|
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
On 19/03/2011 1:39 PM, 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. Nope, Libya does not produce enough oil for this. Brazil could easily make up for the loss of Libya oil. Canada could too. Nope, the real problem here is some kind of alliance between Euro elite (mostly french war industrialists) and powerful, Saudi and the American war machine. Even French Giuana is getting into trouble. Rwanda may start up, a UN-Frech installed rgime. Ivory Coast, local guy fights with UN-puppet for control. And the UN is majority controled by dictators, arabs and muslims. More like someone is trying to engineer a united Africa and a united Middle East. Under UN, US and Frech control of course, with the Saudi money buddies pulling the strings. As for todays good guy, just don't want to tick off the wrong people or you become tommowows tyrant and evil person to oust. Looks like congress is sitting on the sidelines with this too. If I was a congress person I would be livid right now, a prsident going to war without congress? Whee is democracy? I was thinking it is in the toilet and flushing... |
No blood for oil
On Mar 19, 4:51*pm, Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/03/2011 1:39 PM, 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. Nope, Libya does not produce enough oil for this. *Brazil could easily make up for the loss of Libya oil. *Canada could too. Nope, the real problem here is some kind of alliance between Euro elite (mostly french war industrialists) and powerful, Saudi and the American war machine. Even French Giuana is getting into trouble. *Rwanda may start up, a UN-Frech installed rgime. *Ivory Coast, local guy fights with UN-puppet for control. And the UN is majority controled by dictators, arabs and muslims. *More like someone is trying to engineer a united Africa and a united Middle East. *Under UN, US and Frech control of course, with the Saudi money buddies pulling the strings. As for todays good guy, just don't want to tick off the wrong people or you become tommowows tyrant and evil person to oust. Looks like congress is sitting on the sidelines with this too. *If I was a congress person I would be livid right now, a prsident going to war without congress? *Whee is democracy? *I was thinking it is in the toilet and flushing... You notice that Obama did nothing until the Libyan oil stopped flowing and then he goes to war? No, no relationship there. |
No blood for oil
On 19/03/2011 3:50 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 19, 4:51 pm, wrote: On 19/03/2011 1:39 PM, 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. Nope, Libya does not produce enough oil for this. Brazil could easily make up for the loss of Libya oil. Canada could too. Nope, the real problem here is some kind of alliance between Euro elite (mostly french war industrialists) and powerful, Saudi and the American war machine. Even French Giuana is getting into trouble. Rwanda may start up, a UN-Frech installed rgime. Ivory Coast, local guy fights with UN-puppet for control. And the UN is majority controled by dictators, arabs and muslims. More like someone is trying to engineer a united Africa and a united Middle East. Under UN, US and Frech control of course, with the Saudi money buddies pulling the strings. As for todays good guy, just don't want to tick off the wrong people or you become tommowows tyrant and evil person to oust. Looks like congress is sitting on the sidelines with this too. If I was a congress person I would be livid right now, a prsident going to war without congress? Whee is democracy? I was thinking it is in the toilet and flushing... You notice that Obama did nothing until the Libyan oil stopped flowing and then he goes to war? No, no relationship there. US does not use much if any Lybian oil. Niger is in an uproar has oil too. Yemen, Bahrain... Nope, this definitly has more to do with politics than just oil. Maybe Gadafi told an Imam to go to hell. Now that I would believe. Hey, it does not take US, UK, France, US and others to pounce on one little desert country like Libya. Sort of like a gang of bullies feeling tough as they are kicking the crap out of someone in a school yard. Ya, big tough men are fighting this war. /sarcasm More to this than oil, Libya is oil, but in the big picture a small player. Like I said, if Libya just **** down, Canada could pick up the slack in a hear beat. So could Brazil, Venezuela. Even if the Saudis are tapped out. |
No blood for oil
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:50:05 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: On Mar 19, 4:51*pm, Canuck57 wrote: On 19/03/2011 1:39 PM, 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. Nope, Libya does not produce enough oil for this. *Brazil could easily make up for the loss of Libya oil. *Canada could too. Nope, the real problem here is some kind of alliance between Euro elite (mostly french war industrialists) and powerful, Saudi and the American war machine. Even French Giuana is getting into trouble. *Rwanda may start up, a UN-Frech installed rgime. *Ivory Coast, local guy fights with UN-puppet for control. And the UN is majority controled by dictators, arabs and muslims. *More like someone is trying to engineer a united Africa and a united Middle East. *Under UN, US and Frech control of course, with the Saudi money buddies pulling the strings. As for todays good guy, just don't want to tick off the wrong people or you become tommowows tyrant and evil person to oust. Looks like congress is sitting on the sidelines with this too. *If I was a congress person I would be livid right now, a prsident going to war without congress? *Whee is democracy? *I was thinking it is in the toilet and flushing... You notice that Obama did nothing until the Libyan oil stopped flowing and then he goes to war? No, no relationship there. You notice that Obama didn't go in front of the UN to get a resolution to attack a country that didn't have anything to do with us. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
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. wonder if he knows we dont buy libyan oil oh well... |
No blood for oil
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:46 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:44:57 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. Obama gave the order to shoot around 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya. Therefore Obama attacked Libya. You may say that the UN gave Obama permission to shoot the cruise missiles but that is just political cover for Obama attacking Libya. Point well taken. You are correct, yet we have no troops on the ground. Sense any difference from Bush???? Obama didn't lie to the UN or the US about WMDs. |
No blood for oil
On 20/03/2011 3:34 PM, bpuharic 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. 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. Todays good guy, is good only so long as he doesn't tick off the hidden masters of US-UN-France-Saudi. If you do, they then haul up all the dirt they have, send in a few hundred people to stir up the pot and toss you out. Then maybe get you lynched as dead people tell no stories. Obama knows he is a front man puppet. 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. 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. |
No blood for oil
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:46 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:44:57 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. Obama gave the order to shoot around 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya. Therefore Obama attacked Libya. You may say that the UN gave Obama permission to shoot the cruise missiles but that is just political cover for Obama attacking Libya. Point well taken. You are correct, yet we have no troops on the ground. Sense any difference from Bush???? Obama hasn't mobilized half our military force around Libya in anticipation of a campaign. |
No blood for oil
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:59:05 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:35:11 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:46 -0400, Gene wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:44:57 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. Obama gave the order to shoot around 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya. Therefore Obama attacked Libya. You may say that the UN gave Obama permission to shoot the cruise missiles but that is just political cover for Obama attacking Libya. Point well taken. You are correct, yet we have no troops on the ground. Sense any difference from Bush???? Obama didn't lie to the UN or the US about WMDs. I've posted an number of responses... and I've received few rebuttals... not that Obama has received a pass, but he has been forthcoming.... a shame Bush didn't take the same path... Bush is an excuse maker. Spoiled child who never learned to take responsibility for his actions. |
No blood for oil
In article ,
says... On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:35:11 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:46 -0400, Gene wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:44:57 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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. Obama gave the order to shoot around 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya. Therefore Obama attacked Libya. You may say that the UN gave Obama permission to shoot the cruise missiles but that is just political cover for Obama attacking Libya. Point well taken. You are correct, yet we have no troops on the ground. Sense any difference from Bush???? Obama didn't lie to the UN or the US about WMDs. I've posted an number of responses... and I've received few rebuttals... not that Obama has received a pass, but he has been forthcoming.... a shame Bush didn't take the same path... A UN agency said that Iraq had WMD's. |
No blood for oil
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? Is Obama done with Libya? Cruise missiles and bombers are the same as we saw over Baghdad on day one. What is his objective? Hey Gene, this is pointless. You will support your guy, even if he changed his name to Bush. You can have him. I see a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in the liberals today. Here, do some reading. It's interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-b..._b_838049.html I'll just sit back and watch. You and the plume can do your thing. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
On 21/03/2011 12:40 PM, 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. Obama, pay as you go? Who are you kidding? PAYGO is meaningless other than the name only. You verspend $ 1.6 trillion a year and you call that pay as you go? Geez....I could sell you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds.... Pay as you go as opposed to Obama's lips a moving means you spend at or less that what you take in. Obama lies. The fleabagger ways, lie, lie, lie, then deny. And when that doesn't work make exuses. Watch, Obama will be over budget shortly and he will either deny or make excuses. |
No blood for oil
Geeze....I could sell
you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds.... Sounds kind of like the last presidential election;) snerk |
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:02:46 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 21/03/2011 12:40 PM, 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. Obama, pay as you go? Who are you kidding? PAYGO is meaningless other than the name only. You verspend $ 1.6 trillion a year and you call that pay as you go? Geez....I could sell you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds.... Pay as you go as opposed to Obama's lips a moving means you spend at or less that what you take in. Obama lies. The fleabagger ways, lie, lie, lie, then deny. And when that doesn't work make exuses. Watch, Obama will be over budget shortly and he will either deny or make excuses. You're an idiot. It's exactly what was used previously, and it worked fine. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:35:03 -0600, Canuck57
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. |
No blood for oil
On 21/03/2011 3:43 PM, 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. Paygo is so full of holes it isn't funny. Sort of like saying you have to balance the budget unless you put it on the credit card. It is a raving joke. Not worth the time, effort or piece of paper it is written on. I still stand by Congress should just say balance the budget, no new debt - end of discussion. I put more credence to a crack or herion addict that says they will quit 3 years from now, now give me more dope. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
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. |
No blood for oil
|
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
|
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
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com