Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.

The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation.

Mr Blair – who has made at least £20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 – also went to great efforts to keep hidden a £1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq’s neighbour Kuwait.

In an unprecedented move, he persuaded the committee which vets the jobs of former ministers to keep details of both deals from the public for 20 months, claiming it was commercially sensitive. The deals emerged yesterday when the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments finally lost patience with Mr Blair and decided to ignore his objections and publish the details.

Read entire article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-Corp.html

Further evidence that the Iraq War was a shambles. Power corrputs. Have no doubts about it. :S

Mind you, tell this a decade ago, nobody would've believed you. This man was very popular in Britain.

start a war to make money,have tens of thousands of innocent people killed in the process.it's a really sad state we find ourselves in

(03-25-2010, 10:52 AM)srijantje Wrote:  start a war to make money,have tens of thousands of innocent people killed in the process.it's a really sad state we find ourselves in

It seems it has mostly always been like this. Heard of the Crusades? They were not only for religion, money was involved too ...

(03-26-2010, 03:33 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-25-2010, 10:52 AM)srijantje Wrote:  start a war to make money,have tens of thousands of innocent people killed in the process.it's a really sad state we find ourselves in

It seems it has mostly always been like this. Heard of the Crusades? They were not only for religion, money was involved too ...

Crusades you say, thats a bit far back man, what about world war's 1 and 2 and Korea and Vietnam and the falcons and every war ever fought. What about 9/11 and the war on terror. no need to chase after the crusades people.

(03-26-2010, 05:19 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 03:33 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-25-2010, 10:52 AM)srijantje Wrote:  start a war to make money,have tens of thousands of innocent people killed in the process.it's a really sad state we find ourselves in

It seems it has mostly always been like this. Heard of the Crusades? They were not only for religion, money was involved too ...

Crusades you say, thats a bit far back man, what about world war's 1 and 2 and Korea and Vietnam and the falcons and every war ever fought. What about 9/11 and the war on terror. no need to chase after the crusades people.

I would disagree that WWI/II and the Falklands were for money. But alot of money is made from war. That is how the Rotschild banking family became so rich (Wellington?). And the term "war-profiteer" was coined.

But I think Tony Blair is as corrupt as most politicians

(03-26-2010, 07:03 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 05:19 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 03:33 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-25-2010, 10:52 AM)srijantje Wrote:  start a war to make money,have tens of thousands of innocent people killed in the process.it's a really sad state we find ourselves in

It seems it has mostly always been like this. Heard of the Crusades? They were not only for religion, money was involved too ...

Crusades you say, thats a bit far back man, what about world war's 1 and 2 and Korea and Vietnam and the falcons and every war ever fought. What about 9/11 and the war on terror. no need to chase after the crusades people.

I would disagree that WWI/II and the Falklands were for money. But alot of money is made from war. That is how the Rotschild banking family became so rich (Wellington?). And the term "war-profiteer" was coined.

But I think Tony Blair is as corrupt as most politicians

What about Hitler? Was that ww2 or ...ya it was. It was totally about money, who had it and who wanted it. More over power, who had it and who wanted it. Where did the financing come from? Follow the financing in any of these wars and find the same people holding the purse strings and on both sides. Thats pretty much known fact if you look. I could be wrong Dan, but I am pretty sure man.

(03-26-2010, 08:22 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  What about Hitler? Was that ww2 or ...ya it was. It was totally about money, who had it and who wanted it. More over power, who had it and who wanted it. Where did the financing come from? Follow the financing in any of these wars and find the same people holding the purse strings and on both sides. Thats pretty much known fact if you look. I could be wrong Dan, but I am pretty sure man.

*Going a bit off-topic here but it's a healthy discussion*

Sure, there was money involved. There was power involved and things were brewing up for a War. But you cannot say that WWII was fought especifically for money alone. Wars don't just start from one single reason.

That's why I don't believe the Iraq "War" to be a real war (technically speaking). It was just an invasion and yes for money.

So I do agree with you. Wherever there's war - there's alot money. But I refuse to agree that money is the single cause of every war.

(03-26-2010, 08:34 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 08:22 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  What about Hitler? Was that ww2 or ...ya it was. It was totally about money, who had it and who wanted it. More over power, who had it and who wanted it. Where did the financing come from? Follow the financing in any of these wars and find the same people holding the purse strings and on both sides. Thats pretty much known fact if you look. I could be wrong Dan, but I am pretty sure man.

*Going a bit off-topic here but it's a healthy discussion*

Sure, there was money involved. There was power involved and things were brewing up for a War. But you cannot say that WWII was fought especifically for money alone. Wars don't just start from one single reason.

That's why I don't believe the Iraq "War" to be a real war (technically speaking). It was just an invasion and yes for money.

So I do agree with you. Wherever there's war - there's alot money. But I refuse to agree that money is the single cause of every war.

Fair enough Dan but I disagree with that view. If there were no money to be made there would be no war. Paper money is but an I O U Dan. The term needs to be refined to wealth or power or resources or personal gain, the word money is a great deceiver.
I stand firm in that statement, no wars will been fought if personal wealth were not to be gained. It is the only reason for any war.
Blair and all of the rest of them profit from it and try to conceal it because the more information the comman man has on the topic the more likly it is that this kill us for gain scheme will be put to an end.
Personally I do not beleive this to be off topic.

the attack on pearl harbor was a response by the japanese of the americans cutting them off oil resources,trying to strangle their economy

(03-26-2010, 10:54 AM)srijantje Wrote:  the attack on pearl harbor was a response by the japanese of the americans cutting them off oil resources,trying to strangle their economy

I was doing a bit of research on pearl harbor a wile back. I can't recall exactly where but it would not be hard to find again if I needed to, but I came across some information that proves to some extent that the USA new about the impending attack on pearl way before it happened and even sunk a sub or two from the jap fleet, one of which has been found but anyway it appears they new and had loads of time to stop it. They did not respond on purpose. It was used as back reasoning for getting into the war.
Sounds very fromilliar...the gulf off tonkin also comes to mind along with 9/11.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq120-1.htm
The Gulf of Tonkin has also been proven to have never taken place at all.

while some wars are fought over money. the 2nd world war wasn't
it was started because of hatered. money was just a side issue. it was started because hitler and his pals though the arryan race were superior beings. it's easy to equate war with money but more often war is about control. (not of the wealth) of the person; you will do this, you won't do that etc. war was and still is often a product of religious belief.

i still giggle when i see that the usa went to war for the iraq oil, and so they could make money.

war is sometetimes used to effect an outcome outside the war zone. and yes, i think the falklands was one such war. it was never about money. the falklands was about keeping the conservatives in power.

the same with iraq, the main reason was never money. in fact that war put the world into a downward spiral financially. that war was also about keeping the sitting gov in power.

yes, you'll all tell me they made money from waepon sales and other bullshit.

the iraq qar bankrupted the usa.

yes,maybe it bankrupted the country but not haliburton

(03-26-2010, 05:32 PM)billy Wrote:  while some wars are fought over money. the 2nd world war wasn't
it was started because of hatered. money was just a side issue. it was started because hitler and his pals though the arryan race were superior beings. it's easy to equate war with money but more often war is about control. (not of the wealth) of the person; you will do this, you won't do that etc. war was and still is often a product of religious belief.

i still giggle when i see that the usa went to war for the iraq oil, and so they could make money.

war is sometetimes used to effect an outcome outside the war zone. and yes, i think the falklands was one such war. it was never about money. the falklands was about keeping the conservatives in power.

the same with iraq, the main reason was never money. in fact that war put the world into a downward spiral financially. that war was also about keeping the sitting gov in power.

yes, you'll all tell me they made money from waepon sales and other bullshit.

the iraq qar bankrupted the usa.

Thats your opinion and not really fact as far as it not being about money goes. It most certainly was fought over money and every other war along with it. Thats mine. You use the word money again like it is really something of value. It is not but a paper that represents someones debt. Iraq certainly was fought for gain by all the players involved. If there were none it would not have happened. The Iraq war made the people that control the currency of the USA a fortune and thats a fact.

(03-26-2010, 06:33 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 05:32 PM)billy Wrote:  while some wars are fought over money. the 2nd world war wasn't
it was started because of hatered. money was just a side issue. it was started because hitler and his pals though the arryan race were superior beings. it's easy to equate war with money but more often war is about control. (not of the wealth) of the person; you will do this, you won't do that etc. war was and still is often a product of religious belief.

i still giggle when i see that the usa went to war for the iraq oil, and so they could make money.

war is sometetimes used to effect an outcome outside the war zone. and yes, i think the falklands was one such war. it was never about money. the falklands was about keeping the conservatives in power.

the same with iraq, the main reason was never money. in fact that war put the world into a downward spiral financially. that war was also about keeping the sitting gov in power.

yes, you'll all tell me they made money from waepon sales and other bullshit.

the iraq qar bankrupted the usa.

Thats your opinion and not really fact as far as it not being about money goes. It most certainly was fought over money and every other war along with it. Thats mine. You use the word money again like it is really something of value. It is not but a paper that represents someones debt. Iraq certainly was fought for gain by all the players involved. If there were none it would not have happened. The Iraq war made the people that control the currency of the USA a fortune and thats a fact.

Money is value. Whether you accept it or not. The financial world won't change like that just because you think money is worthless. Nowadays you can't even see money. It's just electronic power. And whatever you do, you cannot change a financial means; be it labour,notes, numbers on a screen, coins. Everything has a value.

now it's electronic it becomes even more meaningless.let's put a few zeros behind my account

(03-27-2010, 03:13 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 06:33 PM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-26-2010, 05:32 PM)billy Wrote:  while some wars are fought over money. the 2nd world war wasn't
it was started because of hatered. money was just a side issue. it was started because hitler and his pals though the arryan race were superior beings. it's easy to equate war with money but more often war is about control. (not of the wealth) of the person; you will do this, you won't do that etc. war was and still is often a product of religious belief.

i still giggle when i see that the usa went to war for the iraq oil, and so they could make money.

war is sometetimes used to effect an outcome outside the war zone. and yes, i think the falklands was one such war. it was never about money. the falklands was about keeping the conservatives in power.

the same with iraq, the main reason was never money. in fact that war put the world into a downward spiral financially. that war was also about keeping the sitting gov in power.

yes, you'll all tell me they made money from waepon sales and other bullshit.

the iraq qar bankrupted the usa.

Thats your opinion and not really fact as far as it not being about money goes. It most certainly was fought over money and every other war along with it. Thats mine. You use the word money again like it is really something of value. It is not but a paper that represents someones debt. Iraq certainly was fought for gain by all the players involved. If there were none it would not have happened. The Iraq war made the people that control the currency of the USA a fortune and thats a fact.

Money is value. Whether you accept it or not. The financial world won't change like that just because you think money is worthless. Nowadays you can't even see money. It's just electronic power. And whatever you do, you cannot change a financial means; be it labour,notes, numbers on a screen, coins. Everything has a value.

Value as in What Dan? I have a wooden box and I want value for it. What is it's value Dan?
I contened that it's value is One wooden box.
I went into the woods and chopped down a tree that took me 4 hours by the time I got it home.
I then sawed up the tree into rough planks with a portable band saw for cutting up trees.
I then put the rough boards in a kiln to dry it.
I then resawed the lumber into workable board sizes after throwing away the bad twisted stuff.
I then ran the boards through a jointer to make one side straight.
I then ran the boards through a plainer to make them smooth.
I then ran the boards through a table saw to make all the same size boards.
I then had enough lumber to build my box with Dan!!
I then built my box Dan. Lets say it took me 24 hours from forest to box Dan.
Now lets skip over the fuel and tools Dan because they involve the same type of value
So Dan the wood to build my box is now worth exactly the amount of time it took one man to retrive it and dress it...are you with me so far?
My time ( labour) is not worth any more or any less than your time ( labour ) is Dan.
We all have about the same life expectancy for the sake of argument.
So you grow patatoes and I need potatoes. Lets say you have it figured out that over the run of a season you averaged 100 pounds of patatoes per hour for your labour Dan.
You need a box to put your patatoes in and I need patatoes
According to our labour I give you my box and you give me 2400 pounds of your patatoes.
Well Dan I do not need 2400 pounds of patatoes lol as I might go through 400 pounds a year but you still need the box.
Well Dan I'll give you the Box and you give me enough IOU's worth 10 pounds of patatoes each to cover the 2400 pounds of patatoes you owe me for the fair trade on the box. We are both happy campers.
Except now I have 240 of Your IOU'S worth 10 pounds of patatoes each that I can now trade with someone else for something else that I need to survive.
Paper money is in fact an IOU Dan. It represents our debt of labour to someone else. Wether it is electronic or paper matters not one bit of difference.
What we have now as a monitary system is a group of people that print paper money or electronicaly transfer the same and charge interest for doing it. The interest is payed in labour make no mistake about it this is how it works. Every time you make a transaction for a burger and fries with paper money or a plastic bank card or a credit card you are useing an IOU with interest attached to it. No matter what you like to call it, it is all debt.
My explanation is a bit short but this is the truth Dan. I know you don't like it but don't shoot the messenger man.

(03-27-2010, 05:13 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-27-2010, 03:13 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  Money is value. Whether you accept it or not. The financial world won't change like that just because you think money is worthless. Nowadays you can't even see money. It's just electronic power. And whatever you do, you cannot change a financial means; be it labour,notes, numbers on a screen, coins. Everything has a value.

Value as in What Dan? I have a wooden box and I want value for it. What is it's value Dan?
I contened that it's value is One wooden box.
I went into the woods and chopped down a tree that took me 4 hours by the time I got it home.
I then sawed up the tree into rough planks with a portable band saw for cutting up trees.
I then put the rough boards in a kiln to dry it.
I then resawed the lumber into workable board sizes after throwing away the bad twisted stuff.
I then ran the boards through a jointer to make one side straight.
I then ran the boards through a plainer to make them smooth.
I then ran the boards through a table saw to make all the same size boards.
I then had enough lumber to build my box with Dan!!
I then built my box Dan. Lets say it took me 24 hours from forest to box Dan.
Now lets skip over the fuel and tools Dan because they involve the same type of value
So Dan the wood to build my box is now worth exactly the amount of time it took one man to retrive it and dress it...are you with me so far?
My time ( labour) is not worth any more or any less than your time ( labour ) is Dan.
We all have about the same life expectancy for the sake of argument.
So you grow patatoes and I need potatoes. Lets say you have it figured out that over the run of a season you averaged 100 pounds of patatoes per hour for your labour Dan.
You need a box to put your patatoes in and I need patatoes
According to our labour I give you my box and you give me 2400 pounds of your patatoes.
Well Dan I do not need 2400 pounds of patatoes lol as I might go through 400 pounds a year but you still need the box.
Well Dan I'll give you the Box and you give me enough IOU's worth 10 pounds of patatoes each to cover the 2400 pounds of patatoes you owe me for the fair trade on the box. We are both happy campers.
Except now I have 240 of Your IOU'S worth 10 pounds of patatoes each that I can now trade with someone else for something else that I need to survive.
Paper money is in fact an IOU Dan. It represents our debt of labour to someone else. Wether it is electronic or paper matters not one bit of difference.
What we have now as a monitary system is a group of people that print paper money or electronicaly transfer the same and charge interest for doing it. The interest is payed in labour make no mistake about it this is how it works. Every time you make a transaction for a burger and fries with paper money or a plastic bank card or a credit card you are useing an IOU with interest attached to it. No matter what you like to call it, it is all debt.
My explanation is a bit short but this is the truth Dan. I know you don't like it but don't shoot the messenger man.

Congratulations for telling me something I already knew. Look into a British Note, it will say:

"I promise to pay the bearer the sum of (...)".

You say that money is debt. Correct.

But you're trying to get rid of money? So that labour is just what you make of it?

And what's the point you're trying to make - you just ended up creating an anecdote and not actually specifying what you're trying to say.

but if you borrow it,what did you borrow?

(03-27-2010, 10:33 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  

(03-27-2010, 05:13 AM)Benny2guns Wrote:  

(03-27-2010, 03:13 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote:  Money is value. Whether you accept it or not. The financial world won't change like that just because you think money is worthless. Nowadays you can't even see money. It's just electronic power. And whatever you do, you cannot change a financial means; be it labour,notes, numbers on a screen, coins. Everything has a value.

Value as in What Dan? I have a wooden box and I want value for it. What is it's value Dan?
I contened that it's value is One wooden box.
I went into the woods and chopped down a tree that took me 4 hours by the time I got it home.
I then sawed up the tree into rough planks with a portable band saw for cutting up trees.
I then put the rough boards in a kiln to dry it.
I then resawed the lumber into workable board sizes after throwing away the bad twisted stuff.
I then ran the boards through a jointer to make one side straight.
I then ran the boards through a plainer to make them smooth.
I then ran the boards through a table saw to make all the same size boards.
I then had enough lumber to build my box with Dan!!
I then built my box Dan. Lets say it took me 24 hours from forest to box Dan.
Now lets skip over the fuel and tools Dan because they involve the same type of value
So Dan the wood to build my box is now worth exactly the amount of time it took one man to retrive it and dress it...are you with me so far?
My time ( labour) is not worth any more or any less than your time ( labour ) is Dan.
We all have about the same life expectancy for the sake of argument.
So you grow patatoes and I need potatoes. Lets say you have it figured out that over the run of a season you averaged 100 pounds of patatoes per hour for your labour Dan.
You need a box to put your patatoes in and I need patatoes
According to our labour I give you my box and you give me 2400 pounds of your patatoes.
Well Dan I do not need 2400 pounds of patatoes lol as I might go through 400 pounds a year but you still need the box.
Well Dan I'll give you the Box and you give me enough IOU's worth 10 pounds of patatoes each to cover the 2400 pounds of patatoes you owe me for the fair trade on the box. We are both happy campers.
Except now I have 240 of Your IOU'S worth 10 pounds of patatoes each that I can now trade with someone else for something else that I need to survive.
Paper money is in fact an IOU Dan. It represents our debt of labour to someone else. Wether it is electronic or paper matters not one bit of difference.
What we have now as a monitary system is a group of people that print paper money or electronicaly transfer the same and charge interest for doing it. The interest is payed in labour make no mistake about it this is how it works. Every time you make a transaction for a burger and fries with paper money or a plastic bank card or a credit card you are useing an IOU with interest attached to it. No matter what you like to call it, it is all debt.
My explanation is a bit short but this is the truth Dan. I know you don't like it but don't shoot the messenger man.

Congratulations for telling me something I already knew. Look into a British Note, it will say:

"I promise to pay the bearer the sum of (...)".

You say that money is debt. Correct.

But you're trying to get rid of money? So that labour is just what you make of it?

And what's the point you're trying to make - you just ended up creating an anecdote and not actually specifying what you're trying to say.

Your way off topic, I was tring to explane it as I thought from your posts you did not understand.
There is a topic, find it, mod.