John Lee Hookum-- I see no obligation for the U.S. to send them welfare money. The U.S. gives Egypt 1 billion per year, 2 billion to Israel-- I say they all should be weaned off taxpayer money. Doesn't it feel good to work and give half a paycheck to to gov to spend on b.s. like this. Why doesn't the U.N. build houses for the Palestinians? Why aren't the Arab countries that are so concerned with their Arab brothers in Palestine sending economic aid to build houses etc for their fellow Arabs. Why don't they offer them a place to live--- the U..N. created this mess, they should fix it.

John Lee Hookum-- I see no obligation for the U.S. to send them welfare money. The U.S. gives Egypt 1 billion per year, 2 billion to Israel-- I say they all should be weaned off taxpayer money. Doesn't it feel good to work and give half a paycheck to to gov to spend on b.s. like this. Why doesn't the U.N. build houses for the Palestinians? Why aren't the Arab countries that are so concerned with their Arab brothers in Palestine sending economic aid to build houses etc for their fellow Arabs. Why don't they offer them a place to live--- the U..N. created this mess, they should fix it.

luggnut,

I agree with you 100 %. My question is why is it so hard for our leaders to see it. Could it be that some of this money is being kicked back to politician's in order to keep it flowing. Isreali PAC money is a real factor in our elections. A lot of that money comes from us ( the tax payer ) that is lining the campaign coffers of these candidates. It is hard to wein our politician's from this (ever flowing) cash cow. That's one reason why our Middle East policy is so messed up. Not hard to figure out why we are coming in last in our own country. Some of those billions of dollars are finding their way back to the pockets of you know who and influencing the policies that are not friendly to the everyday Joe blow that's footing the bill.

Lets end this parasitism. It's sucking the life out of us.

Yes, I agree--- just smile when you are working knowing half of your paycheck is going to support overseas governments, corporate welfare to multi-billion dollar companies in the U.S. along with social programs that flush billions down the tubes. The working middle class will become the working poor------

I dont think that gw has made his case against Iraq. But I do know that saddam has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, his own people in fact. You have to keep in mind that the weapons inspectors arent going to find a "smoking gun", but there in a freakin dessert and they could have mobile labs, moving the chemicals place to place to avoid the inspectors, I mean they arent going to be leaving any evidence just lying around for the inspectors to find.

My guess is, that they have mobile labs and they have many weapons hidden where no one would find them. Yes, I think saddam should be taken out of power. But I think the situation in N. Korea is a little more serious, they most likely have nukes, and the country is in very bad shape. I dont know but It looks like the beginning of WW3. A little bit nerve racking for me because Im going to bootcamp in september. Whatever happens we will prevail.

He gased over 100,000 serbs. Pile all those bodies in Paris, or Burlin,or downtown Seattle and see how many people would be against the war. Bush made a mistake in salesmanship. Took the wrong issue to the people. Sadman Insaine is a war criminal and should ne taken out for crimes against humanity, nothing more. The rest is BULLSHIP!

So what do the skeptics think about Powell's speach?

"Skeptics"? Do you mean the other countries of the world? The jury is still out. But, it doesn't sound like the US has, or will get, UN resolution which means, in my opinion, the US would be committing a crime if it attacks Iraq without it. That's the way the rest of the world is going to see it.

I meant skeptics as in people on this board.

I don't disagree with you on how a lot of the world views the situation with Iraq. However, I disagree with your assessment if the US acts alone. The UN has already approved a resolution promising serious consequences for not complying. If the UN's members do nothing then what kind of organization is the UN? If protecting the US and the world from madmen like Saddam is a crime...then so be it.

I believe Iraq has the weapons.
I don't believe attacking Iraq will stop Sadam from using them, to the contrary, I believe that is the sure way to find where they were.
I don't think there is anyway that he would ever disclose the location of all of them.
Is it worth a couple 100,000 lives and untold sickness and carnage cause he won't do what he said he would(tell where he's got them hid)?
This guy doesn't care about anything but his own preservation.
If it would solve the problem I'd be all for attacking him.
Who is gonna believe him if he tells the UN where the weapons are? Do you think that would solve the problem?

herm

I heard an interesting comment today on the radio. Basically that bombs with D's on them are good bombs...and bombs with R's on them are bad bombs. No amount of "proof" will stop the anti-war crowd from opposing everything the president (R) tries to do.

For those of you interested in learning about the role of BIG OIL in the looming conflict, please review the following links. Bear in mind that all countires have an economic interest in this conflict. So when we hear the anti-war side talking about how this is a oil war, remember that on the French and Russian side there are self-serving oil interests as well. It is incredibly myopic to say this war is all about oil and put the blame on the US. Because the other side of the "oil arguement", the side of the coin that the anti-war side doesn't mention, is that France and Russia have huge oil interests as well (and other contracts to boot). And those interests cause them to oppose war - regardless of whether it is the right action to take vis a vis WMD. Their opposition is hardly altruistic or humanitarian. They have their nationalist goals just as all countries do. I wish people would take that into a little more consideration when the "BIG OIL" argument is pulled out. Here are some helpful links from a variety of sources, both "pro" and "anti" US.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2721963.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29376

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s695406.htm

http://www.hichemkaroui.batcave.net/frenchnet.htm (this is a long article but has excellent information about the French connection in assisting Iraq to develope an atomic bomb).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,857735,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s680619.htm

M C

If they can negotiate a business agreement with Iraq for it's OIL, so be it. There is a big difference between there way (responsible and civilized) and ours (irresponsible and dangerous) when dealing with Iraqi OIL. Our way is to drop bombs, kill and take it. Not just a small difference in my opinion.

When you go to the bank to take out a loan, do you sit down and negotiate or do you go in like Jesse James (bank robber), and just take all you want? That is why the World will judge our actions as rogue and illegal without the U. N. backing us with a new resolution for war. This would require a vote after the inspections are complete.

JLH,
First, please read that articles on what France gave Iraq to get those contracts. Civilized? Hardly. France is in no small part responsible for much of Saddams weapon programs.
Second, please reference articles or documents pertaining to plans by George Bush to take the oil fields and give them to US oil firms. I haven't heard anything other than speculation. If you can provide me and other readers what I have provided to you then you will convert my views on this subject. But I am not interested in opinions with no facts behind them.

Please read this article and then tell me that France is doing things "responsible and civilized". The reality is that many of our American servicemen may die by the hands of arms sold to Iraq for oil by France.

http://www.hichemkaroui.batcave.net/frenchnet.htm

M C

There is no need for us to go over there in the first place. What weapon's he may have would not harm a single serviceman if we would not go over there killing those people in the first place.

So now, I guess it's time to blame the French for weapons that he may have and not consider our (U S) own guilt, that some of that stuff could be our's that our men now have to be concern about.

Don't you think that dealing with the Palistinian Issues asp would help World security and stability over night? I think ending APARTHIED in the Middle East would go a long ways in keeping us safe at home and abroad. By going over there dropping bombs killing innocent people we are creating more terrorist.

I ask you, do you agree with me that the Isreali approach to the Palistinians issue is similar to South Africa's APARTHIED? If so why don't we (us) look at our role and why we are funding and arming them. Don't you think that's dangerous in the long run? They don't listen to us now.

I also ask you, should we tax payer be paying to keep an APARTHIED government installed there? You being a Finacial Advisor, would you recommend to your clients that they invest their capital($) in maintaining an APARTHIED system of government? And do you think that it's a secure investment, knowing how the WORLD feels about APARTHIED? I say lets take care of our own (Americans) and bring that money home where it is needed.

JLH,
Still waiting for those BIG OIL links. I'm sorry, I can't continue this thread, especially if we start going down the Israel/Palestine issue. Thank you for some interesting points and challenging dialog.

M C

Just looking at Oil without looking at the link to why these people are so desperate is exactly what I say is the problem. We are dealing with a human problem in the Middle East that's causing this mess, not just and Oil issue. Until we all are willing to challenge ourselves and examine our own morals and values as Americans and stop ducking the embarrasing questions, this s**t will continue.

I know the questions I asked you are not popular because our media will constantly beat around the Bush and not allow a dialog concerning this(could it be the elephant again) . We are programed or wired (propaganda) to believe that it's not patriotic to ask or answer those question (head in the sand) but, I think it's wise to give them some thought before endorsing a measure that will only make thing's worst for us a Americans. We should do this not as Republicans or as Democrates, but human beings with a conscious. Before sending our kids to war, we should not be afraid to ask the embarassing or difficult questions and matching them with answers.

Anyway I understand,and glad that you find what I say interesting and thought provoking. That's how we help each other grow, both spiritualy and as humans, is by sharing. All this mocho stuff is no substitute for good and rational thought

Best of luck and tight lines!

JLH you are exactly correct the problem is israel / palestine. That is exactly why we were attcked 0n 9/11. If this is a war on terrorism we better start with saudi that is the origin of the majority of the hijackers. Dont recall a single Iraqi.

Ynot, I don't think that's correct. While Bin Laden and his boys aren't happy with the Israeli/Palestinian issue, their biggest beef with the US is our support for the royal family of Saudi Arabia, whom they view as corrupt, despotic and anti-Islamic.

Mike C,


What you are asking for cannot be found because the U.S. plan other than “Iraqi reserves would be placed in a trust” for the Iraqi people hasn't been presented to the world.
The main questions and concerns have been:
How do we plan to award the contracts to run the oil fields?
How do we plan to sell oil “for the Iraqi people” and to whom?
There are billions of dollars in contracts here all of which will be siphoned out of any potential profits the Iraqi people might see.
I think putting out a detailed plan might calm oil fears. Why hasn't this administration done that? Don't they think that far in advance?
But, I'm still waiting for the minutes of the closed door energy policy meetings.
A betting man would wager that Exxon and Halliburton stand to make a lot of money off Iraqi oil. It's a no brainer. Is it the sole reason to invade Iraq? Obviously not.