| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"ALWAN" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2007 07:35:44 PM |
| Object: |
The War against Islam |
Um Ahmad sitting in the room where five of her children died at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Massacres committed by the Christian
Phelange who were supported and given aid by Israel, which was
protected by US vetoes of UN resolutions condemning them for their
part in the Lebanon conflict
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/
.
|
|
| User: "Den Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 10:02:01 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 8:35 pm, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Um Ahmad sitting in the room where five of her children died at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Massacres committed by the Christian
Phelange who were supported and given aid by Israel, which was
protected by US vetoes of UN resolutions condemning them for their
part in the Lebanon conflicthttp://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/
Which is more reliable, this web site or the one about the giant human
skeleton?
The war against Islam is waged by Muslims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 08:03:04 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 10:35 am, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Um Ahmad sitting in the room where five of her children died at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Massacres committed by the Christian
Phelange who were supported and given aid by Israel, which was
protected by US vetoes of UN resolutions condemning them for their
part in the Lebanon conflicthttp://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/
Would it be impolite of me to ask you to GAGF? (and I don't mean that
as an invitation for sex and travel).
My view is all religions are as fucked as each other, I-Slam really
weirds me out though, as does the Jewish religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
03 Jun 2007 05:32:37 AM |
|
|
In message <1180832584.924390.243210@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
the_dawggie <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> writes
On Jun 3, 10:35 am, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Um Ahmad sitting in the room where five of her children died at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Massacres committed by the Christian
Phelange who were supported and given aid by Israel, which was
protected by US vetoes of UN resolutions condemning them for their
part in the Lebanon conflicthttp://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/
Would it be impolite of me to ask you to GAGF? (and I don't mean that
as an invitation for sex and travel).
My view is all religions are as fucked as each other, I-Slam really
weirds me out though, as does the Jewish religion.
I have the most questions about Hinduism, since I know so little about
it.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 07:40:38 PM |
|
|
boo boop be doo
.
|
|
|
| User: "ALWAN" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 07:52:27 PM |
|
|
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 07:54:25 PM |
|
|
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
.
|
|
|
| User: "ALWAN" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 08:21:42 PM |
|
|
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 08:26:52 PM |
|
|
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
.
|
|
|
| User: "ALWAN" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 08:37:05 PM |
|
|
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
Certainly if the reason is very easy drunk destroying people's lives
as Bush has done in the Iraqi people
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 08:48:44 PM |
|
|
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180834625.968288.50290@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan200@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
Certainly if the reason is very easy drunk destroying people's lives
as Bush has done in the Iraqi people
good
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
02 Jun 2007 10:40:29 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 9:37 pm, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
Certainly if the reason is very easy drunk destroying people's lives
as Bush has done in the Iraqi people- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Iraq was a mess before Bush entered it. He just made it worse because
he underestimated just how fucked up the people are over there. There
will never be peace for people who want jihad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jill" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
03 Jun 2007 03:13:03 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 8:40?pm, Michelle <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:37 pm, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
Certainly if the reason is very easy drunk destroying people's lives
as Bush has done in the Iraqi people- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Iraq was a mess before Bush entered it. He just made it worse because
he underestimated just how fucked up the people are over there. There
will never be peace for people who want jihad.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This just plain isn't true. the Iraq of today in terms of the level
of violence , life expectancy on the ground, bears little
resemblence to post war Iraq ,so the above statement just plain
isn't true.
What Bush underestimated is the resolve of the Iraqi people on all
sides of the conflict. This was also true in Vietnam. It may be the
hubris of the US to just think that they can not lose .
The war in Iraq is not about the war on terror, it is about a
clash of civilizations , it is about who controls the oil, it is
about getting a foot hold in the middleast , it is about who gets
to call the shots in an increasing global economy. It would appear
that Saddam was making deals with the russians and chinese that
didn't include the us, I believe that at its heart the war is about
power. It is about the religion of power , Cheney is a power
junky . He is a major player in this . Bush not being all that
bright is easily manipulated, Cheney is bright and amoral, a
dangerous combination. .
This statement also implys that the US is not fucked up. We
have fucked up almost everything we have tried to do in Iraq. It
is really unfair to try to present it like it would have gone down
differently if the Iraqi people were not all crazy. It is that kind
of propaganda that is the problem. The Iraqi people hear the
same completely untrue ***** about us. jil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle la Belle" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
03 Jun 2007 08:11:25 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 4:13 pm, jill <ojj9...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:40?pm, Michelle <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:37 pm, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
Certainly if the reason is very easy drunk destroying people's lives
as Bush has done in the Iraqi people- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Iraq was a mess before Bush entered it. He just made it worse because
he underestimated just how fucked up the people are over there. There
will never be peace for people who want jihad.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This just plain isn't true. the Iraq of today in terms of the level
of violence , life expectancy on the ground, bears little
resemblence to post war Iraq ,so the above statement just plain
isn't true.
What Bush underestimated is the resolve of the Iraqi people on all
sides of the conflict. This was also true in Vietnam. It may be the
hubris of the US to just think that they can not lose .
The war in Iraq is not about the war on terror, it is about a
clash of civilizations , it is about who controls the oil, it is
about getting a foot hold in the middleast , it is about who gets
to call the shots in an increasing global economy. It would appear
that Saddam was making deals with the russians and chinese that
didn't include the us, I believe that at its heart the war is about
power. It is about the religion of power , Cheney is a power
junky . He is a major player in this . Bush not being all that
bright is easily manipulated, Cheney is bright and amoral, a
dangerous combination. .
This statement also implys that the US is not fucked up. We
have fucked up almost everything we have tried to do in Iraq. It
is really unfair to try to present it like it would have gone down
differently if the Iraqi people were not all crazy. It is that kind
of propaganda that is the problem. The Iraqi people hear the
same completely untrue ***** about us. jil- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah there are economics involved, oil this, oil that, and I'm not
saying the US isn't fucked up. I think the US is on the brink of
collapse. But all this fighting, you know, it's not just US soldiers
killing Iraqi soldiers. I'm not pretending I know everything about
the ***** Iraq war - I can't follow it all, who has the time? It's
just a big ***** up. And it's going to get worse, I believe, if the US
doesn't win. Now I know that Bush is unpopular but really there are
worse people in this world than him, and if they win, God help us all,
because it's going to just ............... go bananas. No one said
the war in Iraq is the war on terror - it was about getting that fat
old murderous dictator out of there and trying to instill some
democrisy. At least, that's what Bush says. And actually, although
he may have hidden agendas, I actually believe him. The Iraqi people
are not only fighting the Americans, they are intent on fighting
amongst themselves. Radical Muslims don't like anybody except other
radical muslims - at least, those radical muslims within their own
group. They hate America, they hate Canada, they hate Spain, they
hate Britain, they hate Jews, they hate gays, they hate
Christians, ........ on and on the list goes. They don't want peace.
That is why they will not get peace. They think they will get peace
once they've converted the planet to their version of radical islam.
It's never going to happen, because their enemy is so vast, and their
enemy is even each other. It's impossible to win this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
03 Jun 2007 08:52:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:11:25 -0700, Michelle la Belle
<aminotempty@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:13 pm, jill <ojj9...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:40?pm, Michelle <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:37 pm, ALWAN <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote:
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180833702.620556.206680@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
% :
"ALWAN" <alwan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180831947.813795.205440@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
% :
boo boop be doo
Not too much alcohol because it harms the mind
there is no such thing as too much
Did you less cluttered mind because you drink
you will come to understand all of this ,
when you accept the gift of freedon the US is pounding into you
Certainly if the reason is very easy drunk destroying people's lives
as Bush has done in the Iraqi people- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Iraq was a mess before Bush entered it. He just made it worse because
he underestimated just how fucked up the people are over there. There
will never be peace for people who want jihad.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This just plain isn't true. the Iraq of today in terms of the level
of violence , life expectancy on the ground, bears little
resemblence to post war Iraq ,so the above statement just plain
isn't true.
What Bush underestimated is the resolve of the Iraqi people on all
sides of the conflict. This was also true in Vietnam. It may be the
hubris of the US to just think that they can not lose .
The war in Iraq is not about the war on terror, it is about a
clash of civilizations , it is about who controls the oil, it is
about getting a foot hold in the middleast , it is about who gets
to call the shots in an increasing global economy. It would appear
that Saddam was making deals with the russians and chinese that
didn't include the us, I believe that at its heart the war is about
power. It is about the religion of power , Cheney is a power
junky . He is a major player in this . Bush not being all that
bright is easily manipulated, Cheney is bright and amoral, a
dangerous combination. .
This statement also implys that the US is not fucked up. We
have fucked up almost everything we have tried to do in Iraq. It
is really unfair to try to present it like it would have gone down
differently if the Iraqi people were not all crazy. It is that kind
of propaganda that is the problem. The Iraqi people hear the
same completely untrue ***** about us. jil- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah there are economics involved, oil this, oil that, and I'm not
saying the US isn't fucked up. I think the US is on the brink of
collapse. But all this fighting, you know, it's not just US soldiers
killing Iraqi soldiers. I'm not pretending I know everything about
the ***** Iraq war - I can't follow it all, who has the time? It's
just a big ***** up. And it's going to get worse, I believe, if the US
doesn't win. Now I know that Bush is unpopular but really there are
worse people in this world than him, and if they win, God help us all,
because it's going to just ............... go bananas. No one said
the war in Iraq is the war on terror - it was about getting that fat
old murderous dictator out of there and trying to instill some
democrisy. At least, that's what Bush says. And actually, although
he may have hidden agendas, I actually believe him. The Iraqi people
are not only fighting the Americans, they are intent on fighting
amongst themselves. Radical Muslims don't like anybody except other
radical muslims - at least, those radical muslims within their own
group. They hate America, they hate Canada, they hate Spain, they
hate Britain, they hate Jews, they hate gays, they hate
Christians, ........ on and on the list goes. They don't want peace.
That is why they will not get peace. They think they will get peace
once they've converted the planet to their version of radical islam.
It's never going to happen, because their enemy is so vast, and their
enemy is even each other. It's impossible to win this.
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
Maybe it was so Bush could have the greater glory of being a war time
president. Killed lots of people for that goal.
Maybe we stay there until the other side runs out of bullets, or maybe
until they all decide to love everybody and stop killing each other.
Mike Gravel says get out now, I just sent his campaign some money.
Charles
__
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 01:19:51 AM |
|
|
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jill" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 08:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 11:19?pm, Alan Harding <A...@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550q...@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Iraq had the power to destabalize the world market, its all
connected , and the projections show that it is going to be much more
so in the future soooo long term solutions are necessary. That is
what Bush thinks he is doing. He knows this war is costing a
fortune, he thinks the long term gains will more then make up for
it. JIL
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 08:24:05 PM |
|
|
"jill" <ojj9691@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1181006644.147974.96200@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 11:19?pm, Alan Harding <A...@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550q...@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it
was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of
WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would
have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the
US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states.
They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With
the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Iraq had the power to destabalize the world market, its all
connected , and the projections show that it is going to be much more
so in the future soooo long term solutions are necessary. That is
what Bush thinks he is doing. He knows this war is costing a
fortune, he thinks the long term gains will more then make up for
it. JIL
Park
.
|
|
|
| User: "jill" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 08:42:18 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 6:24=EF=BF=BDpm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"jill" <ojj9...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1181006644.147974.96200@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 11:19?pm, Alan Harding <A...@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550q...@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. =A0At first it
was
to get rid on Sadam. =A0Okay, done. =A0Then to eliminate the threat =
of
WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) =A0and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. =A0Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would
have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the
US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states.
They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With
the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
=A0 =A0 just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
=A0 =A0Iraq had the power to destabalize the world market, =A0 its all
connected , =A0and the projections show that it is going to be much more
so in the future soooo long term solutions are necessary. =A0 That is
what Bush thinks he is doing. =A0He knows this war is costing a
fortune, =A0 =A0he thinks the long term gains will more then make up for
it. JIL
Park- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No *****, NO BLOOD FOR OIL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 01:46:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:19:51 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
I think it's fungible enough that it wouldn't matter. IIRC Canada is
our biggest supplier. OPEC has to sell somewhere, those places could
transship without too much difficulty.
It would be good for me personally, my shipping stocks would go up.
Charles
__
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 02:12:19 AM |
|
|
In message <v5d763l81ng5sqla48g7nu7nahdkm7o3fr@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:19:51 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
I think it's fungible enough that it wouldn't matter. IIRC Canada is
our biggest supplier. OPEC has to sell somewhere, those places could
transship without too much difficulty.
It would be good for me personally, my shipping stocks would go up.
One theory I've seen expressed here is that Iraq was in negotiations to
divert its supplies to Russia and China, hence the war. It makes more
sense to me than non-existent WMD the inspectors said they could find no
evidence for.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:54:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:12:19 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <v5d763l81ng5sqla48g7nu7nahdkm7o3fr@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:19:51 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
I think it's fungible enough that it wouldn't matter. IIRC Canada is
our biggest supplier. OPEC has to sell somewhere, those places could
transship without too much difficulty.
It would be good for me personally, my shipping stocks would go up.
One theory I've seen expressed here is that Iraq was in negotiations to
divert its supplies to Russia and China, hence the war. It makes more
sense to me than non-existent WMD the inspectors said they could find no
evidence for.
Janithor pointed me to a news site once that had an article talking
about the Iraqi oil. The article seems to have expired, but the gist
was that the American oil companies wanted contracts that were very
lucrative, similar to those where the oil is difficult to extract.
the Iraqi oil is quite easy to extract, so the major profit should go
to Iraq, not the oil companies.
There were a lot of countries who gave credence to the WMDs, witness
the many UN resolutions against Iraq, and the sanctions that led to
the "oil for food, " or "oil for bribes" programs.
The present war seems to me like an unfortunate chain of circumstances
from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and reactions to that.
Charles
__
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 02:52:54 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
Oil is a world market. If OPEC stops exporting to the US, that will
drive down the price they get from other countries, and it would drive
up the price to any countries willing to export to the US. Good luck
enforcing a world-wide embargo of oil exports to the US. It would be
interesting to see what would happen to the world economy if the US
economy suddenly stopped because there was no oil - defaults on debt to
China, etc...yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
As it is, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Nigeria vs. the Middle East.
At a minimum, how would the US give away condoms to Africa if we had no
oil to make & distribute them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 04:15:41 AM |
|
|
In message <4663C4D6.3000203@comcast.net>, Janithor
<Janithor@comcast.net> writes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states.
They could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the
UK). They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With
the size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
Oil is a world market. If OPEC stops exporting to the US, that will
drive down the price they get from other countries, and it would drive
up the price to any countries willing to export to the US. Good luck
enforcing a world-wide embargo of oil exports to the US. It would be
interesting to see what would happen to the world economy if the US
economy suddenly stopped because there was no oil - defaults on debt to
China, etc...yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
3 for effort, plus one for spelling = 4/10
As it is, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Nigeria vs. the Middle East.
Precisely. Now look up a list of OPEC countries and see who's free to
sell at whatever price they like, to whomsoever they like. Remember,
we're talking politics here, not accountancy.
At a minimum, how would the US give away condoms to Africa if we had no
oil to make & distribute them?
Mr Bush's supporters don't seem to want the US to give condoms anyway,
so I doubt that that would bother him unduly.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 02:58:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:52:54 -0700, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
Oil is a world market. If OPEC stops exporting to the US, that will
drive down the price they get from other countries, and it would drive
up the price to any countries willing to export to the US. Good luck
enforcing a world-wide embargo of oil exports to the US. It would be
interesting to see what would happen to the world economy if the US
economy suddenly stopped because there was no oil - defaults on debt to
China, etc...yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
As it is, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Nigeria vs. the Middle East.
At a minimum, how would the US give away condoms to Africa if we had no
oil to make & distribute them?
Do we give away condoms? I thought we were an abstinence only
supplier.
If OPEC cuts us off, invest in ONAV and FRO. run up the prices so I
get rich.
Charles
__
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:22:28 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Charles wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:52:54 -0700, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
Oil is a world market. If OPEC stops exporting to the US, that will
drive down the price they get from other countries, and it would drive
up the price to any countries willing to export to the US. Good luck
enforcing a world-wide embargo of oil exports to the US. It would be
interesting to see what would happen to the world economy if the US
economy suddenly stopped because there was no oil - defaults on debt to
China, etc...yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
As it is, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Nigeria vs. the Middle East.
At a minimum, how would the US give away condoms to Africa if we had no
oil to make & distribute them?
Do we give away condoms? I thought we were an abstinence only
supplier.
Alan chastized us for not doing so. Once we get Bush out of office,
maybe that might be a possibility again, but not if there is an oil
embargo preventing us from making and shipping them.
If OPEC cuts us off, invest in ONAV and FRO. run up the prices so I
get rich.
OK, but would you be willing to take in a wombn, a janitor, a big dog,
and 3 more cats?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:27:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:22:28 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Charles wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:52:54 -0700, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550qd5l@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
Oil is a world market. If OPEC stops exporting to the US, that will
drive down the price they get from other countries, and it would drive
up the price to any countries willing to export to the US. Good luck
enforcing a world-wide embargo of oil exports to the US. It would be
interesting to see what would happen to the world economy if the US
economy suddenly stopped because there was no oil - defaults on debt to
China, etc...yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
As it is, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Nigeria vs. the Middle East.
At a minimum, how would the US give away condoms to Africa if we had no
oil to make & distribute them?
Do we give away condoms? I thought we were an abstinence only
supplier.
Alan chastized us for not doing so. Once we get Bush out of office,
maybe that might be a possibility again, but not if there is an oil
embargo preventing us from making and shipping them.
If OPEC cuts us off, invest in ONAV and FRO. run up the prices so I
get rich.
OK, but would you be willing to take in a wombn, a janitor, a big dog,
and 3 more cats?
It may be difficult to believe, but that would probably make my life
better, more pleasant. At least give it a purpose. Are the cats
friendly. I don't countenance fighting. I made friends with the dog
once, he'll remember.
Charles
__
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:33:32 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 6:27 pm, Charles <ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:22:28 GMT, Janithor <Janit...@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Charles wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:52:54 -0700, Janithor <Janit...@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <99r663lopdiifcfjfs8aep29dne550q...@4ax.com>, Charles
<ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> writes
I wonder what would constitute a victory for the US. At first it was
to get rid on Sadam. Okay, done. Then to eliminate the threat of WMD
(stupid phrase in my opinion) and that's been done.
If we just wanted oil we could buy it for far less trouble that we
have now. Maybe for super-favorable oil contracts, but it would have
been cheaper just to pay the oil companies the difference from the US
treasury.
There is the problem of the politicisation of oil producing states. They
could decide that they don't want to trade with the USA (or the UK).
They could easily sell their oil elsewhere if they chose to. With the
size of the US deficit, even a surcharge would be bad news.
Oil is a world market. If OPEC stops exporting to the US, that will
drive down the price they get from other countries, and it would drive
up the price to any countries willing to export to the US. Good luck
enforcing a world-wide embargo of oil exports to the US. It would be
interesting to see what would happen to the world economy if the US
economy suddenly stopped because there was no oil - defaults on debt to
China, etc...yeah, I'm sure they'd love that.
As it is, the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Nigeria vs. the Middle East.
At a minimum, how would the US give away condoms to Africa if we had no
oil to make & distribute them?
Do we give away condoms? I thought we were an abstinence only
supplier.
Alan chastized us for not doing so. Once we get Bush out of office,
maybe that might be a possibility again, but not if there is an oil
embargo preventing us from making and shipping them.
If OPEC cuts us off, invest in ONAV and FRO. run up the prices so I
get rich.
OK, but would you be willing to take in a wombn, a janitor, a big dog,
and 3 more cats?
It may be difficult to believe, but that would probably make my life
better, more pleasant. At least give it a purpose. Are the cats
friendly. I don't countenance fighting. I made friends with the dog
once, he'll remember.
Woof Wooof :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:40:49 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Charles wrote:
It may be difficult to believe, but that would probably make my life
better, more pleasant. At least give it a purpose. Are the cats
friendly. I don't countenance fighting. I made friends with the dog
once, he'll remember.
Charles
Cats are friendly generally, although Timmy can be a butthead and he
frequently misses the box. You know Bruno - Martha the fraidy cat is
terrified of anything and everything EXCEPT Bruno. It's so funny, even
she will take a swat at him when he walks by. He's completely
oblivious, he has so much fur, he just keeps walking with that big dumb
smile on his face.
Well, you better like animals. And lots of political ranting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:42:19 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Charles wrote:
It may be difficult to believe, but that would probably make my life
better, more pleasant. At least give it a purpose. Are the cats
friendly. I don't countenance fighting. I made friends with the dog
once, he'll remember.
=20
=20
Charles
Oh, and Norte=F1o. Although wombn won't let me play it in the house when=
=20
she's around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: The War against Islam |
04 Jun 2007 03:57:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:42:19 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Charles wrote:
It may be difficult to believe, but that would probably make my life
better, more pleasant. At least give it a purpose. Are the cats
friendly. I don't countenance fighting. I made friends with the dog
once, he'll remember.
Charles
Oh, and Norteņo. Although wombn won't let me play it in the house when
she's around.
No habla.
Charles
__
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
