Supposedly Hillary
 

It was reported that Hillary invested $250K in Iraqi Dinar in her visit there last year. I don't have first hand knowledge of it, but that is what was reported by workers in Kuwait at the time.

Lee

At today's conversion, thats 369 Million Dinar! Whoa! If it stabilizes, and gets close to unity, you can guarantee she'll be controlling that capital gains tax. Democrat, or no Democrat. :D

If I've learned Bipa, it was all extremely sarcastic. She probably had to clean up the sarcasm around her computer chair after that one. :)

And I wasn't aware college no longer works if a Draft is reinstituted. Which it won't be unless there is a major war. No politician is going to touch that one without something extremely major happening in the world.

i hear they will be drafting those who use bold text first.

:D I think you make me laugh more than anyone on this site. :D :D

Ok I must have stepped in this thread a looooooooooooooooot sooner. Most of the things said here I DO NOT AGREE WITH. What I agree too is Bipa's statement about the benefits of WAR (very true) and I suggest she gets a MEDAL :D :D :p ...

What I do not agree with is the mentality with which you are all taking the Iraqi case. Understand one thing, the Ba'ath party was ruling Syria and Iraq, and both Saddam Hussein and Bachar el Assad are Alawites (a part of Muslim partitions) and they are a minorities in both countries (no more than 4-6% of total population) who assumed leadership by overthrowing (using military force) their predecessors. Then they reigned by terrorising people and killing them cold bloodedly (you know the story of Hafez el Assad when he killed protestors in Hamah and buried them under the highway), so all sunnites, shi'ites and christians feared them (Ba'ath)...

The true solution for Iraq, if USA is not interested in the oil, is to let Saddam Hussein out again and let him RESUME his Dictatorship as it was before, or else killings will never stop and terrorism will continue forever... The three powers USA should avoid (or should have avoided) is Iran in the first place (this is a true disaster and could lead to WW3), Iraq in second place and you are seeing the outcome now... and Syria in third. Syria's attack will not lead to such disasterful results.... it is a sissy country unlike Iraq whose people are barbaric in nature.

Well, as cold and as blunt as it sounds, it wasn't our concern anyone was being buried under highways in Iraq. We keep playing the world's 24hr on call SWAT team, and we have to foot the bill. Except Kuwait, which was different on the calling, and the world chipped in. Back when we were "intelligent", Bush Sr. knew how to use a telephone.

To get even colder, we sold him the weapons to pull off those evil acts. Back in our "intelligent' days, it was the U.S.'s way of achieving balance in the area, and keeping our true enemy, Iran in check. Everyone seems to forget Iran has had weekly Anti-US marches every Friday since the 80"s. We needed Iraq as it was. A lot of us started rolling our eyes at the idiocy from day one just over that fact.

To state the obvious, Iran is no longer in check.... But they did send us a letter!

We can't let Saddam back in now. We are way past that. His power base has been destroyed. It would also be awkward..... Using our troops to hold things in check while he rebuilds. And to top it all off, I think he's a little upset with the U.S. I believed the damage done to the relationship after Kuwait could have been repaired. I'm sure Saddam even knew his move was dumb. But there isn't any repairing anything after killing off his sons in a cowboy style shootout. We may be saying things like "Oh Yeah! We did do that, didn't we?" On his side, He's sure to be dwelling on that small point daily.

So Saddam is too dangerous now of doing all the things we accused him of to justify Cheney's company making a few Billion bucks. He would develop all those WMD's just to spite us, and he "would" use them at the first opportunity in anyway to hurt our country. IF... he could ever succeed of rebuilding his power base to take over the country.

As for the oil, we don't have it now, and we won't have it 5 years from now. The Shiites, as a rule, do not trust the evil satanic empire, and they have majority control. The Sunni's feel betrayed by our actions, and usually blow someone up daily to remind us of that betrayal. The Kurds don't have the powerbase in the government to make any real decisions. I would give it 3 years after we leave that the government will model itself after Iran. The Shiites will take over the country entirely through peaceful means... They have the huge majority, and the "Democracy" will be dissolved with the consent of the people.

All of this is nothing new of course. It was pure logic from the beginning.

No,,,, we are hosed on every front at this point. We are stuck there, we can't leave, and when we do..... We lose control. And when that happens, it will be way worse without the UN inspections and controls. The Shiites will go next door to their neighbors and pick back up on the technology.

This is Bush's failed businessman Legacy, he worked hard to develop it, and we must endure it for the generations to come.

Is he in jail yet?

Update on the link I posted earlier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5039714.stm

And the result:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198029,00.html

Yep.... the military investigation cleared the soldiers. I'll reserve judgement until after the investigation of the investigation :p

There's been a pattern emerging over the last year. First the soldiers are cleared, then comes another inquiry. That's happened a few times now - most recently with Haditha, and here's yet another example:

posted April 13, 2006 at 12:00 p.m.

Report: US soldiers 'unlawfully' shot Reuters cameraman

Independent private investigation comes week after 'firing' of Marine officers involved in civilian shooting at Haditha.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

US soldiers breached their own rules of engagement when they shot two members of an Iraqi camera crew working for Reuters last year, an independent private investigation has determined. Editor & Publisher reports that the investigation, which was commissioned by Reuters, also said that the shooting was "prima facie unlawful."
Soundman Waleed Khaled was killed and cameraman Haider Kadhem was wounded on Aug. 28, 2005, as they covered the aftermath of an insurgent attack on Iraqi police in western Baghdad.

The investigation by the British risk management consultancy, The Risk Amanagement Group (TRAG), was led by a former special investigator in Britain's Royal Military Police, who retired after 23 years of service, most recently in Iraq. The report said that the use of force was neither "proportionate nor justified." An earlier invevstigation by the Army had cleared the soldiers involved, but the TRAG report said "the Army inquiry conclusions were not supported by the evidence – including the testimony of the soldiers themselves – and expressed incomprehension that crucial footage shot by Kadhem had somehow been lost by the military."

read more

On the site you linked to:
"The crisis is not one of nuclear enrichment, a low-level attainment that does not necessarily lead to having a bomb. Even if Iran had a bomb, it is hard to see how they could be more dangerous than Communist China, which has lots of such bombs, and whose Walmart stores are a clever ruse to wipe out the middle class American family through funneling in cheaply made Chinese goods."
http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran...key-mouse.html

:rolleyes:

That'll teach me to link without giving the explicit url. :rolleyes:

I linked to The Christian Science Monitor. Here's the whole link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0413/dailyUpdate.html

You linked to the homepage of Juan Cole who is a history prof at University of Michigan. Yes the link was provided at the very bottom of the CSM web site under the ALSO category, but that doesn't necessarily mean an endorsement, just as FOX doesn't endorse the views of liberals but does sometimes include their comments.

Would you rather accept the actual Reuters article?
http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle....rss/uk/topNews

Interesting how you didn't post this one: :rolleyes:

Eight Troops May Be Charged With Murder, Kidnapping of Iraqi Man on Friday
Friday, June 02, 2006

SAN DIEGO — Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman could face murder, kidnapping and conspiracy charges as early as Friday in the shooting death of an Iraqi man, a defense attorney said.

Military prosecutors plan to file the charges against the men, who are being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base north of here, Jeremiah Sullivan III, who represents one of the men, said Thursday.

The Iraqi man reportedly was dragged from his home west of Baghdad and shot in April.

read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197916,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Or even this story:

U.S. Investigates Report That U.S. Troops Killed Pregnant Woman, Cousin in Iraq
Wednesday, May 31, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The U.S. military is investigating reports Wednesday that troops shot and killed two Iraqi women — one on the verge of giving birth — after their car failed to stop at a checkpoint north of Baghdad.

Iraqi officials and relatives say the incident in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, happened when Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being rushed to the hospital by her brother.

read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197666,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------

Go ahead and mock my news source :p

Go ahead and mock my news source
 

MOCK! MOCK!

How dare you use Bush's personal news service/publicist!
Oh! Damn, you're being difficult again! Aren't you, you cheeky devil...
WGJ