Thread
:
No blood for oil
View Single Post
#
18
posted to rec.boats
[email protected]
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:39:33 -0400,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:
Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.
Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?
Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/
Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.
Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?
Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.
Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.
Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.
The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?
We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.
So, because Bush couldn't tell the truth or plan that means Obama is
going to commit us to an endless war? Perhaps you should read the news
instead of relying on Fox.
Reply With Quote
[email protected]
View Public Profile
Find all posts by
[email protected]