Islam and Bicycling in NYC



Trent Piepho wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ken [NY) <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:50:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> ><[email protected]> claims:
> >
> >>On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:26:08 GMT, soinie <[email protected]> wrote
> >>in message <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >>>Thanks for those words of wisdom Adolf.
> >>>Or as George Bush would say; "I knew that..."
> >>
> >>Hurrah! A Godwin post.

> >
> > Thanks. I didn't notice it since he did it so quietly. For the
> >few newbies who don't know what Godwin's Law is:

>
> I did it a day earlier, but my reference to your enthusiastic support of the
> Gesamtlosung went over your head I'm afraid.


ADDENDUM TO GOODWIN'S LAW.....

You cannot mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence anymore.

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
dgk wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:53:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:13:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
> >wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

> >
> >And on the news this morning, Rumsfeld says there were no links with
> >Al-Qaeda.
> >
> >Invading Libya yet?
> >
> >Guy

>
> Gadaffi was really clever. Gave up a weapons program that he never had
> and gets paid off. Remember when the right wingers were trying to make
> HIM the next big evil? Hey, if we don't have a big evil, how can we
> keep the offense budget up?


KIM in Korea scares the **** out the Bu$HITes.

CHINA is getting all of our computer chip technology from
Neil "Silverado" BU$H.

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:26:34 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
> claims:
>
> >> The IRA and Aum Shinrikyo aren't threats to the United States.
> >>Muslim jihadists are.
> >>
> >>

> >Bush promised to go after terrorists and the regimes that support them,
> >wherever they may be found. Are you calling him a liar?
> >
> >Bush never said we'd only go after terrorists that were an immediate
> >threat to the US, but would go after all terrorists. So in the case of
> >the IRA, isn't it clear we need regime change in both Ireland, England
> >and Boston?

>
> I am sure that when he promised to go after the terrorists who
> attacked those buildings, he was not talking about the IRA. You're
> getting silly and trying to change the subject.


The 9/11er's were SAUDIS, KKKen!

When do we invade?


--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
"Ken [NY)" wrote:

> There ya go again, a chicken hawk with a bloodthirsty call for
> others to volunteer to fight a war. I served in my war, now it's your
> turn, Jack.


KKKen, you drove a desk for the SSuffulck KKKounty KKKops,


--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
http://www.petroleumworld.com/issues703.htm

Halliburton ready to reap Libya oil boom

UPI - Yesterday's enemy is tomorrow's friend. U.S. oilmen are flooding
Libya eager to strike deals as national leader Moammar Gadhafi
dramatically boosts oil prediction. The city of Tripoli is now booked
solid with U.S. oilmen and hotel space is almost impossible to find,
industry sources tell Intelligence Watch. Some oilmen are even being put
up in ferries in Tripoli harbor. Libya's oil production is already up to
1.5 million barrels a day and it's rising fast. Production is estimated
to reach 2 million bpd by December, and 3 million by March.

Which U.S. oil services giant corporation looks best placed to reap the
bonanza? None other than Halliburton, still licking its wounds over
Iraqi service contracts that proved far less lucrative than expected.
Halliburton, formerly helmed by Vice President **** Cheney, has quietly
held prime position in Tripoli all along. Even in the days of the U.S.
embargo on Libya, they maintained their presence there operating through
their German subsidiary.

The prize is a big one. Libya has 36 billion barrels proven oil
reserves. All of them are sweet, high-quality oil that needs little
refining.
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OiF9d.437666$8_6.64065@attbi_s04...
> http://www.petroleumworld.com/issues703.htm
>
> Halliburton ready to reap Libya oil boom
>
> UPI - Yesterday's enemy is tomorrow's friend.


As it has always been. Germany and Japan come to mind.

> U.S. oilmen are flooding
> Libya eager to strike deals as national leader Moammar Gadhafi
> dramatically boosts oil prediction. The city of Tripoli is now booked
> solid with U.S. oilmen and hotel space is almost impossible to find,
> industry sources tell Intelligence Watch. Some oilmen are even being put
> up in ferries in Tripoli harbor. Libya's oil production is already up to
> 1.5 million barrels a day and it's rising fast. Production is estimated
> to reach 2 million bpd by December, and 3 million by March.
>
> Which U.S. oil services giant corporation looks best placed to reap the
> bonanza? None other than Halliburton, still licking its wounds over
> Iraqi service contracts that proved far less lucrative than expected.
> Halliburton, formerly helmed by Vice President **** Cheney, has quietly
> held prime position in Tripoli all along. Even in the days of the U.S.
> embargo on Libya, they maintained their presence there operating through
> their German subsidiary.
>
> The prize is a big one. Libya has 36 billion barrels proven oil
> reserves. All of them are sweet, high-quality oil that needs little
> refining.


I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?

Pete
 
Pete wrote:

>
> I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
> the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?


HEIL HALLIBURTON!!!!

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 

>Pete wrote:
>
>
>
>>I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
>>the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?
>>
>>

>
>
>


The point of the embargo is for zero companies to help. And company that
does aid a terrorist nation in producing it's resources to finance
terrorism, is aiding terrorism.

Jack Dingler
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eEV9d.218052$D%.189629@attbi_s51...
>
>
>
> >Pete wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy

during
> >>the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?
> >>
> >>

> >
> >
> >

>
> The point of the embargo is for zero companies to help. And company that
> does aid a terrorist nation in producing it's resources to finance
> terrorism, is aiding terrorism.


Right. That's why I said "I don't agree with..."
The embargo is over now, so, I ask again, if not Halliburton, then who?

Pete
 
Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> >Pete wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
> >>the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?
> >>
> >>

> >
> >
> >

>
> The point of the embargo is for zero companies to help. And company that
> does aid a terrorist nation in producing it's resources to finance
> terrorism, is aiding terrorism.



But HALLIBURTON, under ****, was doing business with Libya, when
it was forbidden to do so. **** opened a "headquarters" for Hally in the
Caymans (60 Minutes did an expose) which was just an empty office.
This allowed **** to do business with TERRORISTS.
Now **** is our Vice President.

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:OiF9d.437666$8_6.64065@attbi_s04...
>
>
>>http://www.petroleumworld.com/issues703.htm
>>
>>Halliburton ready to reap Libya oil boom
>>
>>UPI - Yesterday's enemy is tomorrow's friend.
>>
>>

>
>As it has always been. Germany and Japan come to mind.
>
>
>
>>U.S. oilmen are flooding
>>Libya eager to strike deals as national leader Moammar Gadhafi
>>dramatically boosts oil prediction. The city of Tripoli is now booked
>>solid with U.S. oilmen and hotel space is almost impossible to find,
>>industry sources tell Intelligence Watch. Some oilmen are even being put
>>up in ferries in Tripoli harbor. Libya's oil production is already up to
>>1.5 million barrels a day and it's rising fast. Production is estimated
>>to reach 2 million bpd by December, and 3 million by March.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>

>
>I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
>the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?
>
>Pete
>
>


In a system where companies bid on projects, you soon find out who.

If we're to believe some folks, then Halliburton is the only corporation
in the world that can handle these contracts. Here's a list of things
they do that no other company can do but Halliburton (according to some).

1. Catering.
2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry.
3. Shipping by Truck.
4. Residential Repair
5. Public Construction
6. Water facilities maintenance
7. Electrical grid maintenance.
8. Telephony
9. Road repair.
10. Playground construction.
11. Oil field drilling.
12. Maintaining oil fields.
13. Laying pipe.
14. Installing and maintaining sewer systems.

One has to wonder how cities like those in Iraq could have survived
thousands of years without Halliburton there to design and build them.
How did they get there? Who built them? How were they maintained all
these years if not by Halliburton?

Jack Dingler
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> In a system where companies bid on projects, you soon find out who.
>
> If we're to believe some folks, then Halliburton is the only corporation
> in the world that can handle these contracts. Here's a list of things
> they do that no other company can do but Halliburton (according to some).
>
> 1. Catering.
> 2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry.
> 3. Shipping by Truck.
> 4. Residential Repair
> 5. Public Construction
> 6. Water facilities maintenance
> 7. Electrical grid maintenance.
> 8. Telephony
> 9. Road repair.
> 10. Playground construction.
> 11. Oil field drilling.
> 12. Maintaining oil fields.
> 13. Laying pipe.
> 14. Installing and maintaining sewer systems.
>
> One has to wonder how cities like those in Iraq could have survived
> thousands of years without Halliburton there to design and build them.
> How did they get there? Who built them? How were they maintained all
> these years if not by Halliburton?
>


You forgot:
15. Provide security for all those operations.

One company or tens/hundreds seems to be the qualifier. Sure, there are a
whole lot of companies that can do parts of that list. The last two
presidents and their advisors came to the conclusion that having one do it,
including my #15 (necessary in the current instance), is preferable and
faster than a patchwork of many companies.

Who would write the contracts for all of these companies? The Iraqi
government, which doesn't exist yet? Should any rebuilding be postponed
until construction can happen in relative peace? In a full bid process, we'd
still be waiting for the first brick to be laid. And if the US were in
charge of the granting those contracts, you can be sure that charges of
favoritism (warranted or not) would be all over the place. Screw it...we'll
get blamed either way. Let's try to do it the faster way.

Currently, there are too may explosives being tossed around, by both sides,
to do away with #15. The Iraqi army and police are not yet in a state to
provide protection for rebuilding the country.

We broke it. Should we help fix it, or should we just say "Ok, bye now. Hope
you're successful in fixing it."

Pete
 
Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
>>In a system where companies bid on projects, you soon find out who.
>>
>>If we're to believe some folks, then Halliburton is the only corporation
>>in the world that can handle these contracts. Here's a list of things
>>they do that no other company can do but Halliburton (according to some).
>>
>>1. Catering.
>>2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry.
>>3. Shipping by Truck.
>>4. Residential Repair
>>5. Public Construction
>>6. Water facilities maintenance
>>7. Electrical grid maintenance.
>>8. Telephony
>>9. Road repair.
>>10. Playground construction.
>>11. Oil field drilling.
>>12. Maintaining oil fields.
>>13. Laying pipe.
>>14. Installing and maintaining sewer systems.
>>
>>One has to wonder how cities like those in Iraq could have survived
>>thousands of years without Halliburton there to design and build them.
>>How did they get there? Who built them? How were they maintained all
>>these years if not by Halliburton?
>>
>>
>>

>
>You forgot:
>15. Provide security for all those operations.
>
>One company or tens/hundreds seems to be the qualifier. Sure, there are a
>whole lot of companies that can do parts of that list. The last two
>presidents and their advisors came to the conclusion that having one do it,
>including my #15 (necessary in the current instance), is preferable and
>faster than a patchwork of many companies.
>
>Who would write the contracts for all of these companies? The Iraqi
>government, which doesn't exist yet? Should any rebuilding be postponed
>until construction can happen in relative peace? In a full bid process, we'd
>still be waiting for the first brick to be laid. And if the US were in
>charge of the granting those contracts, you can be sure that charges of
>favoritism (warranted or not) would be all over the place. Screw it...we'll
>get blamed either way. Let's try to do it the faster way.
>
>Currently, there are too may explosives being tossed around, by both sides,
>to do away with #15. The Iraqi army and police are not yet in a state to
>provide protection for rebuilding the country.
>
>We broke it. Should we help fix it, or should we just say "Ok, bye now. Hope
>you're successful in fixing it."
>
>Pete
>
>
>

The one critical mistake I see in the way the US handled this, is in
making it illegal for Iraqis to bid on these contracts. Legally we've
made it clear that they can have no role in rebuilding their country and
they can stay unemployed until we're done there.

We now have 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.

Cheney, Rumsfield, McCaine and Powell have all gone on record stating
that we'll stay in Iraq at least 20 years. Which coincidentally is about
how long Iraqi oil will remain profitable if pumped at it's maximum rate.

Reconstruction was never a real goal, that's why it's so screwed up. The
only real reconstruction actually happening is in the oil fields. Now
there's talk of sealing off the inhabited regions of the country and
taking just the Southern oil fields. If that's the plan, then we'll let
the rest of the country fall into civil war and ruin. It will be cheaper
then to get the oil, once the pretext of helping the Iraqis is finally
dropped.

I notice Bush has gone from a position of eliminating terrorism, to
admitting you can't win, then back to winning the war again. As
terrorism has been going on as long as man has used weapons in war,
that's an amazing goal to believe one can accomplish. I think Ken in NY
has the right objective in mind here. The terrorists are those that have
economic and military interests that differ from the US.

Jack Dingler
 

>The one critical mistake I see in the way the US handled this, is in
>making it illegal for Iraqis to bid on these contracts. Legally we've
>made it clear that they can have no role in rebuilding their country and
>they can stay unemployed until we're done there.
>
>We now have 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.
>
>Cheney, Rumsfield, McCaine and Powell have all gone on record stating
>that we'll stay in Iraq at least 20 years. Which coincidentally is about
>how long Iraqi oil will remain profitable if pumped at it's maximum rate.
>
>Reconstruction was never a real goal, that's why it's so screwed up. The
>only real reconstruction actually happening is in the oil fields. Now
>there's talk of sealing off the inhabited regions of the country and
>taking just the Southern oil fields. If that's the plan, then we'll let
>the rest of the country fall into civil war and ruin. It will be cheaper
>then to get the oil, once the pretext of helping the Iraqis is finally
>dropped.
>
>I notice Bush has gone from a position of eliminating terrorism, to
>admitting you can't win, then back to winning the war again. As
>terrorism has been going on as long as man has used weapons in war,
>that's an amazing goal to believe one can accomplish. I think Ken in NY
>has the right objective in mind here. The terrorists are those that have
>economic and military interests that differ from the US.
>
>Jack Dingler
>

If reconstruction was never the goal, then the entire invasion was a
fraud. The administration has flip flopped on its motive for invading
Iraq; I wonder when Bush and Company will finally admit they did it
to establish a military base in the Middle East with a steady supply
of oil and they couldn't care less about the Iraqi people?
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote

> >

> The one critical mistake I see in the way the US handled this, is in
> making it illegal for Iraqis to bid on these contracts. Legally we've
> made it clear that they can have no role in rebuilding their country and
> they can stay unemployed until we're done there.
>
> We now have 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.


There are no permanent military bases. Ask England, Germany, Holland. Long
lasting, yes. But 'permanent'?

> Cheney, Rumsfield, McCaine and Powell have all gone on record stating
> that we'll stay in Iraq at least 20 years. Which coincidentally is about
> how long Iraqi oil will remain profitable if pumped at it's maximum rate.
>
> Reconstruction was never a real goal, that's why it's so screwed up. The
> only real reconstruction actually happening is in the oil fields.


Really? No schools? No electric plants? No hospitals?

> Now
> there's talk of sealing off the inhabited regions of the country and
> taking just the Southern oil fields. If that's the plan, then we'll let
> the rest of the country fall into civil war and ruin. It will be cheaper
> then to get the oil, once the pretext of helping the Iraqis is finally
> dropped.


If all we wanted was the oil, it would have been *far* cheaper to push for
ending the sanctions and just buying it.

Pete
 
"Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com> writes:

> "Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> If all we wanted was the oil, it would have been *far* cheaper to push for
> ending the sanctions and just buying it.


What makes you think they just want Iraq's oil when a large military
presence might help influence other suppliers as well? They are
already making noises about Iran. Iraq may be just the landing
zone.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
>>The one critical mistake I see in the way the US handled this, is in
>>making it illegal for Iraqis to bid on these contracts. Legally we've
>>made it clear that they can have no role in rebuilding their country and
>>they can stay unemployed until we're done there.
>>
>>We now have 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.
>>
>>

>
>There are no permanent military bases. Ask England, Germany, Holland. Long
>lasting, yes. But 'permanent'?
>
>

You're correct. The Romans eventually gave up their military bases. And
one day the sun will explode and destroy the planet. Clearly permanent
is a word that can't be applied to anything. It's a nonsense word.

>>Cheney, Rumsfield, McCaine and Powell have all gone on record stating
>>that we'll stay in Iraq at least 20 years. Which coincidentally is about
>>how long Iraqi oil will remain profitable if pumped at it's maximum rate.
>>
>>Reconstruction was never a real goal, that's why it's so screwed up. The
>>only real reconstruction actually happening is in the oil fields.
>>
>>

>
>Really? No schools? No electric plants? No hospitals?
>
>

For a year now I've been reading in the mainstream press, seeing on
television and hearing on the radio that the reconstruction is mainly
limited to small 'green' zones adjacent to military bases. Reporters
tell us that they can't report on reconstruction outside these areas
because it's not safe for westerners to go there.

It's been reported many times that the electrical grid is in worse shape
now than when we first bombed it.

Of course some folks say that all of the media outlets lie about Iraq.
But if they are all lying, then they seem to be somewhat consistent.

Now, if reconstruction is going well, why are we seeing bragging lists
of repaired sites that reporters can verify? Why are the locations and
projects kept completely secret? Why do we hear that it's happening but
not where or how? Where are the pictures? Wouldn't this be a great media
campaign for Haliburton, if they could actually document their successes
and show them off? Wouldn't that help turn public opinion?

>>Now
>>there's talk of sealing off the inhabited regions of the country and
>>taking just the Southern oil fields. If that's the plan, then we'll let
>>the rest of the country fall into civil war and ruin. It will be cheaper
>>then to get the oil, once the pretext of helping the Iraqis is finally
>>dropped.
>>
>>

>
>If all we wanted was the oil, it would have been *far* cheaper to push for
>ending the sanctions and just buying it.
>
>Pete
>
>


No, it wouldn't. In fact you might remember that just before Bush
decided that Saddam Hussien was building nuclear weapons, the UN was
debating whether to relax sanctions. France, Germany and Russia were
behind the push as they already had contracted all of Iraq's oil. If the
sanctions had been lifted, it would've ended the bribes for vouchers
programs that US oil companies were using. They then would've had to buy
the oil from Russia, France and Germany at what would likely be an
elevated price.

By seizing the oil fields by military force, the US Taxpayer carries all
the costs to develop and maintain the oil fields. The interim Iraqi
Government hasn't decided yet how much to charge Halliburton to produce
and sell the oil. So for now, Halliburton keeps all the proceeds. Their
reps have actually discussed this in interviews citing, that because no
one has told them what to do with the money, they don't know what
happens to it. So the US taxpayer covers all the costs and Halliburton
gets a free ride with all the proceeds being pure profit.

How can you get cheaper than free?

Jack Dingler
 
Jack Dingler wrote:

> >
> >I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
> >the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >

>
> In a system where companies bid on projects, you soon find out who.
>
> If we're to believe some folks, then Halliburton is the only corporation
> in the world that can handle these contracts. Here's a list of things
> they do that no other company can do but Halliburton (according to some).
>
> 1. Catering.
> 2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry.
> 3. Shipping by Truck.
> 4. Residential Repair
> 5. Public Construction
> 6. Water facilities maintenance
> 7. Electrical grid maintenance.
> 8. Telephony
> 9. Road repair.
> 10. Playground construction.
> 11. Oil field drilling.
> 12. Maintaining oil fields.
> 13. Laying pipe.
> 14. Installing and maintaining sewer systems.
>
> One has to wonder how cities like those in Iraq could have survived
> thousands of years without Halliburton there to design and build them.
> How did they get there? Who built them? How were they maintained all
> these years if not by Halliburton?


GOOD ONE!

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004
 
Jack Dingler wrote:

> >
> >I don't agree with Halliburton keeping their hand in through a proxy during
> >the embargo, but if not Halliburton and its subsidiaries, who?
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >

>
> In a system where companies bid on projects, you soon find out who.
>
> If we're to believe some folks, then Halliburton is the only corporation
> in the world that can handle these contracts. Here's a list of things
> they do that no other company can do but Halliburton (according to some).
>
> 1. Catering.
> 2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry.
> 3. Shipping by Truck.
> 4. Residential Repair
> 5. Public Construction
> 6. Water facilities maintenance
> 7. Electrical grid maintenance.
> 8. Telephony
> 9. Road repair.
> 10. Playground construction.
> 11. Oil field drilling.
> 12. Maintaining oil fields.
> 13. Laying pipe.
> 14. Installing and maintaining sewer systems.
>
> One has to wonder how cities like those in Iraq could have survived
> thousands of years without Halliburton there to design and build them.
> How did they get there? Who built them? How were they maintained all
> these years if not by Halliburton?


GOOD ONE!

--

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
George "The AWOL President" Bush: http://www.awolbush.com/
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm


VOTE HIM OUT! November 2, 2004