IMHO, lots of people had money to be made. Consider that before the conflict (Sir Bush is committing an unlawful act by usurping the powers of Congress in declaring war without their resolution so I refuse to call it a real war), we got no oil from Iraq. Now we import 4 percent of our national needs from that country. Now one need'nt look far from the white house to find the long nose and bald head of the man that is making tons of money from this. Many Russians and French had contracts in hand with Sadaam and are now out in the cold. This would be fertile ground for an investigation by the next president if he is a democrat. If there is real fraud and the next president is a republican, then look for a presidential pardon of all involved as prima facie evidence......that is all involved who are not deemed as acceptable losses by the pardoners. Some others needing pardons but not having wealth or something to lose might just 'die in a helicopter accident'. Second, the real reason for the war will prove eventually not to be WMD, but money. Sadaam was left in power probably because of promises to pay certain parties 'aggrieved financially' in the first go round. He subsequently double crossed the so called victors. Our troops were really mercenaries paid a salary from our governments while the real money was paid separately. probably to some members of our ruling leadership and other ruling leaderships by so far unnamed entities probably including the Kuwaiti Sultan. The miracle is how this remained a secret for so long. Somebody is going to tell, sometime, unless all the 'undependable' witnesses are deceased. O yes, the fig leaf was that the benefactor governments like Kuwait were going to come up with funds for the war.... Nobody is going to believe that no other money was paid..........to somebody! Then to make a long story short, it was off to fight again. The sultans had face to save and 'Dubya' was the cat's paw to 'git 'er done!'.
Standing Bear On Monday 14 November 2005 11:45, thomas malloy wrote: > >In reply to thomas malloy's message of Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:23:40 > >-0600: > >Hi, > >[snip] > > > >>>Note that the French didn't actually *betray* anyone over Iraq, > >> > >>Really, what about the Iraqi people? They got screwed over in > >>numerous ways. The French had their fingers in the oil for food > >>scandal. They were cutting lucrative deals with Sadam and happily > >>burning the oil. > > > >According to the fake documents planted in Baghdad after the > >invasion. Why do I think the documents are fake?..because they > >read like a who's-who of the people the current US administration > >doesn't like. > > So, you believe that the Kurds gassed themselves to make Saddam look > bad? Or perhaps the Iranians invaded and gassed them? What about the > mass graves? more mass suicide? How about the wedding parties where > the bride was raped and the groom shot if he objected? More attempts > to make Saddam look bad? The Iraqi Government employment documents, > in which the man's job description was "taker of the honor of women", > another fake? > > >>>A vote in the Security Council is democracy in action. Sometimes > >>>it doesn't go your way. Get used to it. > >> > >>The UN is a debating society, and a rather ineffectual one at that. > > > >All large human gatherings end up being debating societies, it's > >human nature. > > I love to debate. The UN has carried corruption to new heights. They > are every bureaucratic nightmare on steroids. > > >>They screwed the Iraqi people even more than the French with oil for > >>food, If I had my way, America would with draw it's membership and > >>financial support from the UN. What kind of a fool would allow Sudan > >>to chair the Human Rights Commission? > > > >This is a good point. > > Thank you > > >>>The real problem is that the US is all for majority rule, as long > >>>as it is part of the majority, but when the shoe is on the other > >> > >>You conveniently ignore that Sadam had, and used WMD. The UN gave him > >>orders to account for certain materials and he ignored them. > > > >http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020921/2002092124.html > > > >>We > >>decided that the world would be better off with one less tin horn > >>dictator, and IMHO it is. > > > >1) Iraq is almost certainly better off without Saddam, but the > >world as a whole almost certainly worse off as a consequence of > >the *increase* in animosity among Muslims world wide, brought on > >by the war. > > I don't understand how, having previously declared jihad (holy war) > against another group of people, you can possibly increase animosity. > > >2) Saddam could have been disposed of without going to war. > >However the US administration wanted a war. > >Regards, > > Yah, and who do you think would have deposed him if we hadn't, the > UN? The Arab League? Both groups had members who were too busy lining > their pockets with the proceeds of the oil for food program to let > something like that happen. > > > > > --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- > http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
