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
> >>> redundant!)
> >>>>
> >>>> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> >>> the unreasonable one
> >>>> persists in trying to adapt the world to
> >> himself.
> >>> Therefore, all
> >>>> progress depends on the unreasonable man.
> >>>>
> >>>> -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
> >>>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq
> >> war.
> >>>>
> >>>> actually resolution 1441 passed without
> >> desent,
> >>> but,
> >>>> then when it got time to actually follow
> >> through,
> >>> then
> >>>> the germans, french, and russians backpeddled
> >> and
> >>>> would not follow through. 1441 gave any member
> >>> nation
> >>>> the right to enforce it. the u.s. and the brits
> >>> with a
> >>>> few more did exactly that.=20
> >>>> it appears that the intelligence worldwide was
> >>> wrong
> >>>> on lagre amounts of weapons of mass destruction
> >>> unless
> >>>> you believe that ranking iragi general that says
> >>> they
> >>>> flew them to syria. the media is ignoring him.
> >> i'd
> >>>> guess some of you have heard nothing about him
> >> up
> >>> to
> >>>> just this email. but, either way i'll ask the
> >>>> question. do you think iragis are better off now
> >>> than
> >>>> before the invasion? your honest answer should
> >>> pretty
> >>>> well tell you if the war is right or wrong.
> >> don't
> >>>> wealsel out, they are either better off without
> >>> saddam
> >>>> or they were better off with him.=20
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Let me send this again, so the link stays
> >>> intact!
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Kendall David Corbett
> >>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:59 PM
> >>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: dental question
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>> Anthony,
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>> President Bush tried to get UN approval for
> >> the
> >>> war
> >>>>> in Iraq, and was
> >>>>> turned down. He then formed a coalition of
> >>> partner
> >>>>> nations for the war,
> >>>>> which included the US, England, Australia,
> >>
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
|
