Randy, The same arguments go around and around all the time. Some see nothing but nefarious motives in their country and some of its leaders, while others like myself look at what is asserted and just can't make the connection.
> "Bushie I" and the Emir royal family/rulers of Kuwait, like the > bin laden family, have been business associates. So what? Tons of Americans and Europeans have been employed working in the oil business in the middle east for decades. It's a job working in a primary industry which produces a product that the entire world needs to survive, run machinery and power, heat their homes, drive their cars, fly their airplanes and so on. I know you would rather that we didn't use fossil fuels, but that has been the primary energy source for the world for a long time. Fossil fuels in themselves are not inherently evil. >The US taxpayers and soldiers came to the rescue of Kuwait, which was drilling > diagonal oil wells under Iraqi soil (where all the oil was, and which > was Hussein's cheif complaint). The UN, Saudis and many other countries asked the US to become involved because no other ally had the military power to stop Saddam effectively and quickly. I have not heard of this drilling into Iraq for their oil. I've always heard that Kuwait, though small, has loads of its own oil. > A US ambassador told Hussein, who had been our ally and whose rise to power we funded, that, > were he to invade Kuwait, we would not become involved. Which ambassador and when? I really want to go back and find the Congressional Record on all this. It may still not convince some people, but it may show others that so much that is being alleged all these years later is total revisionist history. > Well, if there is one thing more profitable (for some) than oil, > it is war. Turns out we can have two wars, and the oil. This just sounds so flippant. War COSTS us. I don't think the US has even been paid back for half of its military assistance to other countries since WWI. And everyone seems to forget, we didn't start the war that now faces us. It has been declared on us. The next thing I'm expecting to hear is that Bin Laden is really a fabricated hologram produced by evil scientists who are being funded by Bush and the oil contractors. By the way, what did people think when Clinton unilaterally launched weeks of air strikes on Iraq? Is he in on the cut from the oil cartel, too? > Today on the (?major) network news, they mentioned: > US oil reserves are the lowest they have been in 27 years. Bush started filling up our strategic reserves to a huge amount after 9/11. Some people want to let some of it out to help give us a break on the price but I don't know if that has happened yet. > They also mentioned that we should expect gas prices to rise > by 50 cents a gallon. (In Iraq two dollars will get you 25 gallons). Every report I have heard on the mainstream news is attributing the rise in gas prices to the strikes, uprisings and instability in Venezuela, which is one of the U.S.'s prime suppliers. > Who will profit from all this? George Bush Sr. works for The > Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor. > The more I have looked into the ties between the Bush > administration and the oil and defense interests in the region, > the more the oil angle makes sense. Again, it's the same old argument that makes no sense to me. Bush, Sr. has the background in the oil business. If he were a scientist, he'd probably be consulting for some scientific development contractor. The Bush family have been extremely wealthy since their ancestors came over this country I think a couple hundred years ago. They don't need to put the whole world and themselves in jeopardy to make a few bucks for some stupid Carlyle Group. I know I waste my words here but I hope some can see that it is really difficult to make these connections. There is just too much contradictory history that refutes it to me. Kakki
