Does this mean its alright to fight against war but wrong to fight for
peace?
Fighting for peace? Were you born yesterday? There
wouldn't be any fighting if Iraq hadn't the second
largest oil reserve in the world. It cost US1.5
to produce a barrel there, compared to the US5 it takes
to produce the same amount in Malaysia. It's a
goldmine.
>Doesny it seem strange to anyone that anti-war rallies seems to have quite
>abit of violence?
What's "quite a bit" and which ones?
>Does this mean its alright to fight against war but wrong to fight for
>peace?
?
Michael
That's right, it can't be a coincidence that both US regimes that went
to war with Iraq were linked with Texas oilmen. Check it out for
yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Kuwait+Iraq+slant+drilling+invade
80 billion dollars to fight this war is a drop in the bucket, compared
to the trillion dollar business US companies stand to gain by
installing a puppet government to break contract with France, Russia,
Germany, China.
Even Saddam didn't spend that much money on palaces (1 million x 50
palaces = 50 million dollars) - chump change, yet he's the bad guy.
How great is this so called
"freedom/justice/democracy/self-determination" pretence?
Bush regime has already handed out nearly 1 billion dollars of
reconstruction work, all to its top election contributors. There were
some blip about Dick Cheney's "former" company Halliburton:
http://www.google.com/search?q=boots+coots+checkpoint
To avoid further exposure of scandle Halliburton has withdrew from the
contract bid, and Boots & Coots, a Halliburton subsidiary, suddenly
paid back the million dollar loan supposedly already defaulted and
about to enter liquidation proceeding (so some secret Texas oilmen can
take B&C from the shareholders with a fat government contract on the
table). It's back-door business at its best.
And what's not reported is Halliburton will still get to do business,
as a sub-contractor not so visible to public scrutiny.
You tell me if this smells.