well, i do know there are calls for the iraqis to
pay us back some of the rebuilding money that is being
spent, but, bush has faught making this a loan type
arrangemt. he gets lots of critisism from the right
for this. 
   i will say this, and it wont be popular with
anybody. i hope like hell we are building a base to
attack iran if it is necessary. the eu and un is
having no effect on them in trying to get them not to
make an nuclear bomb. i'll make myself even less
popular by saying that the problems with iran goes
back to the bungling of the carter administration.
jimmy was a good person, but he should have stayed
home growing peanuts and sent his brother billy to
washington dc. i know how some of you guys love him. 

  okay, if you are still reading... i now have one
email saying we can't get the oil we went for becouse
the wells and pipelines are being blown up. that would
indicate that our military is not guarding them to
well, on the other hand we have another email saying
some observers (unnamed) say we ARE guarding the wells
and pipelines so we can get the oil in the future. i
guess we are waiting for the price of oil to go up
further so when we do "steal" it we can say it is
worth more. on that bush and chenny,! they are sly
oilment to hold it for the price to go up. and they
are such bunglers in every other way. i guess every
one is good at something after all. 
  pardon me if i step away from my computer to
chuckle. :-)
  

--- Linda Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Actually according to some observers the oil wells
> are being 
> protected. We expect Iraq to pay for our military
> assault or as some 
> think our effort to democratize them with their oil.
> We are building 
> bases there to invade Iran next.
> As a people we cannot afford to continue to do this
> to other countries.
> 
> At 12:06 PM 3/25/2006, you wrote:
> >We're not getting oil from Iraq because the oil
> wells keep getting
> >set on fire,
> >and it's become too expensive to transport.  Things
> are so unstable
> >over there
> >I find it difficult to believe how anyone other
> than a private
> >security firm
> >can make any profits.
> >
> >Kat
> >
> >
> >On 25 Mar 2006, at 14:52, ken barber wrote:
> >
> > > i was looking at this and i am sorry that it
> came off
> > > so harshly, that was not my intention. my point
> is
> > > that nobody lied about wmd. lots of people were
> > > mistaken maybe, but, nobody lied.
> > >   this is an emotional statement judt like
> saying
> > > "haliburtin" or "war for oil." it may produce a
> > > emotional release, but, is basically devoid of
> facts.
> > >   when i hear "war for oil", i'd like to know
> how much
> > > oil we get from iraq. fact is that we get very
> little
> > > so if it is a "war for oil" why are we not
> getting it?
> > >
> > >   i appolgise again openly to mag, for being so
> harsh
> > > in this post. mag, you know i love you.
> > >   now, i got to get back to my saturday chores.
> > >
> > > --- ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> now mag, the definition of a lie is to tell
> > >> something
> > >> that you know is not true at the time you tell
> it.
> > >> look it up.
> > >>   you guys who can't come up with anything but
> "bush
> > >> lied" just do not know how foolish you sound. i
> love
> > >> you, but, please, get past that tripe. bush as
> well
> > >> as
> > >> all your derm senators and intelligence around
> the
> > >> world all said saddam had wmd. you do not say
> every
> > >> body lied, only "bush lied."
> > >>   the truth is that nobody lied about wmd,
> becouse
> > >> not
> > >> a one of them knew that he did not have them
> and
> > >> went
> > >> ahead and said he did.
> > >>    get past the foolishness and get something
> > >> substantial to say.
> > >>
> > >> --- Magenta Raine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Saddam is being tried for the atrocities he
> > >>> perpetrated against the Kurds,
> > >>> and Iranians, as well as murdering some of his
> own
> > >>> people.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction
> or
> > >>> Clinton lying about his
> > >>> affair; which  is worse?  I say bush's lies
> about
> > >>> wmd is worse because
> > >>> after they found no wmd, he made up several
> other
> > >>> stories about why we are
> > >>> there.
> > >>>
> > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>> [log in to unmask]
> > >>> Come visit my new store!
> > >>> http://www.cafepress.com/TamarMag
> > >>> visit my Blog at;
> > >>> http://tamarmag-newsletters.blogspot.com/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> [Original Message]
> > >>>> From: Anthony Arnold
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>>> Date: 3/24/2006 5:19:03 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: FW: was dental question   now
> iraq
> > >>> war.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't know what we're currently trying
> Hussein
> > >>> and his brother for, but
> > >>>> they had no involvement in September 11th, so
> > >> why
> > >>> are we over there
> > >>> besides
> > >>>> to take our frustration out on somebody.  But
> on
> > >>> the other hand, if I
> > >>> would
> > >>>> become the president tomorrow, I wouldn't
> pull
> > >> out
> > >>> immediately as some
> > >>> would
> > >>>> like to see, I would personally like to fix
> what
> > >>> my country has done.
> > >>> It's
> > >>>> like if I accidentally dropped a cigarette on
> > >>> somebody's carpet and it
> > >>> burns
> > >>>> a hole, I would feel oppogated to replace
> their
> > >>> carpet, no matter what.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Anthony
> > >>>> Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of
> > >>>> Kendall David Corbett
> > >>>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:49 PM
> > >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> > >>>> Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq
> > >> war.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ken,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Whether the Iraqis are better off is a tough
> > >> call;
> > >>> they may (or may not,
> > >>>> some would argue) have greater civil
> liberties,
> > >>> but their lives may be
> > >>>> in greater immediate danger than they were
> under
> > >>> Hussein. =20
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On the opposite side of that coin, many would
> > >>> argue that we in the US
> > >>>> are safer, but have had our civil liberties
> > >>> eroded.  It was said in the
> > >>>> immediate post 9/11 period that the
> terrorists
> > >>> wanted to destroy the
> > >>>> American (read US) way of life, and they have
> > >> made
> > >>> a start toward that,
> > >>>> IMHO.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As I read UN Resolution 1441, it doesn't
> > >>> explicitly give member states
> > >>>> of the UN permission to undertake unilateral
> > >>> military action against
> > >>>> Iraq.  That does seem to be permissible under
> UN
> > >>> resolutions 678 and
> > >>>> 687, which were signed in 1990 and 1991,
> > >>> respectively. =20
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My point is that the armed forces presently
> > >>> engaged as coalition
> > >>>> partners do not wear UN uniforms, and as such
> > >> are
> > >>> not formally
> > >>>> recognized as UN forces.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kendall=20
> > >>>>
> > >>>> An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com