so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-08-2003, 12:51 PM   #151
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Sorry, but being a pacifict and pretending the threat does not exist does not have a very good historical record. Several countries tried such things in reaction to Hitlers rise to power and Germany's rearmament. The results were over 50 million dead a few years later. Pacificm, isolationism, and non-involvement do not work. Intervention and engagement is needed to solve problems.
Exactly. But only when the problems exist in reality, not in the mind of someone...
__________________

__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 10:46 PM   #152
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Another little way Dubyah is lying and protecting his daddy:

Saudi Secrets Are Safe With Bush

If the Bushes reveal damaging information about the Saudis, what might the Saudis reveal about them?

by Joe Conason

08/08/03: (New York Observer) At the nexus of diplomacy and secret intelligence, governments almost never speak forthrightly about their purposes. When ranking officials decide what can be revealed and what must be concealed, political expedience is at least as important as national security. And on the rare occasion when such an official publicly demands the disclosure of embarrassing information, as the Saudi foreign minister did last week, an ulterior motive should be assumed.

So regardless of any claims to the contrary, it seems prudent to remember that the White House and the House of Saud are likewise best served by keeping all the sensitive files locked away. Both houses would be unwise to risk speaking candidly about each other now—a caution that applies with special emphasis when the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue bear the name of Bush.

On July 29, Prince Saud el-Faisal paid an extraordinary visit to the Bush White House. For an hour, he and George W. Bush discussed the 28-page section of the joint Congressional report on 9/11 that evidently implicates agents of his country’s government in the terrorist attack. The prince’s ostensible reason for coming to see the President—whose family has long maintained close connections with the Saudi royals—was to ask Mr. Bush to declassify those 28 pages because, as he declared at a press conference: "We have nothing to hide, and we do not seek, nor do we need, to be shielded."

That glibly ridiculous assertion is contradicted by the repressive habits of his family’s autocratic regime, which has a lot to hide from its own people as well as ours. Besides, the prince knew before he landed in Washington that the President would decline his plea. Foreign ministers don’t meet with any head of state, particularly not the leader of the world’s only superpower, unless they already know what the meeting’s outcome will be. In this instance, the President’s negative answer could have been ascertained via embassy cable within hours, or by telephone within minutes.

As Senator Charles Schumer suggested, the prince visited the President to improve the kingdom’s image rather than to inform the American public. The Saudis requested the release of the Congressional report’s incriminating pages with absolute confidence in a denial by their old friend George W., who insisted that releasing the report’s unflattering references to Saudi Arabia might somehow undermine the "war on terror."

The New York Democrat, like other legislators of both parties seeking to pry loose those 28 pages, discounts that clichéd excuse. Senator Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who oversaw the joint Congressional probe, has said that "90 to 95 percent" of the pages being withheld "would not compromise, in my judgment, anything in national security."

Why, then, is the Bush administration so determined to prevent the public from learning what Congressional investigators discovered about Saudi connections to 9/11? Conventional answers involve the kingdom’s control of the world’s largest oil reserves, its influence over the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, its potential assistance in achieving peace between Israelis and Arabs, and its proclaimed alliance with the United States against Al Qaeda.

In steeply descending order of persuasiveness, all those stated reasons possess some merit. The problem is that the Bush administration—as well as the President’s family and its associates—is scarcely able to assess the merits with any degree of objectivity. After all, if they reveal damaging information about the Saudis, what might the Saudis reveal about them?

For more than three decades, Saudi Arabia has sought to influence American politicians, often through investment in American business. While they have occasionally sought out Democrats, they are far more comfortable with Republicans—and in particular, with Bush Republicans. At the moment, for example, the kingdom’s defense attorney in a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims happens to be James Baker, that ultimate Bushie whose résumé includes stints as Secretary of State and Treasury. (Mr. Baker’s last big court case was Bush v. Gore.)

Commercial connections between the Saudis and the Bushes extend from limited-partner investments in George W.’s failed oil ventures more than 20 years ago to the Carlyle Group, a mighty merchant bank that currently employs Mr. Baker, former President George Herbert Walker Bush and a host of lesser family vassals. Saudi money has also figured in several of the most significant political scandals of the postwar era, notably the Iran-contra affair and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International blowup. Whatever the Saudis might say about any of those matters is probably better left unsaid—not only to protect state secrets, but also for the sake of Bush senior, the former C.I.A. director and suspected Iran-contra conspirator.

The U.S. government knows many unflattering stories about the Saudi rulers. Unfortunately, they know many and perhaps worse about ours. The preference for silence and secrecy is understandably mutual.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-19-2003, 12:52 PM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Normal the latest lie (or "mistake")

from This Modern World

Quote:
President Bush once again demonstrates his keen grasp of the situation:

"We've got about 10,000 troops there, which is down from, obviously, major combat operations," he said. "And they're there to provide security and they're there to provide reconstruction help. But both those functions are being gradually replaced by other troops. Germany, for example, is now providing the troops for ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], which is the security force for Afghanistan, under NATO control. In other words, more and more coalition forces and friends are beginning to carry a lot of the burden in Afghanistan."

In fact, the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan represent the highest number of U.S. soldiers in the country since the war there began. By the time the Taliban government had been vanquished in December 2001, U.S. troops numbered fewer than 3,000 in Afghanistan. And three months later, in March 2002, when the last major battle against remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda took place in eastern Afghanistan, about 5,000 U.S. troops were in the country.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-25-2003, 09:41 AM   #154
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:35 AM
http://www.aoshingo.com/dubya/audio/notyou.wav

Arrogance *cough-coughcough-cough*
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-25-2003, 02:35 PM   #155
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
http://www.aoshingo.com/dubya/audio/notyou.wav

Arrogance *cough-coughcough-cough*
Not really....do you know what the question was? All I hear is him answering what may very well have been an stupid question.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-25-2003, 02:35 PM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
http://www.aoshingo.com/dubya/audio/notyou.wav

Arrogance *cough-coughcough-cough*
Not really....do you know what the question was? All I hear is him answering what may very well have been an stupid question.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-10-2003, 11:58 AM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:35 AM
a very well written and interesting article. The few points I especially liked: what it will take from Bush to get us out of this mess, and how the US is counting on foreign aid to Iraq w/o letting them lend a hand to the US.

source

Quote:
Other People's Sacrifice
By PAUL KRUGMAN


In his Sunday speech President Bush made a call for unity: "We cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." He also spoke, in a way he hasn't before, about "sacrifice." Yet, as always, what he means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people.

It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election. Then they insisted that the costs of occupation and reconstruction would be minimal, and used the initial glow of battlefield victory to push through yet another round of irresponsible tax cuts.

Now almost half the Army's combat strength is bogged down in a country that wasn't linked to Al Qaeda and apparently didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush tells us that he needs another $87 billion, right away. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I (like many others) told you so. Back in February I asked, "Is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody business of rebuilding Iraq?" The example of Afghanistan (where warlords rule most of the country, and the Taliban — remember those guys? — is resurgent) led me to doubt it. And I was, alas, right.

Surely the leader who brought us to this pass, and is now seeking a bailout, ought to make some major concessions as part of the deal. But it was clear from his speech that, as usual, he expects to take while others do all the giving.

The money is actually the least of it. Still, it provides a clear test case. If Mr. Bush had admitted from the start that the postwar occupation might cost this much, he would never have gotten that last tax cut. Now he says, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . ." What does he mean, "we"? Is he prepared to roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax cut permanent? Of course not.

Then there's the issue of foreign participation. The key question here is whether the Bush administration will swallow its pride and cede substantial control over the occupation to the U.N. That's surely the price of a large contingent of foreign soldiers. Mr. Bush didn't address this issue directly, but he did say that he is seeking only one more multinational division, which suggests that he isn't going to make major concessions.

Yet as I understand it, one more division won't make much difference in the security situation. In particular, it will do little to alleviate the looming problem identified by the Congressional Budget Office: in March, the U.S. will have to start withdrawing most of its troops if it wants to maintain "acceptable levels of military readiness" in the Army as a whole.

Meanwhile, the administration is still counting on Iraq's receiving billions of dollars in aid from other countries. Unless the U.S. makes major concessions, forget about it.

But the most important concession Mr. Bush should make isn't about money or control — it's about truth-telling. He squandered American credibility by selling a war of choice as a war of necessity; if he wants to get that credibility back, he has to start being candid.

Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Once again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of evidence. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has come up empty, he declared that Saddam "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" — 1991, 2003, what's the difference?

So will Congress give Mr. Bush the money he wants, no questions asked? It probably will, but it shouldn't. Mr. Bush created this crisis, and if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve it. Maybe it's time for him to do a couple of things he's never done before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 05:09 AM   #158
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"But I will not stand for a President that lies and manipulates to try and gain my support for this war."

Prove one thing that the President lied about!

Do you really believe Saddam when he says he destroyed his WMD during the years from 1998-2002? Are you willing to simply take his word for it?

Bush was not going to, and its rather obvious to me why.
Might as well throw in my 2 cents.

Many seem to think Bush does have a problem with the truth:

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

I suppose what it all boils down to is that the justification for the war was paper thin and hasn't really been proven. I also suppose it depends if you believe that you can justify an attack because of what you don't know. Once you go there, there are no boundaries or limits.

I don't believe anything George Bush says. The biggest threat to American security is the Bush administration. It seems to piss off everyone, everywhere in the world. It is deaf to the world.

Nothing, nothing, scares me more than the fact that Bush has his finger on the button to launch hundreds of nuclear missles. Not Iraq, not bin Laden, not North Korea give me cause to fear the way America does.

When September 11th happened, my most overwhelming feeling was of dread. Dread of how America would respond. I think it has played into the hands of those they hold responsible for Sept. 11

Sorry for wandering off topic a bit there. This may be a different thread.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 05:53 PM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:35 PM
iacrobat,



"I suppose what it all boils down to is that the justification for the war was paper thin and hasn't really been proven. I also suppose it depends if you believe that you can justify an attack because of what you don't know. Once you go there, there are no boundaries or limits."

The Justification for the war can be easily explained if one understands the obligations that Saddam signed onto when he signed the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement in March of 1991.

That agreement required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD plans and materials. It required him to account for tens of thousands of missing Kuwaiti Civilians and pay for the destruction and looting done by the Iraqi military while they were in control of Kuwait.

Member states of the UN were authorized to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance if Saddam failed to comply with the above conditions of the 1991 ceacefire agreement.

As of March of 2003 when Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Saddam had failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

Before Saddam barred UN inspectors from performing their Job in Iraq in 1998-1999, UN inspectors had documented that Saddam still had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas. Saddam himself admitted to such WMD.

In November of 2002 when inspectors were allowed back into Iraq, Saddam claimed that he had destroyed the WMD from 1998 and destroyed the evidence of destruction of the WMD, which is impossible. If Saddam had destroyed 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, the evidence would plenty. 30,000 Bio/Chem shells is a lot of metal. If what Saddam said was true, his job is to show the remains of the destruction. Instead, Saddam offered and unscientific, the dog ate my homework excuse.

It is not the international communities responsibility to prove the existence of WMD in Iraq, it is Saddam's responsibility to prove that he does not have such WMD. That is what Saddam agreed to do in March of 1991 by signing the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, or face the consequences of not doing so.

Disarmament is not necessarily a long or difficult process. Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all disarmed their WMD in under 2 years. The Ukraine had the worlds 3rd largest Nuclear arsenal. But after 12 years, Saddam had failed to comply with any of the resolutions regarding the disarmament of his WMD.

The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement gave member states of the UN the responsiblity of insuring that Saddam no longer had WMD. Because of Saddam's lies, cheat and retreat strategies, failure to cooperate with UN inspectors including barring them from the country for four years, the failure to account or show evidence of the destruction of known WMD material, the only thing the international community could do to insure 100% compliance after 12 years of failing to do so was to use military action.

While unarmed UN inspectors can be effective, because they are unarmed, their success requires a heavy degree of cooperation from Saddam, something Saddam fell far short of most of the time. Ultimately, because of Saddam's refusal to cooperate fully, military action became the only way to fully enforce the ceacefire agreement and UN resolutions.

While what Saddam did with his WMD remains a mystery, the fact that he has been disarmed through his removal from power in Iraq is not. With his removal, many of the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and other UN resolutions have finally been complied with. The UNs failure to enforce its most serious resolutions has been ended. The safety and security of a large portion of the worlds energy supplies has been increased. A dictator that invaded and attacked 4 of countries in the region unprovoked is gone from power. A dictator responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million people, mostly Iraqi's is out of power. The opportunities now created for freedom and peace in the region because of this are immense.

Bush has helped to make the world a safer place in the past 2 years than anyone has in the past 10 years. Overthrowing two tyranical regimes has made the world safer, not more dangerous. Giving those people who lived under those regimes the best chance for a better life that they have ever had does not make the world more dangerous.

Most of those responsible for 9/11 have been captured or killed. Al Quada has failed to get a massive upswing in volunteers to overthrow any government in the Muslim world. They may have believed that the US response to 9/11 would have done that, but it has obviously not as we have seen with the results. Al Quada has failed to successfully carry out a single attack on one of the most open countries in the world, the USA. They desperately claim responsibility for any terrorist attack or public disturbance done worldwide even if they are not responsible for it. Their goals of a pure "Islamic" State in the middle east following its sick perversion of that religion have not happened and will not happen.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 06:09 PM   #160
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by iacrobat
When September 11th happened, my most overwhelming feeling was of dread. Dread of how America would respond. I think it has played into the hands of those they hold responsible for Sept. 11
How would you have responded, if at all?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 06:24 PM   #161
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 06:35 AM
STING2, you say that the world is a safer place now than it was before Saddam was overthrown. While I have no doubt that Iraq is safer for Iraqis with Saddam gone, I really don't see how the entire world is safer.

See, if Saddam had WMD (pre-war), they were probably staying in Iraq. Being made, stored, and possibly hidden or made ready for use. Now that Saddam has gone, what has happened to the WMD? We don't know. I find that to be very troubling. The anministration was very concerned that Saddam would supply terrorists with WMD. Now both Saddam and the WMD are nowhere to be found. How does that make me safer?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 08:14 PM   #162
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:35 AM
I know I'd feel a lot safer if Osama wasn't hiking through the hills of Afghanistan or wherever the hell he is, shooting home videos.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 08:32 PM   #163
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:35 PM
ThatGuy,

"STING2, you say that the world is a safer place now than it was before Saddam was overthrown. While I have no doubt that Iraq is safer for Iraqis with Saddam gone, I really don't see how the entire world is safer."

#1. The entire world needs energy resources and much of these resources are in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Enough so that any take over or destruction of such resources and supplies would increase the price of energy to such a degree as to throw the entire planet into an economic depression worse than the 1930s. The problems and difficulties such an economic collapse would create are to immense to properly caculate.

#2. Thousands of Kuwait Civilians were murdered in Saddam's brutal occupation of that country. It took Saddam only 12 hours to overrun the country in 1990. Thousands are still missing. With Saddam gone, the people and country of Kuwait are far more secure and safer.

#3 Saudi Arabia is safer because of the end of Saddams regime. Saddam always had designs on the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Saudi citizens remember the Scud Missile attacks of 1991 and certainly, the citizens of Kafji remember the Iraqi occupation of their town.

#4 Over 400,000 Iranian soldiers were killed in the Iran/Iraq war started by Saddam. Thousands of innocent Iranian civilians were also killed.

#5 While Israeli civilians did not suffer very many losses during the 1991 Gulf War, dozens of Scud missles were fired at the country and if they had been armed with warheads other than conventional ones, the losses could have been greater. In addition, Saddam had studied and looked into, a possible Iraqi invasion of Israel

#6 Turkey, a NATO country, do to its proximity to Iraq, has always had to deal with the threat from Saddam.

Clearly, the threat from Saddam extended far beyond the borders of Iraq. The removal of Saddam has removed the threat to the countries, region, and world, mentioned above.



"See, if Saddam had WMD (pre-war), they were probably staying in Iraq. Being made, stored, and possibly hidden or made ready for use. Now that Saddam has gone, what has happened to the WMD? We don't know. I find that to be very troubling. The anministration was very concerned that Saddam would supply terrorists with WMD. Now both Saddam and the WMD are nowhere to be found. How does that make me safer?"

Saddam's power and ability to threaten were dependent on his regime and military. Without his regime and military, he does not have the ability to threaten any of the above points I mentioned above. What made Saddam powerful is gone. Saddam is running to hide himself. He is no Bin Ladin. Saddam's power was vested in the strenth of the Republican guard and security services all of which have been smashed. Bin Ladin's power has always been his ability to operate in a covert way, communicating with an organization he had built up with his money that was decentralized and difficult to pinpoint. Saddam is not a cave dwelling international terrorist. Rather he was leader of a massive government and military structure that took care of his smallest needs. That structure is gone, and with it, Saddams power.

Its true that not being able to account for the WMD that Saddam had is troubling. But Saddam's regime will not ever be able to use it because it no longer exist. Saddams regime has used WMD more times than any other organization or government in history. The 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells could only be effectively used by the Iraqi military which had 122 mm and 152 mm Soviet Artillery pieces.

The Anthrax and Mustard Gas could have been transfered, but a terrorist organization typically does not have the training, or experience to handle such sensitive materials properly like the Iraqi military would. But, the possiblity still exist.

What is impossible though is that an organization like Al Quada is suddenly in possession of all this material. That would require an unusually large number of trained personal grouped together. In Al Qauda's, current state, I would say that is impossible. The only transfer I could possibly see would be to Hezebolah via Syria into Lebanon. There is in fact, an un substantiated report, that Iraq transfered something in large trucks through Syria into Lebanon back in January of this year.

The most likely senerio I believe is the one that would be in keeping with Saddam's strategy. Saddam believed to the end that he could avoid a full scale ground invasion by Coalition forces. He believed he could successfully hide and bury what WMD he had and allow inspectors into the country without them being able to find it. This combined with resistence from countries like France and Germany, he felt, would prevent a Coalition attack.

Hiding his WMD so securely though meant that it would be unlikely he would be able to use it if a coalition invasion happened. Despite this, he believed by hiding it so securely perhaps through deep burial in the vast desert area's of Iraq, he would be able to convince the world community that he was really free of WMD. Eventually, he would be home free, with sanctions lifted and inspectors gone. Then he could dig up his WMD and begin building more, and of course, start to develop a nuclear weapon.

He miscaculated of course and now his regime his gone. The WMD is most likely deeply buried in some unknown area in the deserts of Iraq. Without better intelligence, the chances of finding it are probably as good as finding some of the ancient towns Abraham might of lived in or passed through before he went to what is now Israel.

So, WMD is probably still deeply buried in Iraq. The second senerio I could see is this transfer to Hezbolah, but I feel that is highly unlikely. Saddam believed that he was going to make it with his regime intact. Because of that, its unlikely he would have given up his WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 08:39 PM   #164
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
#4 Over 400,000 Iranian soldiers were killed in the Iran/Iraq war started by Saddam. Thousands of innocent Iranian civilians were also killed.
I can't believe you typed that with a straight face. It astounds me.

Because we were all so desperately worried about these poor Iranians when the west sided with Saddam in the 80s. Let's call a spade a spade and bullshit, bullshit.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 09:15 PM   #165
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B] #1. The entire world needs energy resources and much of these resources are in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Enough so that any take over or destruction of such resources and supplies would increase the price of energy to such a degree as to throw the entire planet into an economic depression worse than the 1930s. The problems and difficulties such an economic collapse would create are to immense to properly caculate.
All the more reason to start phasing out our dependence on oil through exploration of alternative forms of energy, development of public transportation, and a move to electric and/or hydrogen-powered cars.

Quote:
#3 Saudi Arabia is safer because of the end of Saddams regime. Saddam always had designs on the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. Saudi citizens remember the Scud Missile attacks of 1991 and certainly, the citizens of Kafji remember the Iraqi occupation of their town.


Maybe I'm being shady on some details, but when was the last time Saudi Arabia did anything nice for us--or just left us alone? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? And haven't the Saudi ties to al-Qaeda always been much clearer and stronger?
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com