Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:07:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
968 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
> > Arafat is
> > just another dictator that needs to go.
>
>
> ...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2756709.stm
>
> …as are others in the Israeli “military”.
Now that is really interesting. Then again they gave Arafat a Nobel peace prize
too.
[snip]
> Do your homework:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2702147.stm
> “Investment in Iraqi oil fields could see the country double its crude output
> following a change of regime, a leading opposition figure has told world
> leaders. Adil Abdul Mahdi, president of the Iran-based Supreme Council of the
> Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that, with an injection of $30-40bn,
> production could be raised to 5-6 million barrels per day by 2010.”
>
>
>
> > Iraqi oil production only generates about 10 billion a year. Do
> > the math.
>
> It is ~$10B under sanctions – are you suggesting lifting sanctions will make • no
> difference!
>
> Do your homework:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2688401.stm
> “In its oil-producing heyday in the late 1970s, Iraq was producing 3.5 million
> barrels a day. Industry analysts estimate that with large-scale investment in
> the country's rusting industrial infrastructure, this could be upped to six
> million. This would make Iraq the fourth largest producer, behind Saudi Arabia
> (8.8 million), the US (7.2 million) and Russia (7.1 million).”
All of that falsely assumes Saddam would not destroy the oil infrastructure as
a parting gift.
> > >
> > > > Obviously Iraq's oil has little to do it anything with the possiblity of • war.
> > >
> > > Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer
> > place?
> >
> > Stealing oil is not an objective.
>
> What is the objective then?
Freeing the Iraqi people and getting rid of a dictator.
[snip]
> > > No answer?
> >
> > Didn't feel one was necesary considering only 47 percent of the US supports
> > action without the approval of the UN.
>
>
> Are you part of that 47%?
No. I think the UN should be spearheading the whole thing. Any entity that is
not prepared to use force when neccessary, has no power to do anything.
[snip]
> I'm sure all sorts of trash support Bush; is he responsible for them? Is he
> responsible for Enron? [that’s maybe a bad question ;-\ ]
Actually the Democrats and Environmentalists were responsible for Enron. The
Democrats imposed price caps on the electric prices. Demand increased and the
Environmentalists prevented Enron from increasing supply (to meet that demand)
by building new power plants. With no way to decrease demand by raising
prices, you have rolling blackouts. You also get company that is forced to use
creative accounting because their ability to conduct buisness legitimately was
crippled.
[snip]
>
> ... but what 60%? ;)
The 60% that doesn't support double standards with regards to UN resolutions.
Perhaps this will help you understand my postion a little better. On a scale of
1 to 10, 10 being the best and 1 being the worst. The US invading Iraq without
the support of the UN would be a 3. Nuking the entire Earth would be a 2. Doing
nothing would be a 1.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) One can point to individuals in both parties in letting Enron go wild, but it really was the baby of the Republicans. Bush loved 'em. As to the oft-repeated but inaccurate claims that the environmentalists had somehow blocked construction of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Belgium & Norway [Re: What about the first?]
|
| (...) Who is "they"? The decision outlined above was taken by *Belgium's* "Supreme Court". As their name implies the "Norwegian Nobel Committee" is actually based in *NORWAY*. The prize was actually shared by Rabin, Arafat and Peres. Their work was (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) But what about Israeli terrorism? See: (URL) Arafat is (...) ...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges: (URL) are others in the Israeli “military”. (...) A number of countries have come under sustained terrorist attacks without resorting to (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
