There is help for Scott

Norm wrote:

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil production
in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA in regards to
softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?

Would you notice ?

Too Crooda wrote:

4.) Oil for Food was an unmitigated disaster largely because of the
hypocrisy of Russia/France who, despite, their posturing were protecting
their own self
economic interests.

Unlike the USA.

--
ant

"Norm" wrote in message
news:Edn2f.134638$1i.79575@pd7tw2no...

"Too Crooda" wrote in message

But the immediate problem is that the US is in Iraq for no good
reason.

1.) Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of more than 1.2
million.

That was not the reason given before the invasion. However... Is SH
the only dictator who has caused death and destruction? How come we
leave the others alone and go after Iraq? Could it be, perhaps,
they have nothing we covet?

They'll get their turn.

And had we liberated N. Korea you'd be saying "what about Saddam?".
We know how you work.

2.) Saddam had been disrupting oil/energy prices for years.
Kuwait/threatening Saudi Arabia
etc.
3.) Stable energy prices are essential not just for the US but for
every industrial society not to
mention burgeoning economies like China/India.


Yes, and invading Iraq has certainly addressed THAT concern in a
big way hasn't it?

It's not over yet.

4.) Oil for Food was an unmitigated disaster largely because of
the hypocrisy of Russia/
France who, despite, their posturing were protecting their own
self economic interests. And
don't forget the corruption of the UN. If it wasn't for these
people maybe Oil of Food might
have worked, but it didn't stand a chance.

Granted, the whole process has been poorly planned/executed but to
say that the world is
better off with Saddam Hussein than without is really pretty
stupid.

Saddam Hussein was one person. He may have been evil itself but he
was no threat to anybody outside his own immediate area. The world
as a whole is now a much more dangerous place because of the
actions GWB took.

How can you say that?

9-11 should have taught even liberals (some, it did) that if you wait
for the attack it's too late. He had used chemicals recently and
against civilians and proudly and loudly how much he hated us and
wanted to destroy us. That doesn't fly these days.

Think of all those people who need to eat, have jobs, support
their families not only the US
but all over the world and how important energy is to that goal.
Throughout this debate, I
have NEVER heard any one express any concern for the economic
well-being of the avg guy
or any comprehension of simple economics.

Its hardly my specialty but I understand enough about economics to
know that oil in Texas, at least pre Katrina/Rita wasn't costing a
penny more to take out of the ground than it did 4 years ago, but
it is now selling for twice as much. Who do you think is profiting
from that equation? Where was it the Bush Family made their fortune
again?

That
is Mr Bush's fault, pure and simple.

Wrong, read above - Russia, France and the UN are also very much
at fault.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, Russia and France really wanted to stay
OUT of Iraq.

Or course they did. They didn't want their O.F.F. bull**** to come
out.

"Norm" wrote in message
news:F9p2f.134494$oW2.97718@pd7tw1no...

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil
production in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of
NAFTA in regards to softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?

Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahhahahaha......that's funny. _Everyone_
_knows_ that Canada is NO threat.

"pigo" wrote in message
...

But the immediate problem is that the US is in Iraq for no good reason.

1.) Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of more than 1.2
million.

That was not the reason given before the invasion. However... Is SH the
only dictator who has caused death and destruction? How come we leave the
others alone and go after Iraq? Could it be, perhaps, they have nothing
we covet?

They'll get their turn.

Iran, perhaps. But only because that would help to fill in the circle
around the Caspian Sea, which is the real target. I hear theres a little oil
in the ground there.



And had we liberated N. Korea you'd be saying "what about Saddam?". We
know how you work.


Liberated? Now THATS funny.

The difference between North Korea and Iraq is simple. NK does pose a
genuine threat, they actually do have nukes, they actually could deploy them
long range, the only real similarity is they don't particularily like the
US, which hardly places them in a minority these days. However they don't
seem to have a lot of OIL.

Schoolyard bullys don't pick on big kids who have no candy. North Korea is
pretty safe.



2.) Saddam had been disrupting oil/energy prices for years.
Kuwait/threatening Saudi Arabia
etc.
3.) Stable energy prices are essential not just for the US but for every
industrial society not to
mention burgeoning economies like China/India.


Yes, and invading Iraq has certainly addressed THAT concern in a big way
hasn't it?


It's not over yet.


Thats exactly what I'm afraid of. Very afraid.



Granted, the whole process has been poorly planned/executed but to say
that the world is
better off with Saddam Hussein than without is really pretty stupid.

Saddam Hussein was one person. He may have been evil itself but he was no
threat to anybody outside his own immediate area. The world as a whole is
now a much more dangerous place because of the actions GWB took.

How can you say that?

9-11 should have taught even liberals (some, it did) that if you wait for
the attack it's too late. He had used chemicals recently and against
civilians and proudly and loudly how much he hated us and wanted to
destroy us. That doesn't fly these days.

1988 is recent in your books? After the first Gulf war Saddam never had
enough resources to even threaten Kuwait again. He had a handful of outdated
missiles which, if well maintained might have delivered conventional
payloads, or possibly biological weapons if he had any, almost to Israel.
Given the condition these were in when the US arrived these weapons were
probably more dangerous to Iraq than its neighbors. And prior to the second
invasion Iraq was no friend of al Qaeda. They didn't even get along
particularly well. Osama is a religious fanatic while Saddam was a secular
leader who mostly threatened actual Islamic fundamentalist state like Iran.
And he was only able to do that because he was supplied with weapons at the
time by, uh, Ronald Reagan.




That
is Mr Bush's fault, pure and simple.

Wrong, read above - Russia, France and the UN are also very much at
fault.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, Russia and France really wanted to stay OUT
of Iraq.

Or course they did. They didn't want their O.F.F. bull**** to come out.

The oil for food corruption was well known before anybody set foot in Iraq.
We hardly needed an invasion to confirm it.

"pigo" wrote in message
...

"Norm" wrote in message
news:F9p2f.134494$oW2.97718@pd7tw1no...

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil
production in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA
in regards to softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?

Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahhahahaha......that's funny. _Everyone_ _knows_
that Canada is NO threat.

Not until we turn off the tap. Then George would have every bit as much
reason as he did with Iraq. More, in fact because Iraq wanted (in fact
desperately needed) to sell oil.

"BrritSki" wrote in message
...
Norm wrote:

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil
production in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA
in regards to softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?

Would you notice ?

Sooner or later. Somebody in my family might need health care.

In article , says...
Norm wrote:

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil production
in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA in regards to
softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?

Would you notice ?

Yes, unlike you Brits, we can actually distinguish between Americans and
Canadians. ;-)

Rick

Java Man wrote:
In article , says...

Norm wrote:

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil production
in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA in regards to
softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?


Would you notice ?


Yes, unlike you Brits, we can actually distinguish between Americans and
Canadians. ;-)

LOL

Java Man wrote:
In article , says...
Norm wrote:

So, hypothetically speaking, if we (Canada) were to cut back oil production
in retaliation for the current blatant dishonouring of NAFTA in regards to
softwood lumber, should we expect an invasion?

Would you notice ?

Yes, unlike you Brits, we can actually distinguish between Americans and
Canadians. ;-)

Oh, that's easy. Simply say: "Please pass a serviette, I've spilled my
poutine on the chesterfield." If the other person has the faintest idea
of what you're talking about, they're definitely Canadian.

//Walt