| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-Misc |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2003 10:24:06 AM |
| Object: |
Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:48 +0200, "Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote:
France, Russia, China and Germany should just say to Bush - no new
resolution to help you out of the mess unless you either resign or agree not
to stand in 2004. Why should French/Russian/Indian/German troops come to the
help of the americans and therefore help Bush get re-elected, especially
after all the insults he threw at the rest of the world before his war.
Sadly the world will have to wait until Jan 2005.
Thousands more will die from Bush's bloodlust before he goes.
I think he will start another war just so he can keep killing right up
until he leaves office.
.
|
|
| User: "Angelo" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 03:56:53 AM |
|
|
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Jim
<Bushwacked@the.polls.com> wrote in message
news:64p3mvo9jjkf59miq85tu0u6fl373err2p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:48 +0200, "Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote:
France, Russia, China and Germany should just say to Bush - no new
resolution to help you out of the mess unless you either resign or agree
not
to stand in 2004. Why should French/Russian/Indian/German troops come to
the
help of the americans and therefore help Bush get re-elected, especially
after all the insults he threw at the rest of the world before his war.
Sadly the world will have to wait until Jan 2005.
Thousands more will die from Bush's bloodlust before he goes.
I think he will start another war just so he can keep killing right up
until he leaves office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "McCleod" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
20 Sep 2003 11:54:54 AM |
|
|
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Jim
<Bushwacked@the.polls.com> wrote in message
news:64p3mvo9jjkf59miq85tu0u6fl373err2p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:48 +0200, "Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote:
France, Russia, China and Germany should just say to Bush - no new
resolution to help you out of the mess unless you either resign or agree
not
to stand in 2004. Why should French/Russian/Indian/German troops come to
the
help of the americans and therefore help Bush get re-elected, especially
after all the insults he threw at the rest of the world before his war.
Sadly the world will have to wait until Jan 2005.
Thousands more will die from Bush's bloodlust before he goes.
I think he will start another war just so he can keep killing right up
until he leaves office.
Well said.
http://iraq.news4u.alturl.com/3/mirror.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobbyhaqq" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 09:52:02 AM |
|
|
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Bush and the American people don't give a ***** about the people of
Iraq either.
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq. They seem
to hold that they will draw the worlds terrorist in to a battle in
Iraq and defeat them there. Its a stupid idea, but stop to think
about what this actually is saying. The Americans are going to convert
Iraq in to their battlefield, drawing thousands of terrorists in to
Iraq where they will kills tens of thousands of innocent Iraqs.
But the American people never cared about Iraq. They said they did,
but this war was always about kicking the ***** out of some Arabs and
humiliating the Arab world. Bush and the American people wanted to
smash an Arab state in revenge against the entire Arab race, and they
imagined they would humiliate the Arab world by showing that they
could better run Iraq.
Well that didn't happen, and is not going to happen. Iraq is turning
in to a different kind of ***** hole. Today people die in Iraq in
massive numbers, they just are not buried in mass graves, they are
buried one at a time. The nation is becoming a criminal state with US
troops who have no idea what is going around humiliating and killing
Iraqis without concern for consequences.
Iraq is a massive ***** up which has greatly increased the changes the
US will be attacked by terrorist. Iraq is not a major front in the
war on terror, it is the likely cause of defeat.
What were the roots of 9-11 and Al Qaeda? The Jihad movement in the
1980s supported in large part by the CIA. This Jihad movement in
Afghanistan resulted in the birth of a global terror network against
the US, so what did Bush do, he started a new Jihad movement. Arabs
and Muslims from all over the world are coming to Iraq to be trained
as soldiers and attack Americans. They are being trained in military
combat and they are being organized and gaining military experience.
In Iraq a new generation of Jihadi are being born. And in Iraq they
are being trained to attack the United States.
For Ameirca the middle east is the mother of all unintended
consequences. Bin Laden started his war against America because we
went to defend Saudi Arabia and free Kuwait. Given the consequences
of trying to do good, imagine what the invasion of Iraq is going to
result in. Mark my works, thousands upon thousands of new terrorist
cells all over the world. Organizations many times the size of Al
Qaeda will be born with the purpose of attacking America.
We are utterly fucked on this one. We need to find a way to get out
as soon as possible and let the people of Iraq run there own country
or we face a massive Jihadi movement of skilled vets trained and
experienced in terrorist methods.
*****, they have already killed De Mello, a major world leader. How
far is this going to go.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Angelo" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
20 Sep 2003 03:57:11 AM |
|
|
"bobbyhaqq" <rhooker123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:689922c7.0309180652.dc3f50e@posting.google.com...
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Bush and the American people don't give a ***** about the people of
Iraq either.
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
<drivel snipped>
OF COURSE! <smacks head>
The most profound and explicit avoidance of civilian
casualties ever in ANY war and we didn't
care?
It's an "idiotic" idea to try and defeat terrorism?
One question, what color is the sky in your self defeated
world?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starman" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
20 Sep 2003 04:05:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:57:11 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Lessee; The US 'liberates' Iraq from Saddam, after having propped him
up and sold him banned materials and weapons, for having been a tyrant
who killed some 300,000 people, becaus eit was the "moral" thing to
do, unrelated to oil -- and for which the US toll of Iraqis killed is
about 2.2 million, with millions more having suffered abominably over
the past 13 years, and with tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
people, as well as US, UK and Au/Polish/etc. Gulf War II veterans, at
risk for cancers, breathing disorders, birth-defects and neurological
problems from the US's indicriminate use of depleted uranium
munitions, specifically banned by Un and Geneva conventions.
The Bush Gang/neocon's embrace of barbarism in support of an illegal,
immoral and opportunistic agenda is an attack on everything that is
best and brightest in America.
People like you are nothing but rabble-rousing hate-mongering
fascists.
Starman
"bobbyhaqq" <rhooker123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:689922c7.0309180652.dc3f50e@posting.google.com...
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Bush and the American people don't give a ***** about the people of
Iraq either.
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
<drivel snipped>
OF COURSE! <smacks head>
The most profound and explicit avoidance of civilian
casualties ever in ANY war and we didn't
care?
*****. Over two million dead and many more at risk is an
'avoidance' of civilian casualties? YOU. sir, are a moral nitwit and
an enemy of truth, as well as an Americentric coward.
It's an "idiotic" idea to try and defeat terrorism?
US foreign policy holds double standards that you're too self-deluded
to recognize as unjust.
One question, what color is the sky in your self defeated
world?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Angelo" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth to Liebrals: No help unless you face facts |
21 Sep 2003 05:06:53 AM |
|
|
"Starman" <Starman@Truthfree.net> wrote in message
news:3f6cbce2.226243683@news.echoweb.net...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:57:11 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Lessee; The US 'liberates' Iraq from Saddam, after having propped him
up
Another liebral fab fave urband legend.
Please provide credible refuted cites.
and sold him banned materials and weapons
Another liebral fab fave urband legend.
Please provide credible refuted cites.
People like you are nothing but mealy mouthed whiners
that could care less what the truth is as long as you have
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
<drivel snipped>
OF COURSE! <smacks head>
The most profound and explicit avoidance of civilian
casualties ever in ANY war and we didn't
care?
*****. Over two million dead and many more at risk is an
'avoidance' of civilian casualties? YOU. sir, are a moral nitwit and
an enemy of truth, as well as an Americentric coward.
Provide the proof of this ***** 2 million
DEAD because of the current war in Iraq.
You are a slimebag without any morals.
Put up or shutup.
One question, what color is the sky in your self defeated
world oh befuddled liebral mealy mouth?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "ROBW" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth to Liebrals: No help unless you face facts |
21 Sep 2003 08:29:10 PM |
|
|
Ask Ronnie Raygun.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1Lebb.2326$wZ4.1025@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Starman" <Starman@Truthfree.net> wrote in message
news:3f6cbce2.226243683@news.echoweb.net...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:57:11 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Lessee; The US 'liberates' Iraq from Saddam, after having propped him
up
Another liebral fab fave urband legend.
Please provide credible refuted cites.
and sold him banned materials and weapons
Another liebral fab fave urband legend.
Please provide credible refuted cites.
People like you are nothing but mealy mouthed whiners
that could care less what the truth is as long as you have
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
<drivel snipped>
OF COURSE! <smacks head>
The most profound and explicit avoidance of civilian
casualties ever in ANY war and we didn't
care?
*****. Over two million dead and many more at risk is an
'avoidance' of civilian casualties? YOU. sir, are a moral nitwit and
an enemy of truth, as well as an Americentric coward.
Provide the proof of this ***** 2 million
DEAD because of the current war in Iraq.
You are a slimebag without any morals.
Put up or shutup.
One question, what color is the sky in your self defeated
world oh befuddled liebral mealy mouth?
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "glenhappy" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth to Liebrals: No help unless you face facts |
21 Sep 2003 12:10:13 PM |
|
|
Oh, you MUST be kidding! You didn't know that Reagan and company
supported Saddam and sold him WMD in the 80's? Where you born
yesterday?
==========================
Reagan, Bush's Daddy, Rumsfeld, all sat on Saddam's Hussein's lap.
Reagan, Bush's Daddy, Rumsfeld,
all sat on Saddam's Hussein's lap.
New York Post,
Sunday, February 16, 2003
nypost.com
Why don't my fellow hawks ever discuss
America's history with Saddam Hussein?
I don't mean the 1990's, when Bill Clinton tried to ignore the Iraqi
dictator hawks (especially Republican ones) discuss that all the time.
I mean the 1980's when Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush armed him.
The history is appalling, and it
involves key officials shaping
Iraq policy today.
Saddam first used chemical weapons,
in particular mustard gas, in 1983,
in his war against Iran.
By October of that year, according
to recently declassified documents,
the United States knew he was using
them "almost daily."
But the Reagan administration wasn't bothered.
To the contrary, that December it sent
Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld to
Baghdad.
According to the book
"Spider's Web: The Secret History of
How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq,: by Financial Times reporter
Alan Friedman, Rumsfeld presented a letter from Reagan that propsed
restoring diplomatic relations and offered U.S. military and economic
assistance.
When Iran launched a new offensive in February 1984, Saddam added
tabun,
a lethal nerve gas, to his chemical repertoire.
In the spring of 1984, Rumsfeld returned for another visit.
By November, the United States and Iraq had restored diplomatic
relations.
It gets worse.
Records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a 1994
Senate Banking Committe investigation show that during Reagan's
presidency, America sold Iraq anthrax, bubonic plague and botulinum
toxin, all supposedly for medical research.
Over congressional opposition, the Reagan adminstration sold Iraq twin
engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, which appear to have been used in
Saddam's chemical attacks on the Kurds.
All this was jusitified at the time, of course, by the need to stop
fundamentalist Iran.
But, by August 1988, the war between
Baghdad and Tehran was over.
Yet Saddam continued his genocidal
"Anfal" campaign against the Kurds,
which by late 1988 had resulted in close to 100,000 deaths, most of
them
civilian.
So, in September 1988, then
Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.)
introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have ended all
U.S. aid to Baghdad.
The bill passed the Senate, but
the Reagan Adminstration helped
scuttle it in the House.
When George H.W. Bush became president the following year, he doubled
U.S. agricultural loans to Iraq, money that, it would later be
revealed,
Saddam was partly diverting to the military.
As Samantha Power pints out in
"A Problem from Hell:
America and the Age of Genocide,"
the Bush adminstration in 1989 refused
to join 12 other democracies calling for a special U.N. Investigation
of
human rights in Iraq.
Only left wingers discuss this history.
And for them the lesson is obvious:
The Bush adminstration's current outrage at Saddam crimes is bogus.
If people like Rumsfeld, ***** Cheney and Colin Powell, who held top
government positions in the 1980's, really cared about the Iraqi
people,
they wouldn't have helped Saddam brutalize them in the 1980's.
And since the United States doesn't care about the Iraqi people, our
real motivation for a war must lay elsewhere, in a thirst for world
domination, or oil or both.
I think the left is wrong.
First, France and the Soviet Union sold Saddam even more military
equipment in the '80s than Washington did.
So, they should be just as cynical about France's and Russia's motives
for opposing war (i.e. they'd be perfectly happy to go back to doing
business with Saddam).
Second, it is precisely because the United States abetted Saddam's
repression in the '80s that we should atone for our sins and depose
him
today.
Certainly the left never argued that
because for decades Americsa coddled apartheid South Africa, it should
not have switched course and imposed sanctions.
But, if the antiwar movement misuses America's shameful history with
Saddam, hawks ignore it altogether.
Hawsk seem to assume that because they support war now, people like
Rumsfeld have learned from their past.
But it's not that simple.
Just because the United States is going to war with Saddam doesn't
mean
we're liberating the Iraqi people.
It's far from clear whether the Bush administration will help build a
democracy in post Saddam Baghdad rather than simply install another
strongman.
Afghanistan doesn't offer much reason for optimism:
The Bush adminstration's reluctance to expand the peacekeeping force
beyond Kabul has condemned much of the country to instability and
violence.
It would be nice, then, if prommient Bush officials acknowledged their
past moral culpability and vowed not to betray the Iraqi people
againl.
Rumsfeld should have trouble sleeping at night given his role in
abetting Saddam's crimes.
Instead, he told the Senate Armed Service Committe last September,
"It would be a shame to leave this committee and the people listening
with the impression that the United States assisted Iraq with chemical
or biological weapons in the 1980's.
I just do not believe that is the case."
But, according to recently declassifed
State Department documents reviewed
by Newsweek, The Washington Post,
and the Associated Press, it is the case.
It is a testament to Rumsfeld's immense arrogance and lack of moral
reflection that neither on CNN nor before the Armed Services Committee
did he betray the slightest hint that he or the adminstration he
served
did anything wrong in the '80s regarding Saddam Hussein.
That's not a reason to oppose this war.
But it sure makes me wish a better man were running it.
Peter Beinart is the editor of
The New Republic.
From The Feb 24 issue.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
==========================================
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<1Lebb.2326$wZ4.1025@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"Starman" <Starman@Truthfree.net> wrote in message
news:3f6cbce2.226243683@news.echoweb.net...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:57:11 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Lessee; The US 'liberates' Iraq from Saddam, after having propped him
up
Another liebral fab fave urband legend.
Please provide credible refuted cites.
and sold him banned materials and weapons
Another liebral fab fave urband legend.
Please provide credible refuted cites.
People like you are nothing but mealy mouthed whiners
that could care less what the truth is as long as you have
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
<drivel snipped>
OF COURSE! <smacks head>
The most profound and explicit avoidance of civilian
casualties ever in ANY war and we didn't
care?
*****. Over two million dead and many more at risk is an
'avoidance' of civilian casualties? YOU. sir, are a moral nitwit and
an enemy of truth, as well as an Americentric coward.
Provide the proof of this ***** 2 million
DEAD because of the current war in Iraq.
You are a slimebag without any morals.
Put up or shutup.
One question, what color is the sky in your self defeated
world oh befuddled liebral mealy mouth?
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nagaer" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
20 Sep 2003 06:20:20 PM |
|
|
Not just that, Bush don't give a damn on many nations that's at war with
millions of innocent people being massacre and genocide but a few thousands
of Iraqis? Laughable and Questionable motif.
"Starman" <Starman@Truthfree.net> wrote in message
news:3f6cbce2.226243683@news.echoweb.net...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:57:11 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Lessee; The US 'liberates' Iraq from Saddam, after having propped him
up and sold him banned materials and weapons, for having been a tyrant
who killed some 300,000 people, becaus eit was the "moral" thing to
do, unrelated to oil -- and for which the US toll of Iraqis killed is
about 2.2 million, with millions more having suffered abominably over
the past 13 years, and with tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
people, as well as US, UK and Au/Polish/etc. Gulf War II veterans, at
risk for cancers, breathing disorders, birth-defects and neurological
problems from the US's indicriminate use of depleted uranium
munitions, specifically banned by Un and Geneva conventions.
The Bush Gang/neocon's embrace of barbarism in support of an illegal,
immoral and opportunistic agenda is an attack on everything that is
best and brightest in America.
People like you are nothing but rabble-rousing hate-mongering
fascists.
Starman
"bobbyhaqq" <rhooker123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:689922c7.0309180652.dc3f50e@posting.google.com...
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Bush and the American people don't give a ***** about the people of
Iraq either.
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
<drivel snipped>
OF COURSE! <smacks head>
The most profound and explicit avoidance of civilian
casualties ever in ANY war and we didn't
care?
*****. Over two million dead and many more at risk is an
'avoidance' of civilian casualties? YOU. sir, are a moral nitwit and
an enemy of truth, as well as an Americentric coward.
It's an "idiotic" idea to try and defeat terrorism?
US foreign policy holds double standards that you're too self-deluded
to recognize as unjust.
One question, what color is the sky in your self defeated
world?
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Vos" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 10:34:03 AM |
|
|
(bobbyhaqq) wrote in
news:689922c7.0309180652.dc3f50e@posting.google.com:
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Bush and the American people don't give a ***** about the people of
Iraq either.
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq. They seem
to hold that they will draw the worlds terrorist in to a battle in
Iraq and defeat them there. Its a stupid idea, but stop to think
about what this actually is saying. The Americans are going to convert
Iraq in to their battlefield, drawing thousands of terrorists in to
Iraq where they will kills tens of thousands of innocent Iraqs.
Guernica revisited.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 12:26:12 PM |
|
|
bobbyhaqq wrote:
"Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<preab.130$wT1.63@twister.socal.rr.com>...
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
Bush and the American people don't give a ***** about the people of
Iraq either.
Who told you to think that lie?
I have been noticing lately that many Consevative are promoting this
idiotic idea that we are going to defeat Terrorism in Iraq.
Stop lying bobby.
They seem
to hold that they will draw the worlds terrorist in to a battle in
Iraq and defeat them there.
Are you making this up as you go (as usual) or do you actually have some factual basis (in other words
NOT your opinion) for it?
<bobby's idiotic opinion-rant snipped>
Bobby, you need to get rid of the idiotic idea that what you make up as you go has anything to do with
reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 12:18:43 PM |
|
|
Angelo wrote:
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
They are pissed that the invasion screwed up their illegal business deals with
chiraqs good friend saddam.
Jim
<Bushwacked@the.polls.com> wrote in message
news:64p3mvo9jjkf59miq85tu0u6fl373err2p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:48 +0200, "Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote:
France, Russia, China and Germany should just say to Bush - no new
resolution to help you out of the mess unless you either resign or agree
not
to stand in 2004. Why should French/Russian/Indian/German troops come to
the
help of the americans and therefore help Bush get re-elected, especially
after all the insults he threw at the rest of the world before his war.
Sadly the world will have to wait until Jan 2005.
Thousands more will die from Bush's bloodlust before he goes.
I think he will start another war just so he can keep killing right up
until he leaves office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Vos" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 01:53:32 PM |
|
|
Brian <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in news:3F69E8F3.4D291B5E@erols.com:
Angelo wrote:
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
So tell us something that is new.
They are pissed that the invasion screwed up their illegal business
deals with chiraqs good friend saddam.
Correct-a-Mundo....
So now we know,
It wasn't about WMD.
It wasn't about chasing al Qaeda.
It wasn't about Iraq's iminent threat to the US.
It wasn't about international terrorists.
It wasn't about liberating the Iraqi people.
It wasn't about taking their oil.
But if Bush is Pinocchio, then who is Gepetto?
Careful reading of the DOE document below suggests the real grab was not
intended to take the oil away from the Iraqis, who sell it at relatively
cheap rates. The real grab was for the British and Americans to take the
contracts away from the Chinese, French and Russians.
====
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/iraq.html
According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of
proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia
and Canada). Estimates of Iraq's oil reserves and resources vary widely,
however, given that only 10% or so of the country has been explored. Some
analysts (the Baker Institute, Center for Global Energy Studies, the
Federation of American Scientists, etc.) believe, for instance, that deep
oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region,
for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another
100 billion barrels or more), but have not been explored. Other analysts,
such as the US Geological Survey, are not as optimistic, with median
estimates for additional oil reserves closer to 45 billion barrels.
Iraq's oil development and production costs are amongst the lowest in the
world (perhaps $3-$5 billion for each million barrels per day), making it a
highly attractive oil prospect. However, only 17 of 80 discovered fields
have been developed, while few deep wells have been drilled compared to
Iraq's neighbors.
Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq (of
which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared to around 1 million
wells in Texas for instance. In addition, Iraq generally has not had access
to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology (i.e., 3D seismic,
directional or deep drilling, gas injection), sufficient spare parts, and
investment in general throughout most of the 1990s. Instead, Iraq
reportedly utilized sub-standard engineering techniques (i.e., overpumping,
water injection/"flooding"), obsolete technology, and systems in various
states of decay (i.e., corroded well casings) in order to sustain
production.
In the long run, reversal of all these practices and utilization of the
most modern techniques, combined with development of both discovered fields
as well as new ones, could result in Iraq's oil output increasing by
several million barrels per day.
Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, the country reportedly
had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies
mainly from China, France, and Russia.
====
"It would be hard if the U.N. were running it --
Halliburton might have to bid for their contracts,"
-- Bill Clinton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jefferson Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 07:17:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:56:53 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
It's not their responsibility. bush launched an unprovoked attack on
the people of Iraq. It's the responsibility of the US to rebuild and
compensate the people of Iraq for bushes crimes. Once the idiot is out
of office or he turns control over the UN, help will be forthcoming.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
Too bad bush didn't understand that before he started his murderous
rampage.
So tell us something that is new.
more people now think the invasion was a bad idea then think it was a
good idea. Not good news for crusader bunnypants.
Jim
<Bushwacked@the.polls.com> wrote in message
news:64p3mvo9jjkf59miq85tu0u6fl373err2p@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:05:48 +0200, "Ric" <spam@off.com> wrote:
France, Russia, China and Germany should just say to Bush - no new
resolution to help you out of the mess unless you either resign or agree
not
to stand in 2004. Why should French/Russian/Indian/German troops come to
the
help of the americans and therefore help Bush get re-elected, especially
after all the insults he threw at the rest of the world before his war.
Sadly the world will have to wait until Jan 2005.
Thousands more will die from Bush's bloodlust before he goes.
I think he will start another war just so he can keep killing right up
until he leaves office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: UN to Bush: No help unless you resign |
18 Sep 2003 12:23:10 PM |
|
|
Jefferson Brady wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:56:53 GMT, "Angelo" <angelovigAT@san.rr.com>
wrote:
So the truth be told, France, Russia, China and Germany couldn't give
a ***** about IRAQ WITH or without Saddam.
It's not their responsibility. bush launched an unprovoked attack on
the people of Iraq.
Are you this uninformed or do you know you're lying?
It's the responsibility of the US to rebuild
We are.
and compensate the people of Iraq for bushes crimes.
Cant compensate people for crimes that dont exist (in the real world)
Once the idiot is out
of office or he turns control over the UN, help will be forthcoming.
Then in your hatefilled little world there will be no help.
Thankfully things will be different in the real world, especially after
President Bush gets Re-Elected.
Oh I'm sorry, did you forget this was about a country and
people?
Too bad bush didn't understand that
Actually it appears he understands that much more than you or your fellow
saddam-lovers.
before he started his murderous rampage.
What "murderous rampage"?
You mean the military action that went further than any other in the history of
the world to avoid civilian casualties?
So tell us something that is new.
more people now think the invasion was a bad idea then think it was a
good idea.
Cite?
Not good news for crusader bunnypants.
Your stuffed animal buddy will lose more stuffing?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
