Yaketyak
2006-11-01 23:13:55 UTC
stop spinning the details.. the concept was that rebuilding the iraqi
oil production would help the raqi's rebuilsd their country from the
revenues.. not that they would pay us. I havent seen any written
treaty or policy to that effect but it is really only common sense..
which explains why the terrorists keep damaging their oil production
equipment.. they dont want them to rebuild.
other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats
http://leftistwatch.0catch.com
Yaketyak
oil production would help the raqi's rebuilsd their country from the
revenues.. not that they would pay us. I havent seen any written
treaty or policy to that effect but it is really only common sense..
which explains why the terrorists keep damaging their oil production
equipment.. they dont want them to rebuild.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:25:17 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam Colin Campbell
completely failed to back up your claim that we intended to pay for
the invasion with Iraqi oil revenue.
Apparently, you are one of the people who are so blinded by their
partisan politics that you will believe anything.
Well, I posted the references that some cabinet-level people did, in
fact, voice that. I really don't think that I'm political at all... I
prefer to be a critical thinker as opposed to a Democrat or a
Republican. I gather evidence, evaluate evidence, and come to an
independent conclusion. IMO, the evidence available in the
Congressional Record and in records of press releases suggests that
high-level people in the administration did, in fact, say that Iraq
would pay for their... "reconstruction", they called it... through oil
revenue. You say they didn't; however, other evidence convinces me
that they did.
I say, what good does it *possibly* do you to snip the references? It
makes you look like an utter fool, you know.
Jones
Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists and STOP helping ourMany staff and cabinet-level people mentioned the idea of post war
Iraqi oil revenue prior to the actual invasion. As hair-brained ideas
went, it wasn't particularly embraced as a *reason* for invading
Iraq... that was the other hair-brained notion that Iraq was building
WMD despite the fact that UN inspectors were crawling up Saddam's ass
with microscopes. If you think about it, you can't really justify an
attack simply because the other country has resources you happen to
want. I'm not real impressed with the presidential intellect; however,
I'm sure he has more sense that *that*.
Apparently you do not have more sense than this. So far you haveIraqi oil revenue prior to the actual invasion. As hair-brained ideas
went, it wasn't particularly embraced as a *reason* for invading
Iraq... that was the other hair-brained notion that Iraq was building
WMD despite the fact that UN inspectors were crawling up Saddam's ass
with microscopes. If you think about it, you can't really justify an
attack simply because the other country has resources you happen to
want. I'm not real impressed with the presidential intellect; however,
I'm sure he has more sense that *that*.
completely failed to back up your claim that we intended to pay for
the invasion with Iraqi oil revenue.
Apparently, you are one of the people who are so blinded by their
partisan politics that you will believe anything.
fact, voice that. I really don't think that I'm political at all... I
prefer to be a critical thinker as opposed to a Democrat or a
Republican. I gather evidence, evaluate evidence, and come to an
independent conclusion. IMO, the evidence available in the
Congressional Record and in records of press releases suggests that
high-level people in the administration did, in fact, say that Iraq
would pay for their... "reconstruction", they called it... through oil
revenue. You say they didn't; however, other evidence convinces me
that they did.
I say, what good does it *possibly* do you to snip the references? It
makes you look like an utter fool, you know.
Jones
other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats
http://leftistwatch.0catch.com
Yaketyak