Open letter from a disgusted conservative, page 3

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 10:15 AM

link

Allow me to go 'ATS Geezer' for a sec: Back in the day, topics were open for discussion based on the issue brought to fore. Sources, or lack there of, were proven substantive or scurrilous. While the medium was & is electronic, real world knowledge garnered via books & library time, the printed word in general, as well a correspondence from that authors own circle of familiarity, was never discounted wholesale because it lacked a web footprint to back track on.
Fast forward to present day, and we have what's unfolded in this thread.
Jamuhn & Grady laid to rest the 'Shwarz existence' spin diversion, thank you.
As to the letter, almost all of the material has been cover on ATS, so to feign ignorance to the questions being raised here, or to pretend that it's simply a "Liberal Talking Points' memo, is disingenuous in the least & willfully misleading at the most. Like it or not, TEAM REPUBLICAN, there are people who deserve the Conservative Republican label by staying true to their values AND are diametrically opposed to ALL THINGS BUSH.

Here are references to the cases, based on their unique interpretation of the law, that were cited by Mr Shwarz and show up in the American Journal of Comparative law:
In Bridas Corp. v. Unocal Corp., [FN152] which was decided under the Restatement Second followed in Texas, the interferences occurred in Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. The plaintiff, a Texas corporation, had obtained oil and gas exploration contracts with the governments of those two countries and claimed that the defendant, another Texas-based corporation, caused those governments to breach those contracts. The plaintiff argued that, because the defendant's foreign acts were conceived in and directed from its Texas headquarters, Texas had an interest in applying its law to ensure compliance with its standards of conduct. The court, focusing more on contacts than on interests, rejected the argument because "both the quantity and quality of the contacts identified in [Restatement Second] � 145 mandates the application of foreign law to all tort claims asserted by [plaintiff] because the parties and the subject matter of this litigation have a more significant relationship to the nations of Turkmenistan and Afghanistan than to Texas." [FN153] The plaintiff also argued that because of the difficulty in ascertaining and predicting Turkmen and Afghan law, the law of Texas should apply by default as the lex fori. The court rejected this argument as well, after a lengthy and enlightening discussion of the testimony of nine foreign-law experts (six for defendant and three for plaintiff) and concluded that Turkmen and Afghan law were "readily and reliably ascertainable." [FN154]

EA Oil Service, Inc. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing Turkmenistan, Inc., [FN155] decided by the same panel as Bridas a few days later, involved very similar facts and issues and was decided the same way. The court noted Texas's interest in protecting the Texas plaintiff but also spoke of "Turkmenistan's interest in controlling its oil wealth" [FN156] and took notice of a letter submitted by the Turkmen government in which it expressed its belief that disputes relating to contracts with that government should be litigated in Turkmenistan. [FN157] The court concluded that, especially because the conduct and injury occurred in Turkmenistan, that country had the most significant relationship and its law should govern, thus barring plaintiff's action.

Bout Time

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link

From the BBC

.....Last month, the Argentinian firm, Bridas, announced that it was close to signing a two-billion dollar deal to build the pipeline, which would carry gas 1,300 kilometres from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, across Afghanistan.

In May, Taleban-controlled radio in Kabul said a visiting delegation from an Argentinian company had announced that pipeline construction would start "soon".

Timeline of Unocal v. Bridas competition in Afganistan

DeltaChaos

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link

Whether the letter is bogus or not, what about the questions raised in the text? There is a LOT that Bush should be held accountable for, and he is the only one to which these questions are answerable.

Personally, I don't think all of what has happened lately was dreamed up by Bush. He's much too obtuse to devise operations to this level. The lucrative prospects for the trans-Afghani pipeline alone would be too much for him to consider on his own.

Let alone the Iraq situation. There definitely was a reason that Iraq was on his agenda prior to 11SEP01, and it certainly wasn't his idea. There was definitely the influence of a profit-centric conglomerate of government contracted corporations pulling all the strings on this one.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Bout Time

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link

Just a willing Rube; he's the conspirator that always finds the Queen, showing us marks how easy it is to win at 3 card Monty.

James the Lesser

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link

Hmm, instead of debating the issues, they go... "He's bogus! He questioned Bush! he is going to Gitmo now under PA2." or... "How dare he question Bush! Why should we debate this? Under PA2 he will be killed for this so no reason to debate this."

I would like to know why Karzai, a memeber of Unocal, is leading Afganistan instead of say, a politician who knows about politics and how to run things....

27jd

posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link

Bush supporters never disappoint. They have learned well from their masters, never answer any question directly, either re-direct or change the subject all together. Sometimes I think some members here are just campaign embeds trying to counter the widespread intelligence on the internet. It's truly hard to comprehend anyone could be so blatantly ignorant, and some are even mods!? I understand the need for balance, but none of our "Bushies" have even tried to engage the many issues this letter brings forward, all of which were fairly common knowledge before this letter (Afghan pipeline, etc.). The author is NOT in question here, Bush is, and these issues were not dreamed up by this "mythical creature", they are real, even if bigfoot wrote this particular e-mail letter. If bigfoot said he was a swiftboat vet who opposed Kerry, his word would be gold to you guys
, pathetic. Could one of you Bushies maybe, just maybe, try and tackle the issues and not the messenger? Of course not, what was I thinking? Just keep supporting this crooked, murderous administration. Keep believing they cared so much about the Iraqi peoples' freedom that they decided it was worth over a thousand of our kids lives, keep believing that our soldiers and Iraqi civilians and children are dying to protect us from the WMD's Saddam may have acquired 10 years from now, while other more hostile countries have them TODAY (oh yeah, but to destroy life to save life is an ethical dilemma for Bush when it comes to stem cells, I guess that dilemma doesn't apply to already living and breathing life). Bush supporters are the worst kind of people IMO, but oh yeah, god supports Bush, LOL, if there is a god I'm sure he supports this war, and I'm sure he holds a special place in heaven for those who empower this warmongering administration (bring icewater
).

[edit on 19-10-2004 by 27jd]

DiRtYDeViL

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link

Bush only has supporters because they can't face the fact there were duped and also can't face the fact their government is corrupt. So they will go to their graves defending the man so they don't have to face the fact they were wrong. To bad they will take the country down with them. You get what you vote for.

HHH Is King

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link

When I posted a topic about Child Sex RingS(S as in plural) the response I got from Republicans was "It's ok a liberal comedian did a bad joke three years ago!" and other BS.(Like gays are the majority of pedophiles then posted links showing it was 21 and 33 percent so clearly not a majority) www.abovepolitics.com...

Here something to explain GOP Thinking.

How many members of the Republican party does it take to change a light bulb?

One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed; One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed; One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb; One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs; One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb; One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished; One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark; One to viciously smear #7; One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along; And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.