The spotlight is on WMD
_________________________________________________________
We don't need to wait 20 or 30 years to know how that turned out.
Let's now switch the spotlight to oil.
Let us suppose that there were no oil in Iraq.
Would one US soldier be in that country ?
We know for a fact that US troops were posted around the
Oil Ministry in Baghdad to prevent looting.
What is so strange about this, is that it was the only building
in Baghdad that was considered worth protecting.
_________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "Hecks Kitchen" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
30 Jul 2003 08:26:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Let us suppose that there were no oil in Iraq.
Would one US soldier be in that country ?
I guess that is one more vote to restore rape and torture to Iraq!
We know for a fact that US troops were posted around the
Oil Ministry in Baghdad to prevent looting.
Gee. They should have protected everything but the nation's most
valuable asset!
What is so strange about this, is that it was the only building
in Baghdad that was considered worth protecting.
What would you suggest? (Waiting for an ignoramus to cite antiquarian
relics looted fro a museum, not realizing that the story was mostly
leftist hokum.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
30 Jul 2003 08:47:44 PM |
|
|
"Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3f2a6feb.90961552@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
Let us suppose that there were no oil in Iraq.
Would one US soldier be in that country ?
I guess that is one more vote to restore rape and torture to Iraq!
We know for a fact that US troops were posted around the
Oil Ministry in Baghdad to prevent looting.
Gee. They should have protected everything but the nation's most
valuable asset!
What is so strange about this, is that it was the only building
in Baghdad that was considered worth protecting.
What would you suggest? (Waiting for an ignoramus to cite antiquarian
relics looted fro a museum, not realizing that the story was mostly
leftist hokum.)
Yep, only 10% of the 170,000 items thought to have been looted were actually
looted.
Er, thats 17,000 items. Hmmmm....
--
New definition of irony:
'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hecks Kitchen" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
30 Jul 2003 08:52:24 PM |
|
|
"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote:
Yep, only 10% of the 170,000 items thought to have been looted were actually
looted.
Er, thats 17,000 items. Hmmmm....
Bull.
Your Dean For President talking point need updating !
.
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
31 Jul 2003 09:55:50 AM |
|
|
Heck's Kitchen wrote:
"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote:
Yep, only 10% of the 170,000 items thought to have been looted were actually
looted.
Er, thats 17,000 items. Hmmmm....
Bull.
Your Dean For President talking point need updating !
Nope, true fact, check the news. Over 13,000 was the last count I saw.
Doesn't matter, they should have guarded hospitals, and the university where
nuclear materials and germs were almost certainly stored.
They didn't, so Bush could deny the costs involved and get his tax cut.
Hundreds of Iraqis at the very least died in pain because Rumsfeld couldn't be
bothered to dot his I's and cross his T's.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Vos" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
30 Jul 2003 08:53:36 PM |
|
|
(Heck's Kitchen) wrote in
news:3f2a6feb.90961552@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
Let us suppose that there were no oil in Iraq.
Would one US soldier be in that country ?
I guess that is one more vote to restore rape and torture to Iraq!
We know for a fact that US troops were posted around the
Oil Ministry in Baghdad to prevent looting.
Gee. They should have protected everything but the nation's most
valuable asset!
What is so strange about this, is that it was the only building
in Baghdad that was considered worth protecting.
What would you suggest? (Waiting for an ignoramus to cite antiquarian
relics looted fro a museum, not realizing that the story was mostly
leftist hokum.)
Forget about the antiquities - they were in ruins before we got there.
But Uhmmm... what about the power grid? What about the water resources?
What about the banks? What about the hospitals? What about the nuclear
facility at Tuwaitha? Inquiring minds want to know.
--
"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the infrastructure
in Iraq because in a few days we're going to own that country."
-- Tom Brokaw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dapra1" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
31 Jul 2003 12:34:55 PM |
|
|
Heck's Kitchen wrote:
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
Let us suppose that there were no oil in Iraq.
Would one US soldier be in that country ?
I guess that is one more vote to restore rape and torture to Iraq!
So, I'd guess you are a new subscriber to Big Lie #2. It seems to
replace Big Lie #1 (the reasons for the war were WMD's and Al Quida).
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003786
The above is an excellent summary of Big Lie #2.
The most important a paragraph;
"In fact, the real reason we went into Iraq was precisely to "nation
build": to create a secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan society in a
core Arab nation. To create a place where Arabs were free and safe
and unafraid and happy and successful and not ruled by corrupt
monarchs or brutal dictators. This would demonstrate to the other
people in the Arab and Muslim worlds that they can succeed, but only
if they abandon those political, cultural and religious chains that are
holding them back."
This is so beautiful, it almost make me cry. But unfortunately, it's
just a phony justification to spend more of our money and blood on the
neocons imperial design.
Bush & Co don't care about "secularized, liberated, cosmopolitan
society". Just look at their foreign and domestic record.
What they want is a puppet regime, military bases, privatize the whole
country especially the oil industry. In order to achieve that they want
to keep a tight control on the oil revenues, so they can bribe a small
segment of the Iraqi population with the Iraqi peoples own money and
develop a friendly oligarchy.
If this is accomplished, Bush & Co wouldn't care whether Iraq ends
up with a pseudo democracy (al a US), or an authoritarian regime. The
second option even suit their aims better.
dapra
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The spotlight is on WMD |
31 Jul 2003 06:55:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:51:28 -0400,
wrote:
The spotlight is on WMD
_________________________________________________________
We don't need to wait 20 or 30 years to know how that turned out.
Let's now switch the spotlight to oil.
Let us suppose that there were no oil in Iraq.
Would one US soldier be in that country ?
We know for a fact that US troops were posted around the
Oil Ministry in Baghdad to prevent looting.
What is so strange about this, is that it was the only building
in Baghdad that was considered worth protecting.
_________________________________________________________
Of course its about oil, and world domination. The farce of 911 was
the staging ground for this. They could have taken out nuclear
facility Indian Point which they flew right over. Now if the "bombers"
knew they were going to die anyway, does it not stand to reason they
would want to take as many people with them as they could?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
