BS: It's official...... it was about oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 08:39 AM

Originally from the Economist-on oil and oilitics involving Turkey, Iraq, the Kurds, (Iran and Syria) and the west.


Still about oil?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Oct 07 - 09:14 AM

Not sure what you point is Nigeria. In relation to the (oft strayed-from) topic of this thread, are you saying Bush should invade Nigeria?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Nigeria
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:56 PM

Nigeria produces oil too! Funny how little you know about oil...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

Rig-

Interesting that you seem to want non-religious people to be able to say whatever they like--but want to "stamp out" religion. Your language would fit right into the Inquisition.

And I don't consider myself in the least religious.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:17 AM

I guess if you could stamp out the scourge of religion, you could have an open discussion about oil that might prove productive.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,Nigeria
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 11:37 PM

Yup, it's all about oil.

In the north, anti-Christian violence continues. The most recent outbreak came about when paranoid Moslem high school students accused Christian students of planning an attack on a mosque. This led to attacks on the Christian minority in the northern Kano state (which is mostly Moslem), the death of nine Christians, the wounding of 61 others. Some 500 Christians were forced to flee their homes, and nine churches were burned down. Islamic radical preachers in the north are constantly preaching against the Christian "war on Islam," even though nearly all the religious violence in the world is Moslems attacking non-Moslems.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 10:10 PM

Mostly they weren't convinced by the Swift boat slander--but it gave people already against Kerry more incentive to actually vote. As did the push for homosexual marriage--and that well-known reactionary, Barney Frank, realized this and warned his own true believers against bringing out their opponents. Did they listen? What do you think? Just as pushing hard to get plaques of the 10 Commandments out of courtrooms energized the opposition--which has a lot more votes than true-believer atheists do.   Mudcat is not a good reflection of the US electorate, you may have noticed.

And on top of that, we had Mr. Cheney assuring everyone everywhere he went: "Here, in (your town) a dirty bomb could be exploded." (Implication--much more likely with Kerry).

All you need to do with a fearful population is play to that fear--which the Bush "team" did masterfully.

And, as I noted earlier, the Right's favorite whipping boy, the UN, just about handed the election to Bush by acting as honest broker and putting an Iraqi face (Allawi) on the opposition to the insurgency--thereby giving the lie-- til after November 2004--to the idea that Iraq was Vietnam Part II.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 06:39 PM

Because most people are too ill-informed to actually cast intellegent votes...

Like I've said, I think that when one steps into the voting booth that they should have to take a short quiz before their votes should be counted...

Sample question:

Which of the following is not a one of the 3 branches of governemnt?

A. The Executive Branch
B. The Judical Branch
C. The Walmart Branch
D. The Legislative Branch

I mean, really, why should stupid ill-informed people be allowed to vote... Tom Jefferson said that democracy needed an informed electorate... He didn't say that everyone should be able to vote...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 05:38 PM

All of that is true, but why do people buy into it?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 04:47 PM

Well, 2000 is much clearer than 2004 but there is room for concern that the Repubs pulled a fast one in Ohio allowing Bush to squeak by the baffon...

And if the Swift Boat Liars, who weren't even at the incident that they attacked Kerry on, hadn't had millions and millions of dollars to run 24/7 lies then it shouldn't have even been close...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 11:29 PM

Better question:

Who spent the millions of dollars to air fucking liar adds that convinced so many that a decorated war hero was more of a buffoon than a frat boy draft evader?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 11:11 PM

"Bush lost big!!!"

                The only question remaining to be answered is, why did the Democrats run a buffoon in 2004?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 06:36 PM

T-zer,

As per usual you are wrong on three counts:

1. The invasion of Iraq was not ordered up under "full approval" of both houses... There were alot of folks who voted against it... That doesn not make "full" approval...

2. One common thing observatyion that mnay of the folks who did vote for the resoultion is that if they know now what they knew then then they wouldn't have voted for it... This ain't splittin' hairs... It is common knowledge that Bush and his war team cherry picked intellegence in making a case for war.... Had Congress been privied to the wide scope of anaylsis that was coming from the CIA, based on what many are saying now, they wouldn't have voted for it...

3. No, Bush did loose the 2000 election... Well, that is if the rule of law amounts to anything... Gore had a right to ask for a recount... Tghe margin of "so-called vitory" by Bush was small ebough for Gore to legally ask for and be grenated a recount... But pure nasty politics trumped the law as a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court jumped in and invalidated Florida's own Supreme Court decision to alloow the recount to continue??? BTW, T-zer, you should note that 2 of the Republican appointed justices couldn't even bring themselves to engage in thievery... That is an important point... After the Supreme Court stopped the recount saying that if it were to continue that George Bush "would be harmed" if the recount continued, we later learned that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris has violated all kinds of laws in dropping over 57,000 predominently black folks from the voting rolls... No, T, Bush lost big!!! So did the United States becuase becasue of the 2000 election we looked no better than and corrupt dictatorship, think Saddam Hussain here, in running fair elections... No, Bush lost... There's way too much evidence now to refute that Bush lost...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:53 PM

BTW, that post does two things
1) corrects my previous satement
2) refresh

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:52 PM

I must correct my last statement above (in response to a Teribus question). I thought about it while running last evening, and I was wrong -- The President swears to uphold the Constitution. *That* is his job. I suppose that by upholding the Constitution he is representing the interests of the American people who believe in the nation our founders were trying to create. Our current occupant has been serving the interests of some American people by trashing the Constitution. There can be a big difference between "serving the interests of the people" and "upholding the Constitution".

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:17 PM

The Iraq war is mostly a success.


All the US privatized/participants are making money hand over fist. The oil is still not signed over to Western countries and is subject to daily pipeline sabotage but the 132 mercenary corporations are more than happy with the money they have made.

We have SPENT over a classfied trillion dollars in Iraq but just think of it as SOMEONE MADE a portion of that Trillion Dollars on Iraq.

NOT TO MENTION defense contractors like Lockheed, Gruman, Raytheon, Mac Doug etc....   


The only people who are not paid exorbetant contracts, fees and salaries are the US Federal troops.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 11:09 PM

I think we should give the Bush apologists a bit more time--say, a day more--to come up with the UN authorization of Bush's invasion of Iraq--which BB, for one, believes Bush had. And our resident Bush supporters-- (being careful not to ruffle their feathers by calling them Bushites) --should also be aware that if by some chance they fail to do so, that closes the door--forever--to their mentioning any UN resolution as a justification for the Iraq war. Since, obviously, if the resolutions are UN resolutions, it's up to the UN to either enforce them or authorize some other group to do so. And if the UN does not authorize some other group, say, the US-- to pick a purely theoretical example-- the US cannot cite either the UN or UN resolutions as reason for the war.

And neither can Teribus, BB, et al.

So all their wonderfully impressive erudition on UN resolutions regarding Iraq is totally irrelevant regarding the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 02:09 PM

oops Here's a source:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caspian/Background.html

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 02:07 PM

"The Caspian Sea region, including the Sea and the states surrounding it, is important to world energy markets because of its potential to become a major oil and natural gas exporter over the next decade."

Unfortunately, its not just about Iraq, either.

Nor is it just about oil. Its about who controls the energy resources.

Its also about Afghanistan and all of the countries around the Caspian Sea.

Unfortunately, the people in power think that war is the only answer.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 05:35 AM

Looks like this thread is over then - we are agreed - Bush did not have direct authorisation from the UN to invade Iraq.

At least we can move on from here now. Thanks Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Well that's as long as I can hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 02:08 PM

The US is still waiting Ron, don't go holding your breath.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 11:20 AM

BB, Teribus, et al. Bush apologists----

Still waiting for that evidence I'm sure you have--since you're convinced it's true--that Bush did have UN authorization to invade Iraq.

We need a direct statement from the UN authorizing Bush to enforce UN resolutions.

Now where is it?

The silence is deafening--and damning for your cause.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 08:20 PM

"Bobert, Amos, Dianavan, et al, history will show that George W Bush WON the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections in the US..."

Huh???

I said nothing about the election. This is just another red herring.

You are looking more foolish by the minute.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 09:51 AM

Yes, the American President is supposed to serve the interests of the American people. And No, the invasion of Iraq does not serve our interests.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 08:29 AM

He was presented quite clearly with the case that Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein would pose threat to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America or the Interests of the United States of America.

And what did this case consist of?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:43 AM

"that he has the intelligence"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:29 AM

Teribus,( BB et. al--)

"Actually, Ron Davies and others on this forum, the question is not whether George W Bush had the approval of the UN" for his invasion of Iraq.

It pains me more than I can say--you know it does--to have to tell you you're wrong yet again. Not only is that the question in a larger sense, but your faithful companion, BB (alias Tonto) has made it exactly the question "on this forum" yet again.

BB 5 Oct 2007 7:09 PM:

"Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?"

"Subject to debate IMO . Yes."


Complete--and rather tired--drivel.


And we've heard this answer from him before. Evidently, as a good propaganda student, he feels that if he says it enough times, it will be accepted as true.

Sorry, no.

As a rocket scientist, it is clear, as I noted, that he has has the intelligence to actually back up this statement.

If it can be done.

So he--and you--since you have stuck your oar in--are cordially invited, yet again, to give us a direct quote from the UN authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

And I do not intend to let you Bush apologists go until you do.

Or admit the obvious--finally--that there is no such statement by the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 07:07 AM

I am totally and utterly against communism and terrorism," she thundered in a BBC interview. "But if you are going to pronounce a new law that wherever communism reigns against the will of their people, the United States shall enter - then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world.

Margaret Thatcher.

Add countries that the USA thinks are something to do with terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 03:01 AM

Very obvious point of fact dianavan - no country on this planet requires the consent, or approval, of the United Nations to defend itself.

Completely at odds with what the anti-war, anti-Bush chorus wish to present, it was a larger "coalition" of countries that were involved in 2003 (43) than were involved in 1991 (34).

The decision to intervene was taken with full approval of both Houses, which is why there will never be any impeachment process. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to prevent the war, he did not take any, having been badly advised by France, China, Russia and Germany. The US in the aftermath of 911 in no way, shape or form was going to rely on the ineffectual posturing of the UN to provide for its security.

Bobert, Amos, Dianavan, et al, history will show that George W Bush WON the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections in the US, nothing you say or do is going to alter the fact, learn to live with it and move on. You act and sound like spoilt children who didn't get their own way over something.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:13 PM

He also didn't have Congressional approval given the "last resort" nature of the resolution...

The invasion was definately not "last resort" but more like 1st resort...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:07 PM

teribus - Did Iraq pose a threat to the U.S.? Yes, but that is not the same as "going it alone" to attack Iraq. The U.S. did not have U.N. approval to invade.

As I said before, you are hanging by your fingernails.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:42 PM

Ahhhh, problem is that Bush wasn't actually elected, T...

He was selected by a Republican appointed Supreme Court who ruled in Bush v. Gore that5 if the Florida recount were allowed to continue that Bush "would be harmed"...

This is not an election... It is a farce... The kind one expects to witness in any number of 3rd world countries where corruption is the rule...

There is no doubt that Bush "would have been harmed"... That's about the only part of the Supreme Court "selection" that is correct...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:19 PM

"Now did Bush have UN approval for his invasion? Yes or no? No agonized explanation necessary." - Ron Davies

Actually Ron Davies and others on this forum the question is not whether or not George W Bush Bush had the approval of the UN, he didn't require the approval of the UN. He was presented quite clearly with the case that Iraq under the governance of Saddam Hussein would pose threat to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America or the Interests of the United States of America. That answer had actually been given three years before during the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton - that answer was yes Iraq did pose a threat to the United States of America. Now this is not the opinion of Teribus it is recorded fact, now I know that the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd here on this forum do not want to acknowledge this fact but the least you can do is have the honesty to give your sources if you dispute anything that I have said, you will be hard pressed to refute what Bill Clinton laid out in February 1998.

By the bye, for any of you American Mudcatters out there, if you are in any shadow of a doubt, you elect YOUR President to look after the interests of the United States of America, and solely the interests of the United States of America. Now on this Forum I want to hear from Mudcatters from the United States of America who disagree with that premise, and I also want to hear why they think otherwise.

Please note that since 911 you have not been subject to one single attack, I would like to ask those on this Forum who have proclaimed that the the terrorist threat has blossomed because of the actions of the United States of America why there has been no, absolutely no, evidence of such activity.

Much as you tossers care to deny it, your military are winning in both Iraq and Afghanistan, all that remains is for the internal politics to consolidate the gains.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 07:53 PM

Good point, d... But what is the most infuriating is that the Congression resolution that passed givin' Bush the authority had very destinct language about such an action being taken as a "last resort"...

Problem is that Hanz Bliz was reporting prior to Bush's decision (ha), make that "final orders", that the Iraqis were cooperating and theat he was able to have his inspectors inspect what they wanted to inspect... Hardly justifies Bush's decision to say that the invasion was the "last resort"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 04:41 PM

Looks to me like teribus is hanging on by his fingernails.

He's actually trying to convince people that Bush didn't have to go it alone because he had the blessing of the U.N.

Give your head a shake.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 12:00 PM

"Clearly those in favour of the war regard this as deaths well justified and money well spent."


                   Anything to cut down on human population growth, I suppose, but you wouldn't think they'd want to lose the money.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:51 AM

The problem to my mind about the body counts based on surveys like that is that there is a ratio between killed and injured on these occasions and if we accept the large numbers killed - then there ought to be an even larger number of injured.

I think the ratio is normally seen as about 3:1 but I can stand corrected on that. I see no evidence of the large numbers of wounded.

On the other hand the Iraq Body Count website does suggest (by them) that their figures are almost certainly an undercount of the total dead of the war. For instance it only counts civilian - i.e. non-combatant - deaths, and says itself it misses those who may have died from injuries a while afterwards.

Either way - it was 33 killed yesterday and the total cost of the war - to the USA - over and above what they would normally have spent on armed forces is around $457 billion dollars.

Clearly those in favour of the war regard this as deaths well justified and money well spent.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 09:00 AM

Yo, BB...

How'z about actually reading the two links that TIA has provided without thinking the entire time how to twist and spin and figure out just which Bush blog propaganda links to post to refute them... Granted, there are studies on both ends of the spectrum and I'd be williong to say that maybe the answer lie (no pun intended) somewhere in between... Like I have said, historians will get it right (no pun intended, part 2) but one thing is for sure and that is Bush doesn't want us to see the dead, be it ours or the Iraqis... And Bush is doing everything he can to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t in Iraq...

And you can take that to the bank...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:47 AM

Bobert-
You are correct. The truth will eventually come out. Hints of the truth are appearing already, and being (purposely?) ignored. There has been almost zero coverage of a recent (September 18, 2007) survey by the Opinion Research Bureau (ORB) that puts the number of dead as a result of the invasion at nearly twice the disputed Lancet figure. No one is even bothering to dispute this latest survey. It is simply ignored.

The source

References on the lack of coverage

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:23 AM

Did that come out before or after the Creedence hit "Bad Logic Rising"--with its immortal line "There's a non-sequitur on the Right"?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:18 AM

In the words of the immortal Tina Turner - "What's the UN got to do with it?"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 12:43 AM

BB--


It's very simple--I would think a rocket scientist such as yourself should be able to understand.

Either the UN gave Bush its blessing to enforce its resolutions on Iraq or it did not. To the vast majority of the educated world it is obvious that the UN did not give Bush its blessing. If you feel differently, it would seem you might possibly be able to come up with some evidence   that the UN did authorize Bush to invade.

I'm waiting patiently for your evidence--(why do I get the impression it may be a long wait?)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 10:07 PM

"the propaganda pipeline"
http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/iraq_year_three.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2950837.stm


OK, They are propaganda, I guess....


Since they are anti-war.


As for your sources...

Oh, you have yet to present ANY of them- I guess that means we sghould trust your god-like knowledge to only make up "true" figures...


RD,
"that is not quoting UN resolutions"

If you do not accept UNR as indicating the will of the UN, YOU have a real problem- And since you don't read the UNR, I fail to see how you can make ANY statement as to the intent of the UN.

Sort of like you saying you want the Bush administration take on things without ever having to read anything by any spokesman for them.

But then I guess it IS easier to "win" your point when you don't allow the other team to play....

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:54 PM

BB--

Oh, it's subject to debate that Bush had UN blessing to invade Iraq, is it? Perhaps you'd be good enough to give one scintilla of evidence. NB--that is not quoting UN resolutions--we need a statement authorizing Bush to use force to enforce said resolutions.

Good luck.

I'll be watching.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:58 PM

BB,

No, you haven't shown me anything... What you have done is report what has been carefully selected for your consumption.... The truth is being kept from you yet you are so blind as to keep falling for Bush's pea-under-the-shell game and you actually believe the crap that comes outta the propaganda pipeline... Your sources are not independent... They are just pages out of Bush's comapny fight song book... You can't see this becasue you are apparently blinded to the truth...

We tried to tell you that you were buying bad goods during the mad-dash-to-Iraq but you were then, as you are now, not able to see that it is folks like you who are the most manipilated by the Bush PR/propaganda team... You still don't get it...

The real truth about what the US has done in Iraq probably won't be known until it is over... Then, as in Vietnam the real story will be told...

But I will bet you a dollar to doughnuts that when we get the "rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say, what you have stated about the extent of the bombing in Iraq will be shown to be as wrong as wrong can be...

Right now, there is very concerted effort to paint Iraq as some kinda success... This is a concereted effort... The actual story isn't being told... What is being told is complete fiction... Can I prove that tonight??? No, but history will prove it just as hiostory has proved that I had some level of underastanding of what was going to happen in Iraq during the mad-dash...

No brag, just fact...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:09 PM

Ron D.

"Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?"

Subject to debate. IMO, Yes. But there are points ON BOTH SIDES.


It is the failure of BOTH sides to even try to understand that those who disagree with them have what they consider to be good reasons to do so. To ignore those reasons is to make certain that those people will NEVER agree with what you have decided is right.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:05 PM

"0.0199 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack"

Sorry, typo. That should be " 0.0299 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack"

According to
http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Bobert,

I have shown that your estimates of bombs per sortie are way off.

By any figures that are available, the number seems to be

0.0199 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack
0.659 bombs per sortie DURING the bombing campaign
0.0218 for 2006 and the first 6 months of 2007.

I use sources that I do not believe would hesitate to exagerate as much as you, if they could- so why do you call thee figures "lies"?

A "lie" is when someone, after being informed of the truth, and given the facts, insists that the false statements they made earlier MUST be true, and repeats them. THAT is what you are doing.


I have asked numerous times for any factual basis for the "half a million civilian deaths" that you keep repeating, and have not seen fact one. YES, too many have been killed- MOST by those that YOU would leave in defacto control of the country. When they have killed all those that disagree with them, I guess you will say you are sorry, but we have no business trying to save anyone's lives- It's not like they are godd ol' red blooded Americans, so let them kill eachg other, you seem to be saying- correct me if I am wrong.


Just because YOU repeat a lie over and over does not make it true. If you have facts to present, I will be glad to listen to them: You seem unwiling to even bother to look for facts, but make them up as you go along. This devalues your arguements EVEN when they have some substance, and should be paid attention to. Yet when you insist of repeating lies, why should we bother to try to find the truth that you might have to say?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:15 PM

Not to fret, TIA...

Bush and BB's little cover-up will be found out... Right now all we are getting is what they say is the story... The historians are close on the heels of those who thought they had a perfect storm to keep the truth from seeing the light of day...

Ain't worked out that way...

Just as I, as well as others, predicted what would happen in Iraq, I feel very comfortable that the truth will find it's way thru the barriers that the Bush adminiistration has set up to keep it hidden...

Jesus told Mathew that "there is nothing hidden that one day will not be found and no secrets kept that will not one day be common knowledge"...

On that front, time is on our side...

Will it bring back the lives of the half million, or so, Iraqis??? No, it won't... But at least the truth will come out and maybe, just maybe, all of America will finally get it...

B~