What Harper really believes

[newbie]

Jerry, funny you mention that, since the real target, Osama (remember him) wasn't in Iraq, and no ties from Saddam to 911 (911 commission), and virtually no terrorism until Dubya carpet bombed Baghdad. Hmmm, you can't really blame me for thinking that Bush didn't really have any other motive, him being an oilman himself and buddy Dick a Haliburton man.

[Harare]

The Libs in UK wanted to negotiate with Hitler and in hindsight looked like idiots.

The French Libs in Quebec fought conscription even to help the French get thier country back from Hitler

The Libs in London went into Iraq with Bush and in hindsight don't look so good.

The UN really - you've got to be kidding - yea they really went to town in Ruanda, Cambodia and were such a big help with the food for oil program and lets not forget the kids in west Africa hacking off breasts and arms and legs and oh lets not forget the great job they're doing on Sudan.

Yep, no more reichs!! Wake up.

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Good grief.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, funny you mention that, since the real target, Osama (remember him) wasn't in Iraq, and no ties from Saddam to 911 (911 commission), and virtually no terrorism until Dubya carpet bombed Baghdad. Hmmm, you can't really blame me for thinking that Bush didn't really have any other motive, him being an oilman himself and buddy Dick a Haliburton man.

HEY! You watched "Farenheit 911" too!

Here's a thought: the appetite for OIL goes far beyond "being an oilman". America needs oil, and wants to push the longterm price of Oil DOWN. And I'd bet they're willing to suffer a short term spike if it means they can turn the Iraq taps on, undermine OPEC and push prices down long term.

Also, if you honestly think that terrorism and Iraq are two separate and completely different issues, you're living in a lefty wonderland.

This is about more than Saddam. This is about a serious, long term western presence in the Middle East. It's about a base of operations to push for reforms in those backward countries.

Since the US took action, the woman hating Taliban is history, Syria has pulled COMPLETELY out of occupying Lebanon, the Egyptians have forgone their weapons programs, women are on the verge of having voting rights in Saudi and Iran is on the verge of UN action on nuclear weapons

Make no mistake, friend. If you think this is a short term stunt for profits you are mistaken. This is bordering on an all out, multi decade religious war about freedom and values and yes...control of resources.

[Harare]

Lets not foget that Colonel Ghadafi has now seen the light.

As for the vast quantities of oil in Iraq, one of the worls's oil experts Matthew Simmons said that in his view there wasn't much left there.

His new book is pretty interesting and makes Canada's position in the world re Oil and Water looks pretty good.

Twilight in the Desert

[newbie]

This is about more than Saddam. This is about a serious, long term western presence in the Middle East. It's about a base of operations to push for reforms in those backward countries.

Since the US took action, the woman hating Taliban is history, Syria has pulled COMPLETELY out of occupying Lebanon, the Egyptians have forgone their weapons programs, women are on the verge of having voting rights in Saudi and Iran is on the verge of UN action on nuclear weapons

Make no mistake, friend. If you think this is a short term stunt for profits you are mistaken. This is bordering on an all out, multi decade religious war about freedom and values and yes...control of resources.

Do you think Bush gives a s--- about backward countries. Syria pulled due to US sanctions, Egypt has been allies to the States for years, voting rights for women in Saudi Arabia (wahoo, now if we could just get rid of those pesky body mutiliations). I'm glad you think Bush is such an humanitarian. Personally, I think he is a proven liar that only does things, like invasions, that will benefit him and the U.S. And to quote Martin (cover your eyes kids) "The U.S. is our neighbour, not our nation."

[mar]

This is about more than Saddam. This is about a serious, long term western presence in the Middle East. It's about a base of operations to push for reforms in those backward countries.

For once some truth. Course like all those paternalistic right wingers they knew they couldn't go to the American people and say this. NOOOOOOOO . They said: tell em Sadaam was in on 9-11. Tell him he's gonna nuke us. Tell those dumb bastards anything that'll make them sit still while we bomb the crap outta them Iraqis.

[Harare]

So Mar tell us how you feel about that Pakistani Nuclear scientist selling Nuke technology to North Koera, Iraq and Iran. Just leave it up to the UN ? Doesn't this concern you a little?

Sure Bush is a cowboy with no clue about foreign affairs and was given bad advice but at least acknowledege that the Libs in Britain went along with him for reasons that we do not yet know of. What chance do you think there was of getting UN approval when the Russians and French had such a good deal going with Saddam?

[Hicksey]

This is about more than Saddam. This is about a serious, long term western presence in the Middle East. It's about a base of operations to push for reforms in those backward countries.

Since the US took action, the woman hating Taliban is history, Syria has pulled COMPLETELY out of occupying Lebanon, the Egyptians have forgone their weapons programs, women are on the verge of having voting rights in Saudi and Iran is on the verge of UN action on nuclear weapons

Make no mistake, friend. If you think this is a short term stunt for profits you are mistaken. This is bordering on an all out, multi decade religious war about freedom and values and yes...control of resources.

Do you think Bush gives a s--- about backward countries. Syria pulled due to US sanctions, Egypt has been allies to the States for years, voting rights for women in Saudi Arabia (wahoo, now if we could just get rid of those pesky body mutiliations). I'm glad you think Bush is such an humanitarian. Personally, I think he is a proven liar that only does things, like invasions, that will benefit him and the U.S. And to quote Martin (cover your eyes kids) "The U.S. is our neighbour, not our nation."

After quoting Martin you may feel the need to wash your mouth out and brush your teeth.

[Hicksey]

Where did I say it did? The leaders in question blindly followed the UN as usual. There was no thinking involved.

Well, the UN, like I said, did not sanction Bush's invasion. But if there was agreement from the security council, of course Canada would have gone. Thank God saner minds recognized the illegality of Bush's plunder for oil and prevailed that day.

If you're going to trash the Americans' decision at least be informed. 95% of the oil is still under contract to the French, Germans and Russians.

A link??

I'm still looking to remember where I saw it. What it talked about was about prior obligations and that Iraq was still obligated regardless of what an occupying power wants.

And I should stand corrected, in order of Contracts the Russians, Chinese and French are those who have the contracts.

The only place the Americans can get oil is from excess production.

I will find the article for you, give me a day or so. I read so many it gets hard to recall sources.

[Guest eureka]

The Libs in UK wanted to negotiate with Hitler and in hindsight looked like idiots.

Sure Bush is a cowboy with no clue about foreign affairs and was given bad advice but at least acknowledege that the Libs in Britain went along with him for reasons that we do not yet know of. What chance do you think there was of getting UN approval when the Russians and French had such a good deal going with Saddam?

Where do you get your history from? Ir was Conservatives inthe UK that wanted to negotiate with Hitler. And the Libs were the only party in the UK not to go along with Bush.

You are sounding like Harper. But keep repeating it and the Cons will believe you.

[mar]

So Mar tell us how you feel about that Pakistani Nuclear scientist selling Nuke technology to North Koera, Iraq and Iran. Just leave it up to the UN ? Doesn't this concern you a little?

Sure Bush is a cowboy with no clue about foreign affairs and was given bad advice but at least acknowledege that the Libs in Britain went along with him for reasons that we do not yet know of. What chance do you think there was of getting UN approval when the Russians and French had such a good deal going with Saddam?

"One problem

Sure Bush is a cowboy with no clue about foreign affairs and was given bad advice" is a misreprentation.

Bush is a dimwitted stooge living in a bubble so, yeah, ultimately the repsonsibility belongs to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the NeoCon cabal. However, Bush was the tool they used to accomplish this and they knew perfectly well what they were doing. I guess he could say "I was just following orders" in his defence.

Second problem is the Russians and French were after the brass ring in the then Iraq merry-go-round. Course the U.S. had helped him retain power previously as well as build up his arsenal, but hey! Who's judging?

"So Mar tell us how you feel about that Pakistani Nuclear scientist selling Nuke technology to North Koera, Iraq and Iran. Just leave it up to the UN ? Doesn't this concern you a little?"

It concerns me a lot. Almost as much as the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on a civilian population having the world's largest arsenal of them. If my choice is the U.N. and the people who brought you (drum roll) Vietnam (Hey! So over 3 million Asians got killed...least we didn't nuke em!), the assassination of Allende, Bay of Pigs, Ferdinand Marcos, the Nicauraguan Contras, Noriega (both as best pal and hunted dictator and who cares if a few poor Panamians got killed in the process) Pinochet, that whole colourful cast of characters and Iraq, I'll go with the U.N. every time.

[newbie]

Great post Mar. 100% on the button.