No blood for oil
 

On 21/03/2011 4:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:28:52 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:50:55 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

What? Which 2 years?

The 2 years he simply maintained the no fly zones. (that were already
9 years old).

We will be left with the same question here. What do we do if Qdaffy
is still there in 11 years, simply oppressing his people up close and
personal, not by air power?

We were told the Iraq no fly zones were to save the Kurds with the
implication that the Northern Alliance could topple Saddam on the
ground. We all seem to forget that part.

My bet, we dig up the terror link again and invade to "get the
terrorists" like we did in Afghanistan. We know there is one there.
The Brits sent al-Megrahi back for oil leases.

You're talking about GWB???? While he lied to the world about Saddam?
That's your argument? Good grief.

Try to stay on subject, I know it is hard for you.


We are still in Afghanistan "just to get the terrorists" and Bush has
been gone over 2 years.
Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say
Bush lied about.

The point is, when we go in, we won't leave.

The only real war US has won by itself is WW II Japan. That being said,
ego presidents always have excuses to flex the militay mussle, but few
have the courage to follow it to a conclusion.

No blood for oil
 

On 21/03/2011 4:29 PM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/03/2011 3:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:35:03 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/03/2011 3:34 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:


wonder if he knows we dont buy libyan oil

oh well...

Probably does not. Seems ike Obama has surounded himself with fools.
Can't have anyone smarter than the head chimp.

racist. do you often call black guys 'chimps'??


Obama knows he is a front man puppet

HAHAHAAAH bush lived in cheney's BVD's, sucking his ass!

more racism!


If he doesn't realize it, then he
must be one real dumb chimp. Because even this chimp knows it.
Americans might not see it, but US either follows or leads with other
countries in unison. Take Ottawa, US jumps, so does Canada. It is
coordianted. US nor Caanda is run by domesic voters, Obama jumps to
hidden masters. Big money types.

try taking off your hood to type next time


Bet if Osama Bin Laddens brother called up Obama on an urgent financial
or politial reason Obama would answer. Or if the head of
Harvard...Oxford....Bilderbergs.

I call all humans chimps, so? Chimps come in lots of varieties. So are
you a black panther or what? Yep, humans and chimps share a lot of DNA,
so much so you could say humans are a variety of chimps.

Trouble with you fleabaggers is you always use slander and race as an
exuse for your inabilities to think rationally. Pathtic variety of chimp
actually.


Wait a minute. *You* think you think rationally? You and Froggy are the
most irrational "thinkers" I've ever encountered in usenet. Hell, man,
when it comes to logical, rational thinking, you are seven cans short of
a six pack.

Must be sad to be a fleabagger.

No blood for oil
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

No blood for oil
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:41:25 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:01 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:39:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

So, because Bush couldn't tell the truth or plan that means Obama is
going to commit us to an endless war? Perhaps you should read the news
instead of relying on Fox.


MSNBC is not being any kinder about this war.

Which has nothing to do with your assertion.

No blood for oil
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:28:52 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:50:55 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

What? Which 2 years?

The 2 years he simply maintained the no fly zones. (that were already
9 years old).

We will be left with the same question here. What do we do if Qdaffy
is still there in 11 years, simply oppressing his people up close and
personal, not by air power?

We were told the Iraq no fly zones were to save the Kurds with the
implication that the Northern Alliance could topple Saddam on the
ground. We all seem to forget that part.

My bet, we dig up the terror link again and invade to "get the
terrorists" like we did in Afghanistan. We know there is one there.
The Brits sent al-Megrahi back for oil leases.

You're talking about GWB???? While he lied to the world about Saddam?
That's your argument? Good grief.

Try to stay on subject, I know it is hard for you.

Try and get back to actual facts. Bush lied, practically destroyed
this country, and caused the deaths of 1000s of our brave troops for
no reason.


We are still in Afghanistan "just to get the terrorists" and Bush has
been gone over 2 years.

It's a stabilization effort despite your claims.

Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say
Bush lied about.

Yet, nobody died, and he was successful in getting Saddam to quit
their production.

The point is, when we go in, we won't leave.

The point is that you have no basis for that statement.

No blood for oil
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!


Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country,
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as
the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence.

They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands.

That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress,
including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum

After having been fed lies from Bush/Cheney... sure.

No blood for oil
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to
Powell.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!

I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all
miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary.
We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of
the blame.
Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule
"the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the
liar) really is.


Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat
troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces
are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who
told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal.

No blood for oil
 

On 21/03/2011 6:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

Well that isn't pay as you go. Pay as you go is when you have real
money, and are not running in currency debt. That is, spending is less
than revenue. And Obama wants this long after his 8th year -- which
hopefully the fool will never see.

Pay as you go mean you spend less than your revnue. And that includes
servicing the DEBT.

Hey, the rest is bu11sh1t from the fleabaggers.

Look for gasoline and food to go up 15% shortly just to show you the
effects of creating new inflationary ponzi debt dollars like sheets of
toilet paper buys you.

Want a bet oil goes up 1% tomorrow? Might be 2%.... me, I am laughing
all the way to th bank as my biggest holdings are REAL oilfields.

Ponzi liberal-socialism, screws the unaware every time.

How many barrels of oil are you worth?

No blood for oil
 

On 21/03/2011 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!


Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country,
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as
the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence.

They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands.

That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress,
including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum

Democrats are stupid, they still think they can debt spend their way out
of a debt problem. Between the lot they don't have half a brain.

No blood for oil
 

In article ,
says...


So Obama "lied" about his 16 month campaign withdrawal plan.
He decided to listen to military advisers like Petraeus instead of the
likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

They still came up with the same plan


Show me Obama's plan to invade Iraq.


Afghanistan is pretty much all Obama when he expanded the war instead
of winding it down. The lie there is that we are still "going after
Bin Laden" and it is as egregious as the WMD lie, (that I
acknowledge).

You and Plume can't seem to accept that I was against BOTH wars.
You assume that if I think Obama is wrong that I must think Bush was
right. They were BOTH wrong, along with Clinton and the elder Bush.
When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, our job was done there.

The idea that we have any business in any country's civil war keeps
biting us on the ass and we never learn.

You go on and keep spitting in the wind with that peacenik stuff.
World doesn't work that way and it won't for a long time.
Your problem is that good old false equivalency trap.
Still saying Bush I, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama are one and the same.
I guess they all had 2 legs and a left hand, I'll give you that.
Doesn't matter when the differences are laid out in front of you.
Doesn't matter that only one of 'em invaded Iraq.
They're just all the same to you.
You can't help yourself.
Since I don't think you're stupid the only answer is you got a soft spot
for good old boy GW Bush. Good luck with that.