

no oil from Chavez for USA, no oil for anyone, naval blockade.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 11, 2008, 02:53:

you are right all these posts concerning enezuela or Chavez should be in the off topic section

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

huskie says on Feb 11, 2008, 05:22:

Well, he has threatened to do this before, so this bulls*** its getting old, however, unfortunately, the US needs Venezuela's oil, and Chavez needs US Dollars desperately, specially now. The solution? Send Chavez to his own hell forever!!
Cheers

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 11, 2008, 06:00:

I understand that the U.S. has the only facilities which can refine Hugo's heavy crude. If that is true, what is he going to do, drink it?

It seems that news about the monkey and Venezuela should be important to Colombians and people interested in Colombia, especially at this time.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 11, 2008, 06:05:

Sorry, sorry, sorry for the repeats. A naval blockade of Venzuela would be illegal, and would only gain comdemnation from the international community. As for not needing oil, better park the SUVs, America, and catch the bus. . .

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 11, 2008, 06:12:

RIGHT ON, SiV!

People don't seem to rememeber the gas lines, and odd and even availability, in the 80s.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

morphus says on Feb 11, 2008, 06:44:

Gas lines? That was the 70s.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 11, 2008, 06:58:

someday Chavez will learn that actions have consequences, often unforseen or unintended. Socialists never seem to understand that.

Exxon's 'obscene' profits. I suppose Exxon is responsible for the high price of oil now? When it was at $10 a barrel what were they doing? How much capital is invested in Exxon?

If oil company profits are obscene, why don't you start an oil company? Or invest in one and give your profits to charity? Do you realize Exxon shares can be bought quite easily? Are you aware that almost certainly your parents/grandparents are part owners of Exxon? You know, pensions plans and all that? etc etc

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 11, 2008, 07:02:

profits are bad, initiative is bad, innovation is bad, investment is bad, socialism is good.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 11, 2008, 07:03:

OMG, morphus, some of us are getting old. It doesn't seem so long ago.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 11, 2008, 07:13:

you know what billyb? some of these critics probably support small businesses or even have their own business (hard to believe, I know).

But they hate anything big (meaning successful).

Just like some people believe the hollywood stereotype of colombian drug dealers, they also believe the hollywood stereotype of the big, evil corporation.

They sometimes pretend it's for health reasons too, like McDonalds is unhealthy, then they go off and smoke a joint or whatever. They don't even know what they are saying, they just parrot what they hear on TV.

I could list a dozen movies in the last 5 years that make corporations out to be pure evil (all of Moore's stuff, the supersize me one, the anti tobacco one with Russel Crowe, erin brockovich, etc etc)

Name one that portrays business as being even remotely moral.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 11, 2008, 08:08:

pod since the subject is related to Colombia, try the new Pablo Escobar documentary ;-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 11, 2008, 08:28:

Until recently, adjusted for inflation, gas prices peaked in 1980 or 81. The gas lines were in the early - mid seventies.

Sloop, like you, I have heard that US owned facilities are the among - if not only - refineries that can handle Venezuelan dirty crude.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 11, 2008, 15:08:

I am kind of fascinated by people like escobar. I'll watch that documentary for sure, if I can rent it or whatever.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 11, 2008, 15:58:

There is one online, with 10 segments at:http://www.cocaine.org/colombia/pabloescobar-video.html

I am going to try to watch it

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 11, 2008, 15:59:

Damned dupes!

There is one online, with 10 segments at:http://www.cocaine.org/colombia/pabloescobar-video.html

I am going to try to watch it

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Feb 11, 2008, 16:39:

Yep, empty rhetoric by Chavez.

Given that CITGO is 100% owned by the Venezuelan government and has 14,000 gas stations in the US, where is Hugo proposing that company will buy its oil?

And it's correct that the US has very specialized refineries for processing the dirty VEN crude, so Hugo can't just go sell that goop elsewhere.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 11, 2008, 16:49:

I just watched the first segment at http://www.cocaine.org/colombia/pabloescobar-video.html , of course there will be many complaints about inaccuracies and incomplete coverage here, I expect.

It is from the History Channel, and "I" found it worthwhile. The first segment is nearly 40MB, but you can begin the download of the susequent segment while watching the current one. Probably worthwhile stitching all of them together.

I watched the whole thing. I had NO idea.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 11, 2008, 22:23:

a navy blockade would be illegal??? wow whose gonna arrest us?

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 11, 2008, 22:41:

chavez?
you remember Saddam Hussein?
jajjja!

Ciao! Gustav.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 06:34:

. . .and you wonder why the world hates the US. . .

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 12, 2008, 06:35:

They hate it until they need it. No biggie.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 10:25:

Funny stuff, eh? Iraq is a completely destroyed country largely due to the US' and UK's invasion. Thousands of people die violent, painful deaths every month, amongst them women and children. Almost every institution has been annhilated.

And why? No Al Qaida, no WMD, just oil and economic interests. Same as it would be in Venezuela. Do you really think Hussein was a threat to the US? And Chavez? You lap up what your media writes, half-truths disorted to justify the interests of the large corporations, and you're too blind or stupid to see you're being manipulated, and tens, hundreds of thousands of innocents die because of those decisions taken with your support and approval. . .but it's just joke, so what's the biggie?

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 10:25:

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 12, 2008, 10:43:

More were dying under Saddam and that's not counting the war with Iran. I doubt you were getting this worked up about the Iraqi's suffering when it was under Saddam, so what's the biggie now?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 12, 2008, 11:00:

No Al Qaida? Who do you think's killing tons of civilian Iraqis now? Yep- those same "thousands of innocents" whose deaths you bemoan aren't being killed by Coalition forces.

No WMDs? I imagine there are thousands of Kurdish families who lost loved ones in Saddam's gas attacks that would beg to differ with you. Just because we didn't find them, after months of telling Saddam we were coming, doesn't mean they didn't exist. We also didn't find any sign that they were destroyed.

Pretty convenient memory you have there, SiV.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 12, 2008, 11:07:

slguy, it's called selective outrage. It only manifests itself if it can be directed at the good ole USA.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 12, 2008, 11:09:

Yep. Those folks aren't terribly difficult to spot. They just get so....tiresome, after a while.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 11:51:

Repeat. There were no WMDs, even admitted by both the US and UK govt.
Al Qaida is there now, but not previously, again admitted by both the US and UK govt.
Yes, the majority of deaths are not at the hands of Coalition forces, but sectarian/ AQ violence. Again due to the erosion of institutions, Iraq becoming an AQ war front, etc.
BillyB, civilian deaths were nowhere near as high pre-invasion as post. Pre-invasion, 2% of the population died violently, as opposed to 51, yes 51%, post-invasion. See this BBC news story entitled "Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'" for further details:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

I am not a Saddam apologist. He was a brutal dictator, yes he gassed many Kurds (but not with WMD), and I am not sorry is dead. But let's be honest with ourselves, it wasn't about democracy (if so why doesn't the US invade Burma, with a much older and brutal miltary regime than Iraq's), and Iraq is much worse off now, it was about economic interests and geo-strategy. The invasion was a piece of ill-planned, poorly executed exercise in illegal corporate greed and statal collusion. And the same could happen in Venezuela. And though Chavez is not my cup of tea, I wouldn't like to see the same happen there.

As for selective outrage, I'm British, so it's directed as the govt. of my country as well, as it was complicit in the farce and which no doubt would give the thumbs up to any intervention in Venezuela.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 12, 2008, 11:57:

and what would the justification (as in "weapons of mass destruction" with Saddam) be in case of an "intervention" in Venezuela? Or do these people learn from their mistakes and now admit truthfully that it would be for economic reasons?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Feb 12, 2008, 12:15:

Don't buy into Hugo's bullshit.

The US is NEVER going to invade Venezuela.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 12:29:

No, it'll persuade Uribe to do its dirty work . . .

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Feb 12, 2008, 12:34:

You're dreaming, SIV.

Uribe's got his hands full inside Colombia. And the only "invading" of Venezuela Colombia would ever do will involve very direct strikes against the FARC, not against VEN.

Hugo's not as stupid as his mouth let's on. If he cuts off the spigots of oil to the north, it hurts VEN so much worse than the US. Imagine him going on TV and saying, "sorry, but all my social programs are now caput because we have no money. We have no money because I turned off the Venezuelan oil supply to those evil yanqui imperialists up north."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 12:42:

true enough Mr. H.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 12, 2008, 12:44:

just for clarity's sake- gas IS a weapon of mass destruction.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 12, 2008, 12:54:

Last I heard, nerve gas was a weapon of mass destruction. Did Saddam kill the kurds with CS?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 13:35:

I'm no military expert, but I imagine that the definition of WMD'd have to do with the size of the warhead, and the radio of difussion. Now, I'm guessing, but I'd've thought that if the US and UK govts. stated that there were no WMDs in Iraq that they didn't comply with this definition.

I know that this is of little consolation to the Kurds that were murdered, but the precept of the US's preemptive strike on Iraq was that the WMDs were a threat to the US, so if these were only relatively small weapons, they would/did pose no threat.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 12, 2008, 14:11:

It might be better to write history in the future. The bottom line is that we are there. No amount of hand-wringing is going to change that. And I don't see endless finger-pointing doing much good for anyone.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 12, 2008, 14:36:

tomtom- you miss the point. Most of those types LIVE to cry about the evil US- until they need us.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 16:12:

slguy, you miss the point. I just don't like govts. making up lies to protect their interests, duping their citizens and killing innocents. US, my home country UK, wherever.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Feb 12, 2008, 16:18:

Empresa de petróleos de Venezuela PDVSA suspende relaciones comerciales con ExxonMobil

En un comunicado la empresa venezolana aseguró que suspendió la venta de crudos a ExxonMobil como un acto de "reciprocidad" por las acciones judiciales adelantadas por ella en tribunales europeos.

http://www.eltiempo.com/internacional/latinoamerica/noticias/ARTICULO-...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Feb 12, 2008, 16:50:

Siv Quote: I'm no military expert, but I imagine that the definition of WMD'd have to do with the size of the warhead,
----------------------------------------

WMD = Weapons of mass destruction.

The primary concern would seem to be biological / chemical. It does not require a warhead to kill masses of people by releasing,, heck,, lets say, anthrax spores from a crop duster. Kind of like what happened after 911 only on a massive scale.

No warhead is required to smother New York City in a radioactive dust cloud using,, oh, lets say ammonia nitrate, diesel fuel and a few pounds or radioactive material that will make large areas inhabitable for many years. Kind of like what happened with Chernobyl,, only worse.

What to see Mass Destruction? Checkout this site, lots of photos. Sweden was the first to notice the problem with Chernobyl and,, gosh,, I think Sweden helped finance this gal with her book,, but,, I can’t remember the details.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html

Or how about viruses in the water system? The list is quite long when you think about it.

Maybe a truck loaded with explosives positioned adjacent to a flood wall in New Orleans,, same effect as Hurricane Katrina?

Worried? Not me,, the government will make it right,, but I first need to be far enough away from the site of the original problem or,, not real close to New York.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 12, 2008, 18:25:

I do have a little purse-sized CS-gas spray.... Should I go hide?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 12, 2008, 18:28:

I love these lefties, they're so predictable : )

First line of defense in any thread critical of chavez: "what's chavez got to do with colombia anyway? This is supposed to be a colombia site blah blah blah."

When that doesn't go anywhere, it's: " But in Iraq..."

As if Iraq has anything to do with Colombia or the discussion...

Can't you guys come up with anything new?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Feb 12, 2008, 20:21:

POD Quote: Can't you guys come up with anything new?

Ha,, if you think it bad now,, just wait until Bush is gone,, then what will people talk about at PBH and worse yet, who will Chavez rant about.

Grim times are in the ofting.

Factoid: YUM brands is the largest fast food retailer in the world. Yep,, in 2007 - YUM brands opened an average of ONE STORE PER DAY in China. That would put the total stores in China at about 3,000. Thats a LOT of finger lick'n chickens required everyday.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Feb 12, 2008, 20:21:

duplicate

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 12, 2008, 20:22:

poco: mas gringo no hay?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jonas says on Feb 12, 2008, 20:23:

Uncle Sam wants poco!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 20:35:

I hope you're not referring to me, Pobodski, I've never mentioned the irrevelance of Venezuela to Colombia. Make a point.

As for WMDs, there's still no definition. As opposed to biological/chemical, I would have thought the emphasis on the decision lies in the "mass" as well as "destruction" i.e. something which destroys on a large scale. Hence the size. An atom bomb kills on a large scale, a WMD. A pepper spray, I imagine could be defined as a chemical weapon, but not of mass destruction. A big CS gas missile spreading over a 5km area, on the other hand, probably would. In short this is semantics, as yet again, I repeat, none, remember they were the prime motive for invasion, were found in Iraq.

Can you process this information?

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 12, 2008, 20:35:

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 13, 2008, 04:02:

CS gas isn't going to kill. And the whole "point" of the WMD discussion is irrelevant .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 13, 2008, 19:34:

SiV. Iraq and his regime used WMDs. I will not post the pictures here. They are easily seen if you do a 30 second search. 10s or 100s of thousands of Iraqis died from them. The gas used was not CS (tear gas). It was nerve agent - not unlike what the Nazis used to exterminate people during WWII.

If there is a "cover up", let me just make one point: For argument's sake, let's say Iraq never possessed WMDs. If this was true, and Bush was caught trying to make that up - why wouldn't he just go one step further and plant weapons to "be found" in Iraq? It would be the easy way out. The truth is: Saddam used them, this was proven and recorded. Then, nothing was found some time later. Rational thinkers with a 4th grade level intellect would assume that those weapons were moved somewhere else. The big question is: "Who has them now?" The answer - probably Syria.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Feb 13, 2008, 21:30:

I'm thinking there are probably a lot of really great Iraq war discussion forums out there...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

eywed says on Feb 14, 2008, 02:12:

RJ your feeding again bro.

Ay Hombe!!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 14, 2008, 03:41:

I was referring to a few posters on here just like you SiV (it' so hard to not make a joke about your mind being like your name : ))

Anyway, I'll try to simplify for you. Typical Chavez defender's argument on PBH:

-"Chavez is nice guy, really"
-"there is no proof he is a communist"
-"well George Bush Sucks"
-"there are no wmd's in Iraq!!!!!!"

you guys need to come up with something new I tell ya. As poco says, how will you ever defend Chavez and or /FARC when GW is gone?

Might I suggest the pope as the replacement for GW? Or maybe the IMF? The Trilateral Commisssion?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 14, 2008, 06:06:

W may be leaving, but Yankee Capitalism will always be here for the lefties.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

El Polo says on Feb 14, 2008, 06:45:

The WMD's was a lie fabricated by Saddam himself, it was mostly due to his fear of Iran but he did plan on resuming his WMD program after the sanctions were lifted. There was a 60 minutes interview with George Piro a 36 year old FBI interrogator from Syria I believe, who was in charge of interrogating Saddam Hussein, he said some pretty interesting stuff, in which he revealed some of his interrogation tactics. It is on youtube if you are interested.

could also be a cover up who knows?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

El Polo says on Feb 14, 2008, 07:09:

Correction, George Piro was born in Lebanon, but was raise in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n9S82a_W0I 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg5S9DUBrxg 2 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeiObfeeIUI 3 of 3

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 14, 2008, 09:25:

“nothing was found some time later. Rational thinkers with a 4th grade level intellect would assume that those weapons were moved somewhere else. The big question is: "Who has them now?" The answer - probably Syria."

Robert, are you saying Saddam had WMDs, and when Iraq was attacked he shipped them abroad? So what was the point of having WMDs?

According to the Bush administration these WMDs posed a direct treat to the USA. Now you are saying Saddam did not even use these WMDs when his country was invaded. I am sorry, but this is just hard to believe even for a 4th grader.

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 14, 2008, 09:25:

Bump

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Feb 14, 2008, 09:27:

As I was saying, I bet there are some GREAT discussion boards about the Iraq war out there where you guys could hash this out.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 14, 2008, 11:43:

Careful with your accusations and sweeping generalisations, Podborski, which (and I generalise) are usually the resort of the intellectually lazy.
I have never defended the Farc, and I don't believe that Chavez is a nice guy.
I do dislike Bush, and though there may well have been WMDs in Iraq (there is the joke that the US and UK govts. knew there were WMDs there because they had the receipts. . .) I don't believe Hussein was ever going to launch an attack on the US. It was about petroleum and geo-strategy.
I don't know if he was a communist . . . do you?

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 14, 2008, 12:08:

"Now you are saying Saddam did not even use these WMDs when his country was invaded. I am sorry, but this is just hard to believe even for a 4th grader."

Even Saddam knew what would happen if he had used WMD against the US. Can you believe that?

H is correct. Lo siento.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 14, 2008, 12:36:

try reading my post siv, I said people like you, and yes I am making wildly sweeping generalizations and yup at times I'm extremely intellectually lazy, because you lefties can't come up with anything even remotely resembling an argument, so who needs to work at it?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 14, 2008, 13:00:

Don't be rude.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 14, 2008, 13:32:

SiV - don't be so thinskinned.

You claimed saddam had no WMD- then when we reminded you of the thousands of kurds he gassed, you decided to redefine "wmd" to exclude gas as a wmd.

why do ANY factual research, if you only want to redefine internationally accepted nomenclature to suit your lefty ideology?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 14, 2008, 13:39:

where was I rude? I'm very light heartedly suggesting the 'iraq has no wmd's' discussion is totally irrelevant to chavez and colombia, and that 'you guys' come up with something new so I can at least work a little at not being so lackadaisical

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 14, 2008, 14:02:

No, slguy, once again you fail to read the posts. I stated that that gas/chemical/biological weapons could all be WMD, but that it was the size/dispersal zone which was key, hence the "Mass" part. Mass, in this context, means big.

Pod, I think I've dismissed every argument made against me, though Robert Jorge made a good point. You've had to resort to political/ ideological generalisations (lefty, commie, etc.- which is rude) to dismiss arguments, I do it based on the point made. Point made?

Now, both of you, go and watch the O'Reilly Report for some more inspiration and stop writing drivel.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 14, 2008, 14:15:

Would 105,000, plus or minus, Kurds gassed be considered mass? Or would you like to move the threshold to 500,000? Just wondering SIV.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 14, 2008, 14:53:

I don't fail to read the posts, I just fail to see anything under "SiV" that holds up to intelligent scrutiny.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

hongo_joe says on Feb 14, 2008, 15:07:

O'Reilly seems like a reasonable gentleman compared with these guys

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 14, 2008, 18:50:

What are you suggesting, billybob? That I don't consider their deaths important or significant? I expected you to know better.

The mass I was referring to was regarding the WMDs. In a post above, I said Hussein was a cruel murderer, and deserved to be removed. Please do not twist my words, take them out of context, or infer upon me any values that anyone who reads my posts would know I find repugnant. I afford you and the other posters that respect, although I may not agree with their POV, please do likewise for me.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 14, 2008, 19:05:

"As opposed to biological/chemical, I would have thought the emphasis on the decision lies in the "mass" as well as "destruction" i.e. something which destroys on a large scale"

recognize these words, SiV? Any rational person would logically assume that you were marginalizing the deaths of thousands and thousands of Kurds to Saddam's -yes-WMDs.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 14, 2008, 19:06:

What I'm asking is what is your threshold to consider it "mass destruction', as you are qualifying it by radius, dispersion, and quantity. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you didn't consider them significant.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 14, 2008, 20:42:

"He should cut the US off completely! Perhaps the US Arrogance will waken up!"

OK. Good idea. Chavez can keep his 10% of our total oil imports. we shut down Citgo- and almost every refinery on the planet that refines that gooey crap he pumps out of the ground.

That's likely to make us more arrogant, not less- since we fok Chavez a LOT harder than he can even imagine screwing us.

Got a Plan B?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 14, 2008, 23:03:

Tasco said: "tasco66 says on Thursday February 14th, 2008 9:25:

“nothing was found some time later. Rational thinkers with a 4th grade level intellect would assume that those weapons were moved somewhere else. The big question is: "Who has them now?" The answer - probably Syria."

Robert, are you saying Saddam had WMDs, and when Iraq was attacked he shipped them abroad? So what was the point of having WMDs?

According to the Bush administration these WMDs posed a direct treat to the USA. Now you are saying Saddam did not even use these WMDs when his country was invaded. I am sorry, but this is just hard to believe even for a 4th grader."

No Tasco, I am not saying Saddam shipped the gas weapons when he was attacked. I am suggesting he probably shipped them well before the US invaded. Why is this such a difficult scenario for some people to grasp? It is INDISPUTABLE that he had poison gas in the past. There is no proof, or even a shred of evidence, that it was destroyed; and all of a sudden there is nothing found in 4 years. Hmmmm

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 14, 2008, 23:10:

"And what was the point of having WMDs?" I don't know Tasco. Actually, I can guess: Being the person Saddam was, he had them for #1 ego, #2 status, #3 to kill tens of thousands of his minority countrymen, #4 to mess with Iran, #5 to mess with Isreal. My guess is that the real reason, is a combo of most or all of these things. He wanted to have big boy toys.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Feb 20, 2008, 09:22:

There is no point of having WMD if you are not going to use them when attacked. In the 1st Gulf war Saddam launched Scud missiles on US positions and Israel. And guess what, the war heads were empty. I wonder why? And as we know no WMD were used or found when his country was run over in the 2nd Gulf war. The shipping of WMD abroad makes no sense. Can you name me one case in history when a country shipped abroad its weapons before being attacked by another?

If Saddam really had had any meaningful WMD the US would not have messed with Iraq, and used diplomatic means just as they did with North Korea. If there is one lesson to be learned from this event is that you better have real WMD, if you do not want to run the risk to be attacked by the USA. I would not be surprised if Chavez is now desperately trying to get some WMD of his own.

There is no proof, or even a shred of evidence, that Iraq had WMD of any significance after 1994:

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Feb 20, 2008, 11:09:

Huh? You are saying that the coalition KNEW that Saddam had no WMDs before the invasion? Right.

Blather on.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Ctg Bound says on Feb 24, 2008, 06:11:

tasco66, depends what you mean by WMD.

The media has followed along with the alteration of what the tital actually is, WMD, are just nuclear related bombs.

Biological and Chemical weapons are not truly part of WMD, Iraq stopped its nuclear bomb programme in the early 90s. Although it could easily have been restarted, but there is no evidence that it was. The paperwork and parts were spread around the Country, no doubt some was sent overseas.

As to Biological and chemical weapons, when the UN monitors were kicked out of Iraq in 1988, there was still a large amount of chemical weapons stockpiles missing.

After the invasion, more light has been shed on where the stockpiles were, hidden in the Country still (the odd chemical bomb has been going off here and there), fired off in the Iran/Iraq war and were not registered down, some never existed although they were purchased and people pocketed the money, it is mostly lightly a combination of all the above.

Saddam led many of his generals and others to believe that there was a clandestine nuclear, biolgical and Chemical programme, no doubt western intel. picked on what was false information by Saddam.

As to the scuds in Iraq 1, there was never any suggestion that Iraq was trying to launch nuclear missiles at his neighbours, if he could have launched chemical or biological ones, maybe he would have, but he didn't have the technology to do it. The chemical and bioligal fired at the Iran in large numbers during the Iran/Iraq war were mostly artillery shells filled with the agents.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Ctg Bound says on Feb 24, 2008, 06:14:

tasco66, as to Korea they should have been hit long ago, presently they are real threat to the USA, but in time could be, better to take them out now.

0 funny, 0 helpful.