Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers

mrtravel wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

So it makes sense, then, to add external interference? How does that
improve things?

The external interference was added for another reason.

Nothing to do with establishing order in the region, then.

Do think we invade Iraq in order to make the Sunnis and Shiites get along?

No. But even I, a non-specialist, knew that there were fault-lines in
Iraq's populations. In planning an invasion, one should take account
of such things, because they may greatly influence the conduct of and,
more particularly, the outcome of an invasion. To ignore such things
is irresponsibility on a staggering scale.

WMD, failure to comply with the agreements that ended the previous war,
Al Quaida, bad man in charge, .... whatever reason you believe the US
went into Iraq in the first place, I doubt you think the reason was to
referee between the various religious divisions.

Tell me, are you stupid enough to believe the stated reasons, or are
you simply joining in the telling of lies?

I said "whatever reason you believe".....

I believe oil, Israel, and vengeance. Perhaps also stupidity.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

I believe oil, Israel, and vengeance. Perhaps also stupidity.


Wow, I know it didn't help the oil price

How would invading Iraq for any of these reasons caused stability
between the Sunnis and Shiites?

mrtravel wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

I believe oil, Israel, and vengeance. Perhaps also stupidity.


Wow, I know it didn't help the oil price

How would invading Iraq for any of these reasons caused stability
between the Sunnis and Shiites?

There was little chance that it would, which is a big point against
any invasion.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:14:47 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:
The external interference was added for another reason.
WMD, failure to comply with the agreements that ended the previous war,
Al Quaida, bad man in charge, .... whatever reason you believe the US
went into Iraq in the first place, I doubt you think the reason was to
referee between the various religious divisions.

Obviously, those who planned this fiasco never actually thought about
the cultural differences within Iraq and its religious factions ...
because they don't have a CLUE about these things ... not a factor in
their minds at all ..totally oblivious to the possibilities..

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:35:46 -0400, nobody wrote:
Of course, the USA doesn't care about how many Iraqis they have killed.
This is more than 5 times more than the number of americans killed by
Ossama. Yet, there is now "Wanted dead or alive" sign for the Bush
regime who have committed even bigger crimes than Bin Landin.

I wish people would remember that not ALL the people killed on 9/11
were Americans. There were people of many nationalities working in
the Twin Towers, home of multinational corporations.

On 6 Jul 2006 18:03:29 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:
No, I was assuming that you were smart enough to read and understand.
Sorry if I assumed wrong. Let me spell it out for you really, really
simply.

1) Saddam has WMDs and had used them.
2) Saddam invaded Kuwait. The UN kicked him out. But we didn't invade
and take him out. Part of the deal not to do that was that Saddam had
to destroy all of his WMDs and allow full and free UN inspections. He
never did.
3) Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda attacked the US and promised
to do it again.
4) Those organizations were openly trying to obtain WMDs to use against
the US.
5) Saddam was actively trying to form alliances with Al Qaeda. Some top
leaders had been given refuge in Iraq. He invited bin Ladin to live in
Iraq.
6) Those facts and others led to the fear that Saddam would sell or
give WMDs to a terrorist organization. Or that he would use his
technology to teach them how to do it.
7) 9/11 taught the US that we couldn't wait until *after* a terrorist
decided to attack. We have to prevent.

All of those statements are fully documented and factual.

You just keep on drinking that kool-aid.

The only "weapons" they found were old, unarmed warheads buried under
10+ years worth of sand, not operational, and probably not dismantled
per UN terms because they forgot where they had hidden them!

Saddam wanted nothing to to with AQ..his country was secular, not
Islamo-fascist, and he had no interest in the Taliban imposing its
religious views on his country, because that posed a threat to his
authority. No way was he going to share power with Bin laden or any
other religious fundamentalist...

Iraq had no ability to attack us, there was no imminent threat from
Iraq. and your #7 above has nothing to do with Iraq.

nobody wrote:
mrtravel wrote:

How can anyone stabilized the middle east where there are multiple
internal groups fighting for control with each other?


Your regime

MY "regime"..........yeah, right
And you can't wait for the day when more Americans are killed in Iraq
then died in the WTC.......

Carole Allen wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:35:46 -0400, nobody wrote:

Of course, the USA doesn't care about how many Iraqis they have killed.
This is more than 5 times more than the number of americans killed by
Ossama. Yet, there is now "Wanted dead or alive" sign for the Bush
regime who have committed even bigger crimes than Bin Landin.


I wish people would remember that not ALL the people killed on 9/11
were Americans. There were people of many nationalities working in
the Twin Towers, home of multinational corporations.

Of course we know this. However, the vast majority of them were
Americans, so what is your point? Do you think the buildings were
attacked because of the French people were in them?

Carole Allen wrote:

On 6 Jul 2006 18:03:29 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

No, I was assuming that you were smart enough to read and understand.
Sorry if I assumed wrong. Let me spell it out for you really, really
simply.

1) Saddam has WMDs and had used them.
2) Saddam invaded Kuwait. The UN kicked him out. But we didn't invade
and take him out. Part of the deal not to do that was that Saddam had
to destroy all of his WMDs and allow full and free UN inspections. He
never did.
3) Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda attacked the US and promised
to do it again.
4) Those organizations were openly trying to obtain WMDs to use against
the US.
5) Saddam was actively trying to form alliances with Al Qaeda. Some top
leaders had been given refuge in Iraq. He invited bin Ladin to live in
Iraq.
6) Those facts and others led to the fear that Saddam would sell or
give WMDs to a terrorist organization. Or that he would use his
technology to teach them how to do it.
7) 9/11 taught the US that we couldn't wait until *after* a terrorist
decided to attack. We have to prevent.

All of those statements are fully documented and factual.

You just keep on drinking that kool-aid.

The only "weapons" they found were old, unarmed warheads buried under
10+ years worth of sand, not operational, and probably not dismantled
per UN terms because they forgot where they had hidden them!

"Probably not"? I don't recall the Iraqi goverment mentioning to the UN
that they couldn't comply with the resolutions because they forgot where
they put the weapons.
Additionally, they found biological and chemical weapons, but you might
have missed or simply ignored those reports.


Saddam wanted nothing to to with AQ..his country was secular, not
Islamo-fascist,

His country was "secular"? So, there was no real division between people
with different ideas. No fighting, no disagreement, nothing????????

Iraq had no ability to attack us, there was no imminent threat from
Iraq. and your #7 above has nothing to do with Iraq.

How do you feel about North Korea? Do you think they aren't a threat?

mrtravel wrote:
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

I believe oil, Israel, and vengeance. Perhaps also stupidity.


Wow, I know it didn't help the oil price

Of course it did. Oil would probably have been half the price by now,
in an alternate history where Iraq wasnt invaded and had succeeded in
getting the sanctions lifted. Maybe even less.

High oil prices improve oil company profits.
(They also help oil conservation but that was probably not the main
agenda item.)