[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.c++

Binary Search Tree Verification Help

PeterAPIIT

10/13/2008 10:08:00 AM

Hello to all expect software engineer, i have create a binary search
tree.

I know to know what is your opinion about my program.

[code]
template <typename T>
class treeNode
{
public:

T key;
T value;

treeNode<T> *leftNode;
treeNode<T> *rightNode;


treeNode() : key(T()), value(T()),
leftNode(0),
rightNode(0)
{}

treeNode(const T& aKey) : key(aKey),
value(T()),
leftNode(0),
rightNode(0)
{}

treeNode(const T& aKey, const T& aValue)
: key(aKey),
value(aValue),
leftNode(0),
rightNode(0)
{}

~treeNode()
{

}
};



template <typename T>
class BSearchTree
{
private:

treeNode<T>* root;

public:
BSearchTree<T>()
: root(0)
{
}

~BSearchTree()
{
if (root != 0)
{
destroy();
}
}

void Insert(const T& key, const T& value)
{
if (root != 0)
{
treeNode<T>* newNode = new treeNode<T>(key, value);
treeNode<T>* iteratorNode = root;

while(iteratorNode->leftNode != 0
|| iteratorNode->rightNode != 0)
{
if (key < iteratorNode->key)
{
iteratorNode = iteratorNode->leftNode;
}
else
{
iteratorNode = iteratorNode->rightNode;
}
}

if (key < iteratorNode->key)
{
iteratorNode->leftNode = newNode;
}
else
{
iteratorNode->rightNode = newNode;
}
}
else
{
treeNode<T>* newNode = new treeNode<T>(key, value);
treeNode<T>* iteratorNode = root;

root = newNode;
}

}

void Remove(T& key)
{
}

void destroy()
{
treeNode<T>* iteratorNode = root;


}

void RecursivePreOrder(treeNode<T>* aTreeNode)const
{
if (aTreeNode != 0)
{
cout << "Key is " << aTreeNode->key << "\n";
cout << "Value is " << aTreeNode->value << "\n";

if (aTreeNode->leftNode != 0)
{
RecursivePreOrder(aTreeNode->leftNode);
}

if (aTreeNode->rightNode != 0)
{
RecursivePreOrder(aTreeNode->rightNode);
}
}

}

// Root->Left->Right
void PreOrderDisplay()const
{
if (root != 0)
{
cout << "Pre Order Display \n";
RecursivePreOrder(this->root);
}
}

void RecursiveInOrder(treeNode<T>* aTreeNode)const
{
if (aTreeNode != 0)
{
if (aTreeNode->leftNode != 0)
{
RecursiveInOrder(aTreeNode->leftNode);
}

cout << "Key is " << aTreeNode->key << "\n";
cout << "Value is " << aTreeNode->value << "\n";

if (aTreeNode->rightNode != 0)
{
RecursiveInOrder(aTreeNode->rightNode);
}
}

}

// Left->Root->Right
void InOrderDisplay()const
{
if (root != 0)
{
cout << "In Order Display \n";
RecursiveInOrder(this->root);
}
}

void RecursivePostOrder(treeNode<T>* aTreeNode)const
{
if (aTreeNode != 0)
{
if (aTreeNode->leftNode != 0)
{
RecursivePostOrder(aTreeNode->leftNode);
}

if (aTreeNode->rightNode != 0)
{
RecursivePostOrder(aTreeNode->rightNode);
}

cout << "Key is " << aTreeNode->key << "\n";
cout << "Value is " << aTreeNode->value << "\n";

}

}

// Left->Right->Root
void PostOrderDisplay()const
{
if (root != 0)
{
cout << "Post Order Display \n";
RecursivePostOrder(this->root);
}
}





};


[/code]

I wonder does something wrong with my code.

Thanks for your help.
12 Answers

Smirnoff

5/19/2008 12:02:00 PM

0



"kim" <kim@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:4iu134lkm7blfi9asq23726h7quocbjsuv@4ax.com
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:39:06 -0400, "Smirnoff"
> <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:2hlu245fjvalt2v9vqre438cpoo700q5br@4ax.com
>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 07:14:58 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> LOL. He had no military to speak of. No access to
>>>>> weaponry. He was under massive international boycott
>>>>> and 2/3rds of his country was subject to overflight
>>>>> patrols by the US and UK.
>>>>
>>>>You do not invade a country with the manpower or
>>>>firepower that we did utilize in Iraq, "if" you knew it
>>>>would be a cakewalk.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah that's what I learned about Poland and blitzkrieg.
>>>
>>> When are you going to wake up Jerry?
>>>
>>> The excuses you are hanging your denial on are ever
>>> thinner.
>>
>>Bush was warned from the beginning that there were not
>>nearly enough troops to get the job done even if it were
>>to be a cake walk but he ignored what the generals were
>>saying. Now he says everyone should listen to them. He
>>sure is a stupid one proven over and over.
>>
>>Poor rightwing NutJobs.
>
> He doing exactly what a loser does. Pass on the decision
> making to someone else so they can take responsibility
> for his previous decisions. It's a wonder there is any
> qualified general left in any of the Armed Forces.

Exactly. Who would want to work for that crazed nutball? He stated that he
was passing it on to the next guy anyway. Next year the RightTards will be
crying to the Dems that they have been in office for months, why are the
troops still being killed in Iraq. What a pathetic bunch of losers.

Jerry Okamura

5/19/2008 6:21:00 PM

0


"Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
news:_5%Xj.4498$lU5.4256@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
>
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
> message news:48307898$0$30479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>> news:lEFXj.4359$lU5.406@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>>> message news:482f1291$0$5133$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>>> <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:qdmr249n0g1c058e31e4tfg2vhuf0n6ktt@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:10:29 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:jcar24drel75rqf29junc42uth3nmi3qbc@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:30:35 -0400, * US * wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:58:05 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>>>><okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I supported the war in Iraq for two basic reason,
>>>>>>>>>[sic]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stupidity and cowardice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>... I did believe he was a threat....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It was/is cowardly of you to believe that lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He
>>>>>>> (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant
>>>>>>> capability with respect to weapons of mass
>>>>>>> destruction. He is unable to project conventional
>>>>>>> power against his neighbours."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is obviously a true statement. That does not mean
>>>>>>he was not a threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said
>>>>>>> in public.
>>>>>>> Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of
>>>>>>> "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi
>>>>>>> dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said
>>>>>>> time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further
>>>>>>> and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to
>>>>>>> "build his military back up or to develop weapons of
>>>>>>> mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America,
>>>>>>> he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a
>>>>>>> box".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Keeping him in a box, does not mean he was not a
>>>>>>threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. He had no military to speak of. No access to
>>>>> weaponry. He was under massive international boycott
>>>>> and 2/3rds of his country was subject to overflight
>>>>> patrols by the US and UK.
>>>>
>>>> You do not invade a country with the manpower or
>>>> firepower that we did utilize in Iraq, "if" you knew it
>>>> would be a cakewalk.
>>>
>>> Being stupid is no excuse. Shock and awe is not a policy
>>> that works.
>>
>> You have got to be kidding me. Results indicate
>> otherwise.
>
> You must be referring to the Americans that have been shocked.
>

Only because the occupation has been a whole lot harder than was
anticipated. The war will go down in history as one of the most successful
ever conducted by any country to date.

Smirnoff

5/19/2008 7:05:00 PM

0



"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
message news:4831c516$0$31736$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
> news:_5%Xj.4498$lU5.4256@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>
>>
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>> message news:48307898$0$30479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lEFXj.4359$lU5.406@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:482f1291$0$5133$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>>>> <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:qdmr249n0g1c058e31e4tfg2vhuf0n6ktt@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:10:29 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:jcar24drel75rqf29junc42uth3nmi3qbc@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:30:35 -0400, * US * wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:58:05 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>>>>><okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I supported the war in Iraq for two basic reason,
>>>>>>>>>>[sic]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stupidity and cowardice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>... I did believe he was a threat....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It was/is cowardly of you to believe that lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He
>>>>>>>> (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant
>>>>>>>> capability with respect to weapons of mass
>>>>>>>> destruction. He is unable to project conventional
>>>>>>>> power against his neighbours."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is obviously a true statement. That does not
>>>>>>>mean he was not a threat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair
>>>>>>>> said in public.
>>>>>>>> Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of
>>>>>>>> "containment" that had effectively disarmed the
>>>>>>>> Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what
>>>>>>>> Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell
>>>>>>>> went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not
>>>>>>>> been able to "build his military back up or to
>>>>>>>> develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last
>>>>>>>> 10 years". America, he said, had been successful
>>>>>>>> in keeping him "in a box".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Keeping him in a box, does not mean he was not a
>>>>>>>threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL. He had no military to speak of. No access to
>>>>>> weaponry. He was under massive international boycott
>>>>>> and 2/3rds of his country was subject to overflight
>>>>>> patrols by the US and UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not invade a country with the manpower or
>>>>> firepower that we did utilize in Iraq, "if" you knew
>>>>> it would be a cakewalk.
>>>>
>>>> Being stupid is no excuse. Shock and awe is not a
>>>> policy that works.
>>>
>>> You have got to be kidding me. Results indicate
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> You must be referring to the Americans that have been
>> shocked.
>
> Only because the occupation has been a whole lot harder
> than was anticipated. The war will go down in history as
> one of the most successful ever conducted by any country
> to date.

I don't see it that way given the failure in getting the whole thing
underway. When in history have so many right wing generals resigned or taken
early retirement so they could speak out against this war for oil. How many
have admitted it was just that and had nothing to do with WMD? How many wars
morphed in their description of the meaning of the word Victory? How stupid
does this "cake walk" look now? The claims of so few deaths of US troops,
the advice by so many that more troops were needed. The premature cries of
"mission accomplished". The president wanting to be known as the "war
president" that had to leave office in shame with the lowest rating of any
other? Even if there is any flavor of victory it will be bitter until the
end, whenever that may be. No time table, no real plans on how to win other
than "stay the course".
History will not be good to the republican party. That is one thing for
sure.

Jerry Okamura

5/20/2008 5:26:00 PM

0


"Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
news:cbkYj.4555$lU5.486@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
>
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
> message news:4831c516$0$31736$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>> news:_5%Xj.4498$lU5.4256@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>>> message news:48307898$0$30479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>>> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:lEFXj.4359$lU5.406@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:482f1291$0$5133$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>>>>> <retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:qdmr249n0g1c058e31e4tfg2vhuf0n6ktt@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:10:29 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:jcar24drel75rqf29junc42uth3nmi3qbc@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:30:35 -0400, * US * wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:58:05 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>>>>>><okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I supported the war in Iraq for two basic reason,
>>>>>>>>>>>[sic]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Stupidity and cowardice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>... I did believe he was a threat....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It was/is cowardly of you to believe that lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He
>>>>>>>>> (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant
>>>>>>>>> capability with respect to weapons of mass
>>>>>>>>> destruction. He is unable to project conventional
>>>>>>>>> power against his neighbours."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is obviously a true statement. That does not
>>>>>>>>mean he was not a threat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair
>>>>>>>>> said in public.
>>>>>>>>> Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of
>>>>>>>>> "containment" that had effectively disarmed the
>>>>>>>>> Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what
>>>>>>>>> Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell
>>>>>>>>> went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not
>>>>>>>>> been able to "build his military back up or to
>>>>>>>>> develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last
>>>>>>>>> 10 years". America, he said, had been successful
>>>>>>>>> in keeping him "in a box".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Keeping him in a box, does not mean he was not a
>>>>>>>>threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL. He had no military to speak of. No access to
>>>>>>> weaponry. He was under massive international boycott
>>>>>>> and 2/3rds of his country was subject to overflight
>>>>>>> patrols by the US and UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do not invade a country with the manpower or
>>>>>> firepower that we did utilize in Iraq, "if" you knew
>>>>>> it would be a cakewalk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being stupid is no excuse. Shock and awe is not a
>>>>> policy that works.
>>>>
>>>> You have got to be kidding me. Results indicate
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> You must be referring to the Americans that have been
>>> shocked.
>>
>> Only because the occupation has been a whole lot harder
>> than was anticipated. The war will go down in history as
>> one of the most successful ever conducted by any country
>> to date.
>
> I don't see it that way given the failure in getting the whole thing
> underway. When in history have so many right wing generals resigned or
> taken early retirement so they could speak out against this war for oil.
> How many have admitted it was just that and had nothing to do with WMD?
> How many wars morphed in their description of the meaning of the word
> Victory? How stupid does this "cake walk" look now? The claims of so few
> deaths of US troops, the advice by so many that more troops were needed.
> The premature cries of "mission accomplished". The president wanting to be
> known as the "war president" that had to leave office in shame with the
> lowest rating of any other? Even if there is any flavor of victory it will
> be bitter until the end, whenever that may be. No time table, no real
> plans on how to win other than "stay the course".
> History will not be good to the republican party. That is one thing for
> sure.
>
>

Military people in the United States DO NOT make the deicison to go to war.
That is the responsiblity of the President of the United States, with the
approval (either directly or by neglect) of the Senate of the United States,
and indirectly by the House of Represenatives. You cannot conduct a war, or
for that matter continue an occupation without money to fund that effort.
As for what we should do now, the answer to that question is, is success in
Iraq important or is it not important. If it is important then we should do
what is needed to achieve success. If success in not important, then every
day we spend in Iraq is one day too many. So, what is your answer? Is
success important or is it not important, and why? And while we are at it,
the two candidates who have said we should start withdrawing from Iraq, that
being Clinton and Obama, have not answered the basic question I am asking.
They have not said that success is not important, nor have they said that
success is not possible.
>

Jerry Okamura

5/20/2008 5:27:00 PM

0


<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1so3341roogs1f55fja97a2one2qh8ts9s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:21:25 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>>news:_5%Xj.4498$lU5.4256@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>>> message news:48307898$0$30479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>>> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:lEFXj.4359$lU5.406@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>> You must be referring to the Americans that have been shocked.
>>>
>>
>>Only because the occupation has been a whole lot harder than was
>>anticipated. The war will go down in history as one of the most
>>successful
>>ever conducted by any country to date.
>
>
> Damn - warn me when you're going to get that absurd. I damn near spit
> tea all over my monitor.
>
What did I say that you think was absurd?

retrogrouch

5/20/2008 8:49:00 PM

0

On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:26:11 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

> History will not be good to the republican party. That is one thing for
>> sure.
>>
>>
>
>Military people in the United States DO NOT make the deicison to go to war.
>That is the responsiblity of the President of the United States, with the
>approval (either directly or by neglect) of the Senate of the United States,
>and indirectly by the House of Represenatives. You cannot conduct a war, or
>for that matter continue an occupation without money to fund that effort.
>As for what we should do now, the answer to that question is, is success in
>Iraq important or is it not important. If it is important then we should do
>what is needed to achieve success. If success in not important, then every
>day we spend in Iraq is one day too many. So, what is your answer? Is
>success important or is it not important, and why? And while we are at it,
>the two candidates who have said we should start withdrawing from Iraq, that
>being Clinton and Obama, have not answered the basic question I am asking.
>They have not said that success is not important, nor have they said that
>success is not possible.


Of course the implication is it's not important. And you have failed
to ask yet another question - Is success (however you decide to define
that - it's fun to hide all that mess and ambiguity behind such a
clear and simple word and not have to really address how hard that
is to define) worth the price.

retrogrouch

5/20/2008 8:59:00 PM

0

On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:26:56 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>
><retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1so3341roogs1f55fja97a2one2qh8ts9s@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:21:25 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>>>news:_5%Xj.4498$lU5.4256@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:48307898$0$30479$4c368faf@roadrunner.com
>>>>> "Smirnoff" <Unlised@unlisted.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:lEFXj.4359$lU5.406@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>> You must be referring to the Americans that have been shocked.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Only because the occupation has been a whole lot harder than was
>>>anticipated. The war will go down in history as one of the most
>>>successful
>>>ever conducted by any country to date.
>>
>>
>> Damn - warn me when you're going to get that absurd. I damn near spit
>> tea all over my monitor.
>>
>What did I say that you think was absurd?


LOL. " The war will go down in history as one of the most successful
ever conducted by any country to date."

You'll deny the five years of botched execution, hubris and failure.

I'm reminded of one of the early state department figures in Iraq who
said, "There were about 500 ways to do it wrong and about 2 or 3 to do
it right. I had no idea then we were going to try all 500." She was
there, you weren't. Your rah rah party line is beyond absurd now. It
is cartoonish.
http://www.noendinsight...

Go find that movie and see it.

Harold Burton

5/22/2008 2:26:00 AM

0

In article <3g7o24ll8o6i4sq9d6qe700s1mou54ssde@4ax.com>, * US * wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:51:59 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Oil is what is called a "fungible" product. Any oil seller is going to sell
> >their output to the highest bidder. "If" that is China, they will sell
> >their oil to China. If you don't like that, then be competitive and pay the
> >price the oil companies want for their product, or don't complain about the
> >fact that they sold it to someone else.
>
> Yet you support deposing Saddam for selling oil in euros,
> when it would have been far more economical to buy the
> oil from the Iraqis than to let Bush/Cheney steal it.

Stealing things is a well established strategy of DemoCRAPs.

Smirnoff

5/22/2008 9:31:00 AM

0



"Harold Burton" <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-6FD586.22254521052008@comcast.dca.giganews.com
> In article <3g7o24ll8o6i4sq9d6qe700s1mou54ssde@4ax.com>,
> * US * wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:51:59 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Oil is what is called a "fungible" product. Any oil
>> >seller is going to sell their output to the highest
>> >bidder. "If" that is China, they will sell their oil
>> >to China. If you don't like that, then be competitive
>> >and pay the price the oil companies want for their
>> >product, or don't complain about the fact that they
>> >sold it to someone else.
>>
>> Yet you support deposing Saddam for selling oil in euros,
>> when it would have been far more economical to buy the
>> oil from the Iraqis than to let Bush/Cheney steal it.
>
> Stealing things is a well established strategy of
> DemoCRAPs.

Bush/Cheney are not Democrats.


*US*

5/22/2008 6:15:00 PM

0

On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:25:45 -0400, Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stealing things is a well established strategy of ...

The Bush crime family steals because they're all too wimpy
to earn money honestly.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:58:05 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>I supported the war in Iraq for two basic reason, [sic]

Stupidity and cowardice.

>... I did believe he was a threat....

It was/is cowardly of you to believe that lie.

> Second, I believed
>that we should try to make the lives of the Iraqis a little better ...

It was/is stupid of you to believe that "shock and awe"
killing a million Iraqis would somehow improve their lives.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:51:59 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


>Oil is what is called a "fungible" product. Any oil seller is going to sell
>their output to the highest bidder. "If" that is China, they will sell
>their oil to China. If you don't like that, then be competitive and pay the
>price the oil companies want for their product, or don't complain about the
>fact that they sold it to someone else.

Yet you support deposing Saddam for selling oil in euros,
when it would have been far more economical to buy the
oil from the Iraqis than to let Bush/Cheney steal it.