Re: "Of Course, It Was All About Iraq's Resources"

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:45 -0500, Guilherme
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Bob wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:51:25 -0800, Dan Clore
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Noam Chomsky: They didn't decide to invade Eastern Congo
>> >where there's much worse massacres going on. Of course it
>> >was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question.
>> >Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world.
>>
>> saudi arabia's are much larger. saudi arabia's army is much weaker.
>> saudi oil infrastructure is in much better shape. if we wanted to
>> steal oil, we'd take theirs, or kuwait's
>>
>       don't we already have all the access we need to that stuff?
>

ah. crucial question and one that shows what a LIE the iraqi/oil
connection is.

ACCESS, in saudi arabia, means BUYING the oil. it means partnering
with saudi oil companies. it means BUSINESS. it does NOT mean control,
or possession, like the far left says we want in iraq. so if we want
POSSESSION AND CONTROL, why not saudi arabia? if we want ACCESS, why
not BUY iraqi oil like we do in saudi arabia?

the logic is too much for the left to handle..gives 'em a
headache...they consume too much aspirin...
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

check my blog at:
http://www.bobview.blogspot.com/