We don't need the French, we don't want the French in Iraq. The further away from that country they are, the better. They have caused enough suffering, without doing anything to ameloriate it.

BTW, I support removing the house of Fraud as soon as possible. And eliminating the terror supporters there as well. Its just that we can't do so right away, at least until Iraq calms down somewhat, and gets oil production near normal levels.

You've been away for a while, so you're probably not accustomed with Ex-Pat's crusade against Saudi Arabia. It goes something like this: We attacked Iraq when we should have attacked Saudi Arabia (or Iran, or North Korea...) If we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, he'd be screaming about Iraq (or Iran, or North Korea...) If we attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, toppled the government, and our occupation forces there were being attacked by terrorists, we're to believe that ExPat would say nothing about oil and Halliburton. You believe that, I've got some beachfront property in Kansas you'd just love.

Well a "crusade" against Saudi Arabia would do many things you spin-masters for Bush still only dream about as the Bush/Cheney misadventure in Iraq is crumbling around them.... Terrorists? It, would strike at the heart of the terrorists and Islamic fundmentalists that brought about 9-11. Military operations? It would be one helluva lot easier to hold on to just the oil fields in the eastern province than the "Sunni Triangle" around Baghdad. Probably even get Saudi National Guard units to do it - after all, it's run by Vinnell. Just let the Wahabbis go back to living in mud huts in the Najd area around Riyadh. Iraqi Freedom? The Saudi people may actually welcome the removal of the Sauds - at least such a welcome would be just as realistic as the spin-masters proclamations of a Paris-like welcome parade in Baghdad by Iraqi citizens. WMD? Save the billion spent in Iraq on the search for "fools gold". And finally.... OIL, OIL, OIL lots of it to go around. No need for Halliburton's "no bid" contract - Exxon or Texaco could do just fine. And what is it about Halliburton that continues to draw the ire of some posters on this forum. It's only another Enron that has a better accounting firm, and a high powered ex-CEO able to insure a lucrative contract. Given all the predictions of future Iraqi oil - seems the fair thing would have been to let Halliburton - and others - go in on a risk basis with the promise of big profits. Not a sole source, no-bid contract paid for by the American taxpayer - on top of a growing deficit. Oh, yeah American Kafir - and what service academy did you graduate from to be so acutely brilliant regarding military operations. Oh, did you go to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government? Or the Wharton Business School? I would suspect you are an intimate advisor to Ms. Rice as well - because the Iraqi plan was so brilliant.... for HALLIBURTON!! But Saudi Arabia? Nah, Bush wouldn't bite the hand that feeds his family, now would he? As Al Queda continues to plan more devilment under the thobes and gutras of the House of Saud.

What draws the ire of some of us on Halliburton is that everything you stated about the contract is either a deliberate distortion, misunderstanding, or out and out fabrication. If you are going to make such claims, at least back it up with evidence, not what your opinion is. As I said before, I oould care less about Halliburton - what I care about is misrepresentation of your claims, and those I have repeatedly shot down. I would have done the same thing if you had said that the moon was made of green cheese, or that Susan Sarandon was a crappy actress. (I would have said she's an excellent actress, i just hate her politics- now that's accurate and honest). You on the other hand have not presented the Halliburton situation with any degree of honesty, accuracy or truthfulness. So I chose to set the facts correctly, since I deal with contract law on an ongoing basis. In regards to your analysis of the Sauds, believe it or not, we are in almost complete agreement. They should be overthrown, let the eastern Shi'ite Arabs get back their lands (including the oilfields, which the Sa'uds conquered when they took over the Peninsula and ousted the Hashemites and forced them into exile), along with the Hejaz (of mecca and medina), which they also conquered. The sooner this corrupt regime is ousted, and we go in and roust out the Wahhabi clerics and al-Qaeda terrorists as well, the better off we will be. If you caught Tom Freidman the other week on Tim Russert, he states that we went into Iraq for the wrong reason of destroying WMD, but should have gone there ANYWAY, to establish a bridgehead with which to defeat radical Islam, to remove a long term threat to the US, to liberate millions of people from the grasp of one of the world's most brutal rulers ever. Freidman is no friend of the Bush Administration, but sees clearly (if at times thru colored glasses), and is one of the foremost thinkers of WHY the Arab world needs to be transformed. According to him- we did Iraq because we COULD- and that's good enough for him. Friedman said that we had to prove to the Arabs, and those that advocate radical Islam that Americans are willing to die - especially after 9/11 - in order to preserve our way of life. Iraq is the start. swhitebull - a bit more honesty and discussion, and a lot LESS distortions, biases, and sanctimonious righteousness will get you a better response, and a lot less ire on the part of other posters, who are responding to your taunts and comments. Ball in your court.

>Oh, yeah American Kafir - and what service academy did you graduate from to be so acutely brilliant regarding military operations. Oh, did you go to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government? Or the Wharton Business School?< Actually, I worked in a stable once. I know horse sh*t when I see it.