Ok 9-11 conspiracy theorist, 1 simple question, WHY?

[JRK]

Actually he said they could of been much quieter than stated by nist

you guys keep going back to the part that does not matter
there is no conspiracy in this event if you cannot explain the why


Put options? there is allot easier ways to make money in the stock market than killing 3000 people and spending millions on planning such an event, in fact the amount of money spent on this event you take that money, bought apple with it, turn off your computer 2001
turn it on 2011
holy moley

Put options?

 

[JRK]

The question is not so much "Why" but..."Why not"?

I doubt Bush or even that madman Cheney have the smarts or the balls to have planned 9/11 in any way. I has been made crystal cleat that Bush intended to start a war with Iraq from before his presidency. The Bush administration was told in advance what has become public information that there was an impending commercial air usage by Bin Laden's little helpers. He may have even been informed on the probable targets.

So the real answer to "Why" would be "Why Not" as their predetermination to find an excuse to enter into a conflict in the Mid East. It is not much of a stretch to accuse Bush and mostly Cheney, who had a failing war profiteering corporation on the ropes, to enable the terrorist plan by playing dumb at the least to actively facilitating access to the targets at the worst. The hardest part of any conspiracy theory is not the roles of Bush and Cheney...that is pretty easy...It is the several dozen co-conspirators that would have also had to participate to pull the whole thing off. The "explosive charges" in the twin towers is a hard one to explain. My theory is that because of the highly sensitive nature of what was in those buildings and the potential risk such as those enormous structures posed to the public that there could have been a fail safe "fall in it's own footprint" plan in effect for many years. I doubt anyone could have prewired explosives in time to add to the plan but it is possible that a way to bring down those buildings safer than let them fall over on many other structures could have been in place for more than twenty-thirty years. If there was secret knowledge of this fail safe plan known only to a few then setting it off could have been rationalized to keep the disaster to a minimum. Just thinking out loud. Why not?

You'll find if you hang around long enough on his threads Huggy that this troll will only evade the evidence and facts,wont read links you post to him that doesnt go along with his version of events,and will just keep asking irrelevent questions and will show no sign whatsoever in wanting to learn the truth by evading the evidence you show him with your links.

I'm not as big into solving the mysteries of 9/11 as some of you are. There is little chance that my questions or the bigger ones will ever come to light. The real truth of 9/11 is that the USA would never allow anything but a thoroughly scrubbed version to ever see the light of day no matter how preposterous the "facts" they presented are. I would keep in mind that the "magic bullet" is still the official story from Dallas and no forensics person with half a brain buys that.

what does that have to do with what we sit and watched with our own eyes 9-11-2001?
I mean this with respect. There is no doubt about how the jets where taken over, where 3 of the 4 went and I would think if your wife was on the 4th one there is little doubt were it went
The theories in Dallas take hold because there is no obvious
9-11-2001 cannot be more obvious
people jumping out of buildings when it comes to that choice
and people claim there was not enough heat to fall the building
Think about that for a minute
In addition where is the intelligence that warns us of 19 Saudis using leather mans? I read above W knew this event was coming, If he did how does he stop it?

 

[candycorn]

The question is not so much "Why" but..."Why not"?

I doubt Bush or even that madman Cheney have the smarts or the balls to have planned 9/11 in any way. I has been made crystal cleat that Bush intended to start a war with Iraq from before his presidency. The Bush administration was told in advance what has become public information that there was an impending commercial air usage by Bin Laden's little helpers. He may have even been informed on the probable targets.

So the real answer to "Why" would be "Why Not" as their predetermination to find an excuse to enter into a conflict in the Mid East. It is not much of a stretch to accuse Bush and mostly Cheney, who had a failing war profiteering corporation on the ropes, to enable the terrorist plan by playing dumb at the least to actively facilitating access to the targets at the worst. The hardest part of any conspiracy theory is not the roles of Bush and Cheney...that is pretty easy...It is the several dozen co-conspirators that would have also had to participate to pull the whole thing off. The "explosive charges" in the twin towers is a hard one to explain. My theory is that because of the highly sensitive nature of what was in those buildings and the potential risk such as those enormous structures posed to the public that there could have been a fail safe "fall in it's own footprint" plan in effect for many years. I doubt anyone could have prewired explosives in time to add to the plan but it is possible that a way to bring down those buildings safer than let them fall over on many other structures could have been in place for more than twenty-thirty years. If there was secret knowledge of this fail safe plan known only to a few then setting it off could have been rationalized to keep the disaster to a minimum. Just thinking out loud. Why not?

You'll find if you hang around long enough on his threads Huggy that this troll will only evade the evidence and facts,wont read links you post to him that doesnt go along with his version of events,and will just keep asking irrelevent questions and will show no sign whatsoever in wanting to learn the truth by evading the evidence you show him with your links.

I'm not as big into solving the mysteries of 9/11 as some of you are. There is little chance that my questions or the bigger ones will ever come to light. The real truth of 9/11 is that the USA would never allow anything but a thoroughly scrubbed version to ever see the light of day no matter how preposterous the "facts" they presented are. I would keep in mind that the "magic bullet" is still the official story from Dallas and no forensics person with half a brain buys that.

Any word on what took down the lightpoles if it wasn't AA77? No? Okay...carry on.

 

[Gamolon]

Actually he said they could of been much quieter than stated by nist

Like this "quiet" explosion? Damn eots. You make me laugh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

Listen to your video. he tells you that there would have been a string of explosions....
They weren't recorded by anyone. How come?

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

 

[Gamolon]

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:[/B]
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

So let's see here. Above is a quote from Kevin. Let's listen to this next video of Kevin. Why did his story change so much?


1. He went from initially hearing "3, 2, 1 on the walkie talkie" to "...I couldn't hear what it was saying, but it was like...It was pulsed. Whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed, and that means to me it was most likely a countdown..." This was at 2:12 in the video above. SO now he never actually heard the countdown. He guessed what it was. This is what you folks take as fact?

2. Then he changes from the person saying "Just run for your life, just run for your life." to "...and he gave this like heartfelt look like he new wha... 'Just run for your life', 'cause he didn't want to ring it on his conscience..." This was at 2:23 in the video. So now the person never actually said it, but gave a look. Yeah. This guy is trustworthy.

3. No descriptions of explosions in that video eh? Why did he leave the most important piece out of his story???

What a joke.

 

[JRK]

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:[/B]
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

So let's see here. Above is a quote from Kevin. Let's listen to this next video of Kevin. Why did his story change so much?


1. He went from initially hearing "3, 2, 1 on the walkie talkie" to "...I couldn't hear what it was saying, but it was like...It was pulsed. Whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed, and that means to me it was most likely a countdown..." This was at 2:12 in the video above. SO now he never actually heard the countdown. He guessed what it was. This is what you folks take as fact?

2. Then he changes from the person saying "Just run for your life, just run for your life." to "...and he gave this like heartfelt look like he new wha... 'Just run for your life', 'cause he didn't want to ring it on his conscience..." This was at 2:23 in the video. So now the person never actually said it, but gave a look. Yeah. This guy is trustworthy.

3. No descriptions of explosions in that video eh? Why did he leave the most important piece out of his story???

What a joke.

With respect to your analysis
what does the blowing up add that the people jumping out of buildings on fire does not?
Is this done for insurance?
I keep asking the same question and even though your points are spot on, those who think there was some sort of conspiratorial event cannot tell us why

 

[PhysicsExist]

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:[/B]
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

So let's see here. Above is a quote from Kevin. Let's listen to this next video of Kevin. Why did his story change so much?


1. He went from initially hearing "3, 2, 1 on the walkie talkie" to "...I couldn't hear what it was saying, but it was like...It was pulsed. Whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed, and that means to me it was most likely a countdown..." This was at 2:12 in the video above. SO now he never actually heard the countdown. He guessed what it was. This is what you folks take as fact?

2. Then he changes from the person saying "Just run for your life, just run for your life." to "...and he gave this like heartfelt look like he new wha... 'Just run for your life', 'cause he didn't want to ring it on his conscience..." This was at 2:23 in the video. So now the person never actually said it, but gave a look. Yeah. This guy is trustworthy.

3. No descriptions of explosions in that video eh? Why did he leave the most important piece out of his story???

What a joke.

You are lying. He said he did not hear a countdown, until it reached 3-2-1. His story is the same. Stop being a anti-truth shill.

 

[Gamolon]

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:[/B]
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

So let's see here. Above is a quote from Kevin. Let's listen to this next video of Kevin. Why did his story change so much?


1. He went from initially hearing "3, 2, 1 on the walkie talkie" to "...I couldn't hear what it was saying, but it was like...It was pulsed. Whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed, and that means to me it was most likely a countdown..." This was at 2:12 in the video above. SO now he never actually heard the countdown. He guessed what it was. This is what you folks take as fact?

2. Then he changes from the person saying "Just run for your life, just run for your life." to "...and he gave this like heartfelt look like he new wha... 'Just run for your life', 'cause he didn't want to ring it on his conscience..." This was at 2:23 in the video. So now the person never actually said it, but gave a look. Yeah. This guy is trustworthy.

3. No descriptions of explosions in that video eh? Why did he leave the most important piece out of his story???

What a joke.

You are lying. He said he did not hear a countdown, until it reached 3-2-1. His story is the same. Stop being a anti-truth shill.

Listen to the video stupid. Tell me the exact quote from that video where he's says he heard "3,2,1". He says he took his hand of at the last three seconds. If he knew for a fact that it was a countdown and heard "3,2,1", why did he say previously that hearing the "pulsed sounds" meant it was most likely a countdown.

You're full of shit yet again.

Why did he lie about the person telling him to run?

 

[candycorn]

Actually he said they could of been much quieter than stated by nist

Like this "quiet" explosion? Damn eots. You make me laugh!

Listen to your video. he tells you that there would have been a string of explosions....
They weren't recorded by anyone. How come?

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

The only thing I have to add is this;

Surely Miller said something to qualifiy for your Wall of Shame in the signature area.

 

[Gamolon]

Actually he said they could of been much quieter than stated by nist

Like this "quiet" explosion? Damn eots. You make me laugh!

Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:
“And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.”

The only thing I have to add is this;

Surely Miller said something to qualifiy for your Wall of Shame in the signature area.

Miller?

There's so much. I don't think I have enough room. What's the sig character limit?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Like this "quiet" explosion? Damn eots. You make me laugh!

The only thing I have to add is this;

Surely Miller said something to qualifiy for your Wall of Shame in the signature area.

Miller?

There's so much. I don't think I have enough room. What's the sig character limit?

Um, it's only supposed to be 10 lines. You've passed the limit. I know, they are such a wealth of information......

 

[JRK]

The only thing I have to add is this;

Surely Miller said something to qualifiy for your Wall of Shame in the signature area.

Miller?

There's so much. I don't think I have enough room. What's the sig character limit?

Um, it's only supposed to be 10 lines. You've passed the limit. I know, they are such a wealth of information......

Men the amount of profit made from these people creating an event that has no chance of ever occurring
I really had no idea this was something people took serious
I feel sorry for those who do and what there missing in life
If you dis agree with what GWB did after 9-11 thats one thing
To claim the things that have been claimed in these threads is on border of not being able to deal with reality or not wanting to

 

[eots]

Miller?

There's so much. I don't think i have enough room. What's the sig character limit?

um, it's only supposed to be 10 lines. You've passed the limit. I know, they are such a wealth of information......

men the amount of profit made from these people creating an event that has no chance of ever occurring
i really had no idea this was something people took serious
i feel sorry for those who do and what there missing in life
if you dis agree with what gwb did after 9-11 thats one thing
to claim the things that have been claimed in these threads is on border of not being able to deal with reality or not wanting to

what are you incoherently babbling about now ?....are you the new divecon ?

 

[JRK]

um, it's only supposed to be 10 lines. You've passed the limit. I know, they are such a wealth of information......

men the amount of profit made from these people creating an event that has no chance of ever occurring
i really had no idea this was something people took serious
i feel sorry for those who do and what there missing in life
if you dis agree with what gwb did after 9-11 thats one thing
to claim the things that have been claimed in these threads is on border of not being able to deal with reality or not wanting to

what are you incoherently babbling about now ?....are you the new divecon ?

Lets see if I can make this simple enough for you
Why create an event that the shear cost, time and risk of creating it would not be worth the profit in return
Oil?
Yes the war was in part about oil. No-one never tried to hide that. Why create an event that would only increase oil production, thence lowering gasoline pricing.
Until Obama stopped us form drilling in the gulf, it worked. Gas in GWB last months as president was below 2.00 a gallon

Shorting stocks? That claim is so ridiculous I do not know where to start. To start with no-one plans an event to profit that much from in 2001 in the stock market because of the amount of income tax (capital gains) that would be owed. 2003 yes, 2001 no. billions may have been made shorting stocks, trillions was lost when the market plunged for the next 12 months

The pipe-line in Afghanistan? what pipe-line


There
I hope that is simple enough for you

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=JRK;3452848]

men the amount of profit made from these people creating an event that has no chance of ever occurring

i really had no idea this was something people took serious
i feel sorry for those who do and what there missing in life
if you dis agree with what gwb did after 9-11 thats one thing
to claim the things that have been claimed in these threads is on border of not being able to deal with reality or not wanting to

what are you incoherently babbling about now ?....are you the new divecon ?

Lets see if I can make this simple enough for you
Why create an event that the shear cost, time and risk of creating it would not be worth the profit in return
Oil?

because it is only your simple minded premise that mass profit was not made by individuals

Yes the war was in part about oil. No-one never tried to hide that. Why create an event that would only increase oil production, thence lowering gasoline pricing.
Until Obama stopped us form drilling in the gulf, it worked. Gas in GWB last months as president was below 2.00 a gallon

pointless babble...

Shorting stocks? That claim is so ridiculous I do not know where to start. To start with no-one plans an event to profit that much from in 2001 in the stock market because of the amount of income tax (capital gains) that would be owed. 2003 yes, 2001 no. billions may have been made shorting stocks, trillions was lost when the market plunged for the next 12 months

you do not think profits are made in down markets ???

The pipe-line in Afghanistan? what pipe-line


There
I hope that is simple enough for you

simple as in simple minded yes... ...PNAC stated the reason for wars of conquest
simple and clearly and the answer to your why question is well answered right from the horses mouth

 

[PhysicsExist]

 

[SFC Ollie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

You do understand that Utube videos prove nothing? And we've seen this one many times already....

 

[JRK]

[

QUOTE=JRK;3452848]

i really had no idea this was something people took serious
i feel sorry for those who do and what there missing in life
if you dis agree with what gwb did after 9-11 thats one thing
to claim the things that have been claimed in these threads is on border of not being able to deal with reality or not wanting to

what are you incoherently babbling about now ?....are you the new divecon ?

because it is only your simple minded premise that mass profit was not made by individuals





pointless babble...

Shorting stocks? That claim is so ridiculous I do not know where to start. To start with no-one plans an event to profit that much from in 2001 in the stock market because of the amount of income tax (capital gains) that would be owed. 2003 yes, 2001 no. billions may have been made shorting stocks, trillions was lost when the market plunged for the next 12 months

you do not think profits are made in down markets ???

The pipe-line in Afghanistan? what pipe-line


There
I hope that is simple enough for you

simple as in simple minded yes... ...PNAC stated the reason for wars of conquest
simple and clearly and the answer to your why question is well answered right from the horses mouth

Ok what mass profit?
Really
what mass profit and by whom?

Do you know what the term shorting a stock means?
I mean you ask me if I know if profit can be made in a down market and I ask you does the term shorting a stock mean anything to you?

No its not answered. Killing 10,000 Americans for profit is an event that never took place. Whats up with you guys? you think someone sit in a room and said hell if we blow up the WTC after 10 insane Saudis fly 747s full of fuel into them we can make a profit?
Where at war the very second the first jet hits the first WTC
Where at war with Iraq the very second some event gives us a reason long before 9-11. try 1998

H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))



Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress

H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)

RELATED BILLS: S.2525

TITLE(S):

SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED HOUSE:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
STATUS: Floor Actions
10/31/98 Public Law 105-338 (11/12/98 CR D1205)
10/20/98 Measure presented to President (10/21/98 CR H11704)
10/20/98 Enrolled Measure signed in Senate (CR S12718)
10/19/98 Enrolled Measure signed in House (CR H11546)
10/07/98 Measure passed Senate (CR S11812)
10/07/98 Measure considered in Senate (CR S11811-11812)
10/07/98 Measure called up by unanimous consent in Senate (CR S11811)
10/05/98 Measure passed House, amended, roll call #482 (360-38) (CR H9494)
10/05/98 Measure considered in House (CR H9486-9494)
10/05/98 Measure called up under motion to suspend rules and pass in House (CR H9486)

STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status

House Actions

Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
Senate Actions

Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Executive Actions

Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.
STATUS: Congressional Record Page References


10/01/98 Introductory remarks on Measure (CR E1857)
10/05/98 Full text of Measure as passed House printed (CR H9486-9487)

COMMITTEE(S):

COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House International Relations
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***

COSPONSORS(1):

Rep Cox - 09/29/98

SUMMARY:

(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.






H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))


One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).
(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.
(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.
(g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.
SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--
(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and
(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=JRK;3452848]

what are you incoherently babbling about now ?....are you the new divecon ?

because it is only your simple minded premise that mass profit was not made by individuals





pointless babble...






you do not think profits are made in down markets ???

The pipe-line in Afghanistan? what pipe-line


There
I hope that is simple enough for you

simple as in simple minded yes... ...PNAC stated the reason for wars of conquest
simple and clearly and the answer to your why question is well answered right from the horses mouth

Ok what mass profit?
Really
what mass profit and by whom?

you would have to be completely simple minded to think that there are not huge profits in waging war,government contracts and rebuilding destroyed infrastructure...not to mention oil

Do you know what the term shorting a stock means?
I mean you ask me if I know if profit can be made in a down market and I ask you does the term shorting a stock mean anything to you

it is no big news there are several ways one can capitalizes on a down market so what is it you are struggling to say ?

No its not answered. Killing 10,000 Americans for profit is an event that never took place

.

lol....nonsense it has happened in many ways and it is about power even more so than the profit

Whats up with you guys? you think someone sit in a room and said hell if we blow up the WTC after 10 insane Saudis fly 747s full of fuel into them we can make a profit?
Where at war the very second the first jet hits the first WTC
Where at war with Iraq the very second some event gives us a reason long before 9-11. try 1998

No this is just your babbling...I believe people within the government were complicit in the attacks of 9/11.that the 9/11 commission and the NIST report are cover -ups and that explosives were most likely utilized in the collapse of the towers and wtc 7

 

[JRK]

[


because it is only your simple minded premise that mass profit was not made by individuals





pointless babble...






you do not think profits are made in down markets ???





simple as in simple minded yes... ...PNAC stated the reason for wars of conquest
simple and clearly and the answer to your why question is well answered right from the horses mouth

you would have to be completely simple minded to think that there are not huge profits in waging war,government contracts and rebuilding destroyed infrastructure...not to mention oil

Huge profits?
n March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton, the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraq—everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR's central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars.
But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.
Advertisement

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own—higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
An excellent front-page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold shows that, depending on how you look at it, KBR has either made the best of a horrible situation or has screwed up big time. At times, KBR seems to function more like a dot-com on its last legs than the ultra-efficient logistics unit of a Fortune 500 company. Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices—not to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.
When you're a logistics company—and one working on a 1 percent profit margin—inefficiency is a killer. That's why for service companies like Halliburton, landing huge contracts is less than half the battle. Improperly executed, a huge contract can become a gigantic liability. So while KBR may land deals because of its connections and experience, it hasn't shown much ability of late to carry them out profitably.
According to Halliburton's most recent quarterly results, released yesterday, its KBR unit lost $15 million in the first quarter, largely because of a $97 million loss on an ill-fated project in Brazil, even though revenues for the unit doubled to $3.7 billion. Iraq was a fairly dim bright light. "Halliburton's Iraq-related work contributed approximately $2.1 billion in revenues in the first quarter 2004 and $32 million in operating income," the company reported. That's a margin of 1.5 percent.
The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 million—a 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 million—a 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.
What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.
KBR is now under criminal investigation by the Pentagon over claims it overcharged for fuel delivered from Kuwait. The Pentagon is also looking into dining-hall contracts allegedly awarded without competitive bids. And annoyed at repeated billing screw-ups, the Pentagon is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to KBR. Any of these conflicts could further erode KBR's margins.
KBR hasn't lost money on its sweetheart Iraq contracts—yet. It has made a small profit. But the amounts are nothing to write home about—and they're certainly not worth starting a war over.




it is no big news there are several ways one can capitalizes on a down market so what is it you are struggling to say ?


.

lol....nonsense it has happened in many ways and it is about power even more so than the profit

Whats up with you guys? you think someone sit in a room and said hell if we blow up the WTC after 10 insane Saudis fly 747s full of fuel into them we can make a profit?
Where at war the very second the first jet hits the first WTC
Where at war with Iraq the very second some event gives us a reason long before 9-11. try 1998

No this is just your babbling...I believe people within the government were complicit in the attacks of 9/11.that the 9/11 commission and the NIST report are cover -ups and that explosives were most likely utilized in the collapse of the towers and wtc 7

babbling?
you offer this as your counter? that I babble?