More army chaplaincy

[Terrance]

Cyrus wrote:
> 
> David Morris wrote:
> 
> >Well I think I agree with Terrance.  He said it's not about the US controlling
> >Iraq's oil, and I agree with him.  But it IS about stability for the region,
> >and the biggest reason we care about the region's stability is the oil.
> >
> >DM
> >
> 
> As always, I respect your view. However, I'm afraid this war has further
> de-stabilized the region. And I think a policy that makes other nations
> distrustful is a wrong policy.
> 
> Cyrus

Distrustful? This is utterly naive. The Coalition intends to use Iraqi
oil revenues to finance the country's reconstruction. France and Russia
have huge oil contracts with the ousted regime and that's the main
reason they opposed the war. Now they want the sanctions lifted so they
can get their money. They are among Iraq's biggest creditors.
Distrustful? Why the hell did they sell arms to Iraq for credit even as
the coalition forces were invading? Did they trust Iraq's brutal regime
more than the UN? More than NATO? Should those Iraq-French-Russian
contracts be honored now? NO blood for oil, right? Well, the French and
Russians still have their vetoes on the Security Council. Lukoil,
Russia's biggest oil company, threatened that it would seek to have
Iraqi oil impounded if a new Iraqi government tried to kill the contract
it signed in 1997 with the butcher Saddam Hussein. Distrustful? There is
American and British blood in the Qurna. Distrust?