the USS Eisenhower Carrier Battle Group doesn't make for a 'massive' build-up for war with Iran

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:05:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (20 Oct 2006 13:44:08 -0700) it happened "Darn Good
Intelligence" wrote in
s.com:


Basically, we
couldn't leave Saddam in power in the post 9/11 world - everyone
thought he had WMD,


Your definiton of 'everyone' must be really funny :-)
Not even the CIA! And that is why the White House reveiled
a CIA operative's name, no yellow cake from South Africa.
White house bloody well knew their were no WMDs.
As did everybody else, even the international atomic agency.

But _as I pointed out before_ Bushists will believe anything without proof.
Photos of fish and chips stands passing as 'mobile labs' ;-)
Anyway nothing photoshop and after effects will not create.
Next they will convince you the aliens are coming, read his lips.

Did you ever notice it was the oil producing countries who jumped on the
bandwagon?
UK (North Sea oil) Russia (own oil) Netherlands (natural gas coupled to
oil price), Saudi Arabia (own oil), and the one that had nuke power for 70%
or more did NOT (France).
And Germany was not very willing either.

It is all about killing Iraq oil export to get the price up, so the Saudi
masters of Islam converted mole Bush get richer.
All they want is $$$ (and Iraq wanted Euro, that would be the end for the US).

This undoubtedly explains the enthusiasm of Canada, Mexico and
Venizuala, the countries the US buys most of it's oil from for
the idea. And the presence of all those Saudis, Norweigans and
Russians among the coalition batallions.

You're saying those nice ol' boys from Texas wanted to make us
rich so much they overode our objections to get the price up.

I've no patience for the had to get reid of Saddam crowd, their
logic is absurd and their evidence non-existant but there sure as
hell are conspirwakos on the other side too.


Peter Skelton