I Smell A Rat!

------- by Tom Chartier


"I died for freedom, this I know,
For those who bade me fight have told me so." -
--- Lines from a poem published in England during the early months of WW1.


Can you smell it too? For a moment I thought it was the mangrove swamp.

Time to find out what’s polluting the shades of America. It’s been stinking up the U.S…. and the world… for six years now. How could anybody miss it? It’s reeking to high Heaven. Behold: a monstrous Rodentia Giganticus that chews glass and eats its young.

Folks, what we have here is a massive scam that’s just like all the others our government has been pulling on the taxpayers since… well, let’s just go back as far as 2000 when our Dear Leader, Bush 43 (George W. Bush), was handed the presidency by Bush 41’s (that would be Bush The First, George H.W.) supreme court.

We have been — and are still being — scammed.

It’s the oldest Federal game in the book. Convene a war, rally the plebes to their “patriotic duty,” and then sit back and watch the Fat Cats' profits soar. The U.S. government has been engaged in this dodge since…....oh who’s counting?

Major General Smedley D. Butler of the Marines, twice decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor, dedicated his life to defend democracy abroad. One day he woke up to smell the afore-mentioned Rodentia Giganticus. Written in the wake of World War One, his book’s title says it all: War Is A Racket.

Indeed.

Who pays? The same helpless, naïve, conned taxpayer: You. Who profits? The profits go to the same place from which the propaganda derives: those slimy bloodsuckers in league with the devil: the Industrial-Military Complex.

Former British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin referred to these people when he described the 1918 House of Commons as “a lot of hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war.” Baldwin is also famous for saying that: “War would end if the dead could return.”

But I digress.

I’m not even going to mention the dead, mutilated and mentally ruined soldiers and their families who have paid with heartache. I shall forgo discussing the meagre wages, the post-traumatic stress, the broken down equipment with which they fight and the dearth of graves back home in which to bury them.

I’m talking about those who get off easy by only having their pockets picked to death and about those who pick the pockets.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are no different from the ones in which Major General Butler served, except that the causes of George’s wars are more blurred, shadowy and secret, in short, devious, than any past U.S. wars. Still, there is cause for joy in Mudville: for some the outcome has been more profitable… if you are a mercenary or other war profiteer, that is.

Not counting subcontractors, there are today in Iraq and Afghanistan an “army” of 100,000 private contractors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html) hired to serve the U.S. military. Where do they come from? One account states that the US is furthering its pursuit of offshore outsourcing by drumming up these soldiers of fortune in Chile and South Africa. What do they do? They provide security for our multi-million dollar army. Say what?!

The DOD must think war is like a computer game.

Why does the professional mercenary company Blackwater USA provide security, which is really the military’s job. What security? Last I heard, our beloved leader could not get into Iraq to meet Prime Minister Maliki. Due to insurgency activity, the Baghdad airport was closed.

One wonders if mercenaries buy innocent civilians from warlords and then turn them in to the military, for a reward, as “terrorists”? As it is, we do know that hapless Iraqi and Afghani civilians are whisked away to Gitmo for permanent vacations. Gee, that sounds like a good racket to me. The mercenary would get paid twice for the same job! Bounty hunting has never been so good. Who cares if the captured are innocent or guilty?

What else do contractors do in Iraq? Some peel potatoes for the troops. Whatever happened to that time honored military tradition? Many of these contractors are “rebuilding Iraq.” Rebuilding Iraq?! What the hell! What a load of codswallop! We haven’t finished destroying it yet! Isn’t that a little bit like putting the Howitzer before Der Kublewagen? You bet it is. And it’s not by accident either. It’s by design.

How many of those private contracting companies are actually doing honest work?

Let’s see, Parsons Corp. have robbed congressionally approved borrowed money to build such edifices as the fabulous open-sewer Baghdad Police College. Offshore outsourcing at work! Providing microbe-infested water in support of the troops, Halliburton is the most famous for tax-dollar travesty.

How about all that oil that was supposed to pay for the war? Ignore for a moment the fact that stealing, smuggling and selling oil across the border has turned out to be a cash cow for the insurgents. Just how was this oil money supposed to pay for anything anyway? It wasn’t. The “Holy Grail” of the oil industry was always slated, and still is, if they can find a way to get their hands on it, to be the sole property of Big U.S. Oil.

Did any of those Iraq war money bills passed by Congress state that the money would come from Iraqi oil? Or was that funding to be conjured out of thin air? In other words, conjured out of your taxes, present and mostly future. That means your children and grandchildren will carry the brunt of paying for George’s war.

This seems an awfully shabby trade off for a war created by lies and deceptions. And we’re not even winning it! Of course “winning” isn’t really the idea. The profits come to an end if we “win.” “Maintaining” the war is the idea. Let the good times roll.

And what’s this? The Pentagon wants what… more money? What a surprise! Well, why not? We have to “support our contractors,” er “troops.” The Pentagon wants at least another $100 billion. Now that’s staying the course! But God forbid we should consider spending less of the taxpayer’s money. We may be getting ripped off to a tune of at least $4 billion a year through corruption. Seems like a rather low figure to me. I’d say “corruption” is ripping us off by at least $348 billion and counting so far.

Oh well. All that tax money going into the pockets of the Bush Dynasty, Cheney Family “Trust” and the other slimy bottom feeders is all for a good cause. We’re paying to defend a slogan - The Global War on Terror!

Major General Smedley D. Butler must be turning over in his grave. Considering the circumstances, he must be glad he’s six feet under and not fighting George’s war “over there.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

War is the worst racket there is.

Didn't I say before that the "Jack Pot" in the US Department of Treasury?

Not the OIL, that comes as the "Spoils of WAR".

One account states that the US is furthering its pursuit of offshore outsourcing......One wonders if mercenaries buy innocent civilians from warlords and then .... All that tax money going into the pockets of the Bush Dynasty, Cheney Family “Trust” I'm glad this isn't just based on one unknown writer's speculation.

FT,

You are rapidly becoming a broken record, sir.
Can you at least begin each and every Bush-bashing posting with the phrase, "at the risk of repeating myself here,"?

Then, in all fairness, we would have a heads-up as to the spirit of your message, and could skip on down to see if anyone else had anything new or interesting to say in response.

Really. I'm serious.

Friends forever,
x0x0x0x,
Sparky

You are rapidly becoming a broken record, sir.
Can you at least begin each and every Bush-bashing posting with the phrase, "at the risk of repeating myself here,"?

Then, in all fairness, we would have a heads-up as to the spirit of your message, and could skip on down to see if anyone else had anything new or interesting to say in response.



What, you getting sick of Smedley Butler quotes?

FT,

You are rapidly becoming a broken record, sir.
Can you at least begin each and every Bush-bashing posting with the phrase, "at the risk of repeating myself here,"?

Then, in all fairness, we would have a heads-up as to the spirit of your message, and could skip on down to see if anyone else had anything new or interesting to say in response.

Really. I'm serious.

Friends forever,
x0x0x0x,
Sparky


why do you think I dissapear for months at a time? every timew I come on here and read one of freethinkers posts a baby seal dies at the north pole

why do you think I dissapear for months at a time?

My guess was embarrassment due to your ignorance.

:thumbs:

can you be any more predictable?

http://www.millbraeranch.com/images/titlebullpower.gif

The only Google image result for "predictable trav."

can you be any more predictable?

Or you?

Pardon me sir, but the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves.


Really?

1. When/Where was the FIRST al-Qaeda attack on Americans?

2. Why are Americans attacked in this city/country? Yet al-Qaeda had not attacked anyone(muchless Americans) world-wide!

3. What country also had Zawahiri in their custody for SIX MONTHS, during 1998, but had to let him go because "they couldn't figure out who he was"?

4. Following Zawahiri's release into Afghanistan, what country gains time to build it's pipeline from the Caspian Sea, when al-Qaeda attacks American embassies in East Africa in 1998?

5. What country has removed ALL foreign majority holdings in it's oil and gas company(ies)?

6. What country now has a monopoly on oil from the Caspian Sea AND has just doubled it's prices to Georgia!

7. What country had a journalist murdered after her book accused the KGB of perpetrating terrorist attacks inside Russia? <<ties in with Question #1!!

8. Who murdered a KGB defector after he stated the KGB and al-Qaeda are connected?

9. Why does Iraq's former vice air marshal(among others) state that the KGB helped move WMDs from Iraq to Syria?


IF you wish to continue this nonsense about how the US is doing such and such for oil, you might want to research a few facts.
:corn:

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Pardon me sir, but the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves.

Really? 1. When/Where was the FIRST al-Qaeda attack on Americans?

First tell me how the answer to that would in any way refute the fact that the U.S. is waging a war in Iraq for the purpose of control of oil resources.

2. Why are Americans attacked in this city/country? Yet al-Qaeda had not attacked anyone(muchless Americans) world-wide!

Tell me how it in any way refutes the fact that the U.S. is waging a war in Iraq for the purpose of control of oil resources.

3. What country also had Zawahiri in their custody for SIX MONTHS, during 1998, but had to let him go because "they couldn't figure out who he was"?

Tell me how it in any way refutes the fact that the U.S. is waging a war in Iraq for the purpose of control of oil resources.

4. Following Zawahiri's release into Afghanistan, what country gains time to build it's pipeline from the Caspian Sea, when al-Qaeda attacks American embassies in East Africa in 1998?

5. What country has removed ALL foreign majority holdings in it's oil and gas company(ies)?

6. What country now has a monopoly on oil from the Caspian Sea AND has just doubled it's prices to Georgia!

7. What country had a journalist murdered after her book accused the KGB of perpetrating terrorist attacks inside Russia? <<ties in with Question #1!!

8. Who murdered a KGB defector after he stated the KGB and al-Qaeda are connected?

9. Why does Iraq's former vice air marshal(among others) state that the KGB helped move WMDs from Iraq to Syria?

For numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; tell me how any of the answers to these questions refutes the fact that the U.S. is waging a war in Iraq for the purpose of control of oil resources.

If you are ignorant of the fact that the U.S. involved itself in Iraq for the purpose of the control of oil resources in that part of the world, then perhaps you need to "research a few facts".

A good place to begin would be -- http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

That's your answer? LMAO

First tell me how the answer to that would in any way refute the fact that the U.S. is waging a war in Iraq for the purpose of control of oil resources.


Logic Fallacy: Petitio Principii

That's your answer?

here was the premise--

the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves.

here is the way it was challenged--

1. When/Where was the FIRST al-Qaeda attack on Americans?

2. Why are Americans attacked in this city/country? Yet al-Qaeda had not attacked anyone(muchless Americans) world-wide!

3. What country also had Zawahiri in their custody for SIX MONTHS, during 1998, but had to let him go because "they couldn't figure out who he was"?

4, 5, 6, yadda yadda yadda

So...YES, the way that I chose to answer was to ask the person to FIRST tell me how any of the questions he poses would refute the premise = ""the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves"".

So...YES, the way that I chose to answer was to ask the person to FIRST tell me how any of the questions he poses would refute the premise = ""the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves"".


My questions were to illustrate that your "premise" is one sided. Hence the Logic Fallacy: Petitio Principii

As for the Iraq war being for the "sole purpose" of control of the "immense" Middle Eastern oil reserves.

1. You'll need to show that the US has control of Iraq, thus being "in control" of the oil.

2. You'll need documented evidence to show that the "SOLE" reason for invading Iraq was oil, and NOTHING else(not WMDs, not removing Saddam from power, not a revenge factor, etc).

3. You'll need to show that the US has barred other international companies from working in the oil fields in Iraq.


Good luck with that.

My questions were to illustrate that your "premise" is one sided. Hence the Logic Fallacy: Petitio Principii

Which I deflated completely by challenging you to explain how said questions did anything to refute the premise --**the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves**.

As for the Iraq war being for the "sole purpose" of control of the "immense" Middle Eastern oil reserves.

Errrrr.....did you notice that you just slyly inserted the word *sole* into the eqaution?? Of course you did.

I'll post the premise again.

Try reading it V_E_R_Y S_L_O_W_L_Y --

""the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves""

1. You'll need to show that the US has control of Iraq, thus being "in control" of the oil.

Wrong. I made no claim that they had in fact gained control of the oil.....but that their motivation for going there was for the purpose of gaining control of the oil. They put it down in writing in NO uncertain terms, for everyone to read. It can be found at http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

2. You'll need documented evidence to show that the "SOLE" reason for invading Iraq was oil, and NOTHING else

Why?

Because YOU inserted the word ***sole***, I am now forced to defend it on those terms?

Others might not see through such dishonesty on your part. Don't count me among them.


You'll need to show that the US has barred other international companies from working in the oil fields in Iraq.


?!?!?

Whether the US has or has not **barred other international companies from working in the oil fields in Iraq** has zero bearing on the fact that the reason the US leadership wanted to go into Iraq was to secure control of the oil reserves there.

Which I deflated completely by challenging you to explain how said questions did anything to refute the premise --**the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves**.



Errrrr.....did you notice that you just slyly inserted the word *sole* into the eqaution?? Of course you did.

I'll post the premise again.

Try reading it V_E_R_Y S_L_O_W_L_Y --

""the purpose of the Iraq war was (and still is) control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves""

So you're so scared of a word that keeps you from posting evidence. LMAO



Wrong. I made no claim that they had in fact gained control of the oil.....but that their motivation for going there was for the purpose of gaining control of the oil. They put it down in writing in NO uncertain terms, for everyone to read. It can be found at http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

PNAC also shows evidence of a connection between Iraq(Saddam) and al-Qaeda. Are you going to post that as well?? Didn't think so.

"May 25, 2005


MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS


FROM: DANIEL MCKIVERGAN, Deputy Director


SUBJECT: Allawi on Iraq and al Qaeda


I would like to draw your attention to a May 23, 2005 Agence France-Presse (AFP) article, “Al-Qaeda Number Two Visited Saddam’s Iraq: Former PM.” AFP reported on a recent interview that former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi gave to the Saudi newspaper Al-Hayat. According to Allawi, bin Ladin’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Baghdad in September 1999, and al-Zarqawi entered Iraq “probably around the same time,” “began to set up cells,” and also “forged links with Ansar al-Islam.” AFP further reported:


Allawi, a former Baathist dissident who lived in exile at the time, said he had “confirmation” of Zawahiri's visit to Iraq and that the fugitive Egyptian Islamist had entered “under an assumed name” during the ninth Islamic popular congress held in Baghdad in September 1999. “Islamists who led terrorist networks in the world” met on the sidelines of the congress, he said. Allawi said Saddam's regime maintained contacts with militant groups via “one Faruk Hijazi, who was eventually named ambassador to Turkey and then to a (North African) country.” He said Hijazi was “arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime (in April 2003) while trying to infiltrate into Iraqi territory.”


Allawi’s comments, build upon the work of the September 11 Commission Report, which stated:

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban (p. 66)."


Why?

Because YOU inserted the word ***sole***, I am now forced to defend it on those terms?

Others might not see through such dishonesty on your part. Don't count me among them.

That's pretty rich, coming from someone too scared to back up conspiracy fantasies.




?!?!?
Whether the US has or has not **barred other international companies from working in the oil fields in Iraq** has zero bearing on the fact that the reason the US leadership wanted to go into Iraq was to secure control of the oil reserves there.
Typical conspiracy theorist logic..


Your logic??
1. Country A invades Country B for " purpose is control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves".

2. Country B continues, to this day, to employ deals with companies from Italy (ENI), Spain (Repsol-YPF), Russia (Tatneft), France (TotalFinaElf), China, India, Turkey, and others.

3. Therefore, Country A has HOW MUCH control of immense Middle Eastern oil reserves? NONE!


I don't see Country A controlling the immense Middle Eastern oil reserves...

fact that the reason the US leadership wanted to go into Iraq was to secure control of the oil reserves there..
Where's your proof?

I've proven that US leadership doesn't have control of the oil reserves there.

So you're so scared of a word that keeps you from posting evidence. LMAO

You invent a word to add to my post, and then when I point out how dishonest it was of you to try to subtly change what it was that I said, your retort is --"Aw, so you're SCARED of a word. LMOA!!"

What a pathetic simpleton you are.


PNAC also shows evidence of a connection between Iraq(Saddam) and al-Qaeda.

Yaaaaaaaaawn.

Whenever you get around to something relevent to this discussion, let me know, putz.


That's pretty rich, coming from someone too scared to back up conspiracy fantasies.

I have made no mention of a 'conspiracy'. Is there no limit to your fucking dishonesty?!?!?

I don't see Country A controlling the immense Middle Eastern oil reserves...

I believe you.

________________________________________________

"There are none so blind as those who will not see".

You invent a word to add to my post, and then when I point out how dishonest it was of you to try to subtly change what it was that I said, your retort is --"Aw, so you're SCARED of a word. LMOA!!"

What a pathetic simpleton you are.

So you admit there were other "purposes"(besides oil) for invading Iraq. Thank you, you've proven one of MY premises....:banana:






Yaaaaaaaaawn.

Whenever you get around to something relevent to this discussion, let me know, putz.

When faced with facts, you respond with Ad Hominem. How juvenile. YOU'RE the simpleton that posted the Old American Century that discusses the PNAC. Maybe you should just quit while you can.




I have made no mention of a 'conspiracy'. Is there no limit to your fucking dishonesty?!?!?

Maybe you should clarify your associating the PNAC with the invasion of Iraq. Your consistant claims that the invasion of Iraq was to control the oil....

That is a conspiracy theory. Still learning the BIG words, I see.



I believe you.

________________________________________________

"There are none so blind as those who will not see".


If you can't handle logic then don't post your childish nonsense.

Or you?


How about YOU napster... can YOU be any more predictable?

I mean, i know you've got FT's "back" .. but if you stood out from behind him would i find you standing there normal or would i find your pants down to your ankles with your 4 inch "power appendage" painted brown?

Who knows?

I mean, i know you've got FT's "back" .. but if you stood out from behind him would i find you standing there normal or would i find your pants down to your ankles with your 4 inch "power appendage" painted brown?

As of present, it's painted bright cherry red. Ask your mom if you're that interested in the state of my penis. I hear she has quite the secondary income going with these dick dips.

I think if freethinker ever came to a sudden halt napsters nose would go half way up his ass, lol. maybe thats why the stench has become unbearable for him

I think if Travh ever had an original thought, he would be so overcome with self-disdain that he would be chasing after fifteen year old girls, not to get laid, but to borrow their razors so he could cut shit into his legs.

lol, relax man, I was just messing with you

So was I. Tit for tat. *shrugs*

Heh... you said "tit"... heh... :lolhit:

Can't stop thinking about them, can you? :D

I think if Travh ever had an original thought, he would be so overcome with self-disdain that he would be chasing after fifteen year old girls, not to get laid, but to borrow their razors so he could cut shit into his legs.

You have no right to talk about "original thoughts"...

We all know your mother has MANY more original thoughts than you.. i mean, i've never seen a girl swallow so much poop! I didn't even know girls got turned on by that shit!

See, there's a subtle difference here between Decka's lines and mine.

The image of the combat vet borrowing razors from teenage emo girls, (and maybe even, inquiring upon their technique) is an amusing mental picture, even if it is little morbid. There's enough irony there to let on to the sharp observer that I wasn't being serious, even if Travh himself missed it, which is to be expected.

Decka's nansy-pansy counter with the image of my mother chowing down on poop, only solidifies my position as leader in chief of insult science, and Decka as the sad wannabe offering up juvenile toilet humor.

But the real kicker here is the unintended irony provided by his careless retort, "You have no right to talk about "original thoughts."" This is the kind of thing that just makes people laugh at him, and never take him seriously.

Or it could just be that the best and most intelligent stuff Decka could ever come up with is all about football.

Go back to your football, Decka. You're bringing a rusty butter knife to a gunfight.

I make no denials that i offered toilet humor.. hey, i happen to like it.

As for you... just the fact that you had to try to explain everything out leaves me with the feeling that perhaps you aren't as confident as you tried to come off... And why would you need to pat yourself on the back about your own insults? Shouldn't you leave that to other people?

Don't try to be a great man Nappy.. just be a man, and let history make its own judgements.

And while we're at it, maybe i'll use the "rusty butter knife" to chop off some of that false ego you have oozing out of your porn retention center...

And why would you need to pat yourself on the back about your own insults? Shouldn't you leave that to other people?

No. If I didn't tell people how great I am, how would they know?

Don't try to be a great man Nappy.. just be a man, and let history make its own judgements.

I don't have to actually be a great man so long as I can simply say so. History forgets the quiet, and rewards the bold.

And while we're at it, maybe i'll use the "rusty butter knife" to chop off some of that false ego you have oozing out of your porn retention center...

Once again, buddy, gunfight. In case you didn't hear that properly, gunfight.

No. If I didn't tell people how great I am, how would they know?

They surely wouldn't come to that conclusion on their own, that's for sure...


I don't have to actually be a great man so long as I can simply say so. History forgets the quiet, and rewards the bold.

Unfortunately, that IS how it works.. too bad you are at least the millionth person who has tried...

I would say its more of a character issue... if you have to try to tell people how great you are, you are obviously compensating for something else.


Once again, buddy, gunfight. In case you didn't hear that properly, gunfight.

I actually didn't "hear" anything because this is an internet message forum.. and i READ the posts...

And just in case you didn't catch on.. i kind of ignored your little "butter knife to a gunfight" analogy because I so whole-heartedly disagreed with what you said, but still used a little part of it to make a comment...

Just letting you know so you can catch up.

*points at Decka and laughs*

This is great - LOL.

I stopped reading after Decka talked about ingesting something unsavory. That is not good imagery after dinner.

*points at Decka and laughs*

*just laughs... doesn't even point*

Too late buddy, I was done a long time ago. Don't you feel silly now?

Not really.. as long as i'm having a good time who cares about you;)

Play to win, not just to have fun. Otherwise you'll remain the loser.

And what game are we playing again?

I thought we were just posting on a message board...

The great game of life! Most people sleep through it, and they never even realized they were playing it until it's too late.

The great game of life! Most people sleep through it, and they never even realized they were playing it until it's too late.

That is one thing i can agree with on ya Nappy...

Its amazing how much time can go by during certain stages of your life without you actually living it.. i've been there, but i'm certainly not there anymore.

Have you ever just woke up and wondered if this was the last one?... day, that is...

No, but my impending death can sometimes issue forth a grievous terror that can shake me to the core. I used to have those terrors regularly, now they just last for a few seconds before they pass. *shrugs*

Other times, I look at death like a worthy adversary, like a creeping illness that can strike anyone, alive or dead, that it catches unaware. My struggles and conquests are really battles with death, to keep the mind sharp, ready to fight at any moment, no matter the stakes.

No, but my impending death can sometimes issue forth a grievous terror that can shake me to the core. I used to have those terrors regularly, now they just last for a few seconds before they pass. *shrugs*

Other times, I look at death like a worthy adversary, like a creeping illness that can strike anyone, alive or dead, that it catches unaware. My struggles and conquests are really battles with death, to keep the mind sharp, ready to fight at any moment, no matter the stakes.

I've heard that analogy before, actually it was on a movie. Star Trek: Generations..(yea, if you aren't a star trek fan I know i'll probably get flamed, but hey i like it)... It had the main antagonist speaking of Death as ... well hey, here is the quote as he talks to Captain Picard:


You know there was a time that I wouldn't hurt a fly. Then the Borg came and they showed me that if there is one constant in this universe, it's death. Afterwards, I began to realize that it didn't matter. We're all going to die sometime. It's only a question of how and when. You will too, Captian. Don't you feel time gaining on you?

t's like a predator; it's stalking you. Oh,you can try and outrun it with doctors, medicines, new technologies but in the end, time is going to hunt you down... and make the kill.

Sorry to go off on a little tangent and force any non-star trek fans to read a star trek quote LOL.. but hey it reminded me of what Napster said.

And of course, if you want the opposing viewpoint in the movie, Captain Picard views time as:


Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all Number One, we're only mortal.

So i guess its the glass half empty or the glass half full... supposedly.

Errrrr.....did you notice that you just slyly inserted the word *sole* into the eqaution?? Of course you did.

Free, he's right. You didn't say "the main reason", "the most significant reason" or "one of the reasons".
You said "the reason".

That is the same as saying the sole reason.

Free, he's right. You didn't say "the main reason", "the most significant reason" or "one of the reasons".
You said "the reason".

That is the same as saying the sole reason.

You're right. I reviewed the posts, and I stand corrected.

I used the term *the reason* incorrectly and in a way inconsistent with what I was meaning to convey.

I should have phrased it --""the *main* reason the US leadership wanted to go into Iraq was to secure control of the oil reserves there"".

I did not and do not in any way think it was the sole reason, but it was a prime motivation, as the documents of the PNAC clearly attest.