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
|