ain't free speech great?
At 07:19 PM 3/25/2006, you wrote:
> 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
|
