"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck,
I apologize for confusing you. You're absolutely correct.

Good lord!

That statement, (to me from NOYB), is a collector's item. I think I'll
take it
out and have it bronzed. :-)

I admit when I make an error...unlike someone here whose user name
indicates
he has a fetish for smooching fish.



The new numbers make sense.

No, what you do is just act like the post in which you were wrong in,
just went away.

Say, did Bush take us to war over oil, or WMD's or to liberate people
that don't WANT us to liberate them, or what?

We didn't go to war over any one single reason...and if you had listened to
Powell's speech in February 2003, you'd quit asking me the reasons. WMD was
what put Saddam in violation of UN resolution 1441. However, Powell also
discussed Saddam's ties to terrorists and terrorist organizations. Sure,
several nations in the region have ties to terrorist groups, and I'm sure
Bush will deal with each in due time. However, no other nation also: 1)
invaded a neighboring country, 2) used WMD in the past, 3) openly paid
suicide bombers in Israel, *and* was in violation of a UN resolution calling
for harsh repercussions if they didn't disarm.

Conveniently enough, Iraq also happened to have the World's second largest
oil supply, *and* was geographically located smack dab in the middle of the
other countries supporting terrorists.

It's not one thing. But every single reason listed above.

However, the oil was the clincher. al Qaeda wants to control it in order to
destroy our economy...and we weren't about to let that happen.