the new unterrorism
Déjà Flu
We must always be politically correct, even if it kills us.
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Kitty P
"D�j� Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o-GdnRhMGbBdWWHX...@posted.toastnet...
The piece ended with pondering whether Muslims should be sent to kill
Muslims. Perhaps a more important question should actually be whether any
human should be sent to kill other humans in a war like this one. Iraq
isn't a war against terrorism, and I really dislike veiled attempts to
associate that war with terrorists and the news media seems to be
unwittingly doing that with this case.
Maybe the fella had terrorist leanings - maybe not. But there have been more
non-Muslims who offed their fellow soldiers in Iraq than Muslims. The armed
services occasionally misses and gives a nut a gun or those wouldn't have
happened either. They missed then - they missed this one. From where I'm
standing the whole war is wrong on so many levels that it's all pretty much
the same. One fifth of the members of the U.S. forces in Iraq have died from
non-combat causes, either in accidents or from suicide. It's all bad.
Kitty
Déjà Flu
It is indeed.
Wilson
> "Dij` Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Iraq is a war against a state that sponsored terrorism, and genuinely
wanted to take over all of the Middle East. If that had happened, it
would have been very, very bad for us.
I listened to a supremely interesting podcast the other day by Dan
Carlin. He makes the point that all of the Merkin interest in the
Middle East is about oil. That's certainly not a shocker but he throws
in some interesting insights, including oil being the sole reason for
our support of Israel. And I was left with the conclusion that while we
don't have much choice in protecting our interest in the free flow of
oil, we *can* do it differently and can get our forces out of that
region. Which might even lead to less conflict there.
Show 158 - Geopolitical Pneumonia
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php?page=csarchive
--
Wilson
Kitty P
"Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:C7adnYCVKeAsD2DX...@supernews.com...
You actually believe that, don't you?
Wilson
The fact is they did sponsor terrorism, paying money to the surviving
families of suicide bombers. And Saddam said and indicated with actual
deeds that he wanted to control all of Arabia. He saw himself as the
second coming of Salidem. These things are facts and are not in
dispute. http://hnn.us/articles/1305.html
>
>>
>> I listened to a supremely interesting podcast the other day by Dan
>> Carlin. He makes the point that all of the Merkin interest in the
>> Middle East is about oil. That's certainly not a shocker but he
>> throws in some interesting insights, including oil being the sole
>> reason for our support of Israel. And I was left with the conclusion
>> that
>> while we don't have much choice in protecting our interest in the
>> free flow of oil, we *can* do it differently and can get our forces
>> out of that region. Which might even lead to less conflict there.
>>
>> Show 158 - Geopolitical Pneumonia
>> http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php?page=csarchive
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
--
Wilson
Kitty P
I should have been more specific. You actually believe that it is why the
U.S. did an unprovoked attack against the Country?
indiosd...@yahoo.canada
Remove Salidem, add WMDs, make it a bit vaguer (sponsor and themselves
execute activities that fit under the US definition of terrorism, say and
indicate with actual deeds that they wanted to control the world,
stockpile WMDs) and you have the United States. Then you can add Obama's
weekly assassination attempts (which acc. to one official "often" don't
kill civilian children). Not sure if the greater threat to American
security and wellbeing was Iraq or the United States.
Obama also gets his share of "second coming," but that doesn't seem quite
the same, in part because I doubt he believes that himself, and in part
because I don't actually know what a Salidem is.
Luke
Wilson
My whole point was to clarify and correct some misstatements you made.
You're not helping by continuing the misstatements. The Iraq war was
not unprovoked. You don't have to agree with it (I don't) to recognize
that Saddam was a tyrant and untrustworthy. His continuing efforts to
avoid living up to the agreement his nation signed to end the
hostilities of Gulf War 1 was the proximate cause. The other reasons
above were the secondary causes. Maintaining the open market
for oil that the US requires to survive was the strategic reason. At
least as far as I can tell with the information that is publicly
available.
I hope you aren't going to use that shallow and supremely naive nonsense
that it happened because Bush was evil and stupid.
--
Wilson
Wilson
America's efforts at nation building may be a fools errand. It worked
in Japan and Germany because we -- and they -- had no choice. I doubt
if it will work everywhere so well.
--
Wilson
Kitty P
No. I'm going to use the shallow argument that it was about greed, and that
it benefited Bush and his friends.
Kitty
Love
"Evil and stupid" would be a more generous assessment.
"Maintaining the open market for oil" (by means of war)
is barely more generous than "greedy".
--
Love
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Wilson
So you would consign your southern neighbor to a destitute future,
barely above third world status? Because that's what the effective
control of a major part of the world's oil by someone like Saddam would
mean. You'd really want to see that?
Saying that it was all about greed is half a step away from saying it
was an inside job. You might as well go all the way and become a
truther. There's just as much evidence for it.
If it was about money, greed and power (same things really), Bush would
have been better off cutting a deal with Saddam and letting him stay on
as leader. Which is allegedly what Jacque Chirac tried to do.
Seriously, much more money could have been made by cutting a deal with
the despot. If Bush was evil and greedy that's what he would have done.
--
Wilson
Beerlet Dhiblang
> Kitty P wrote:
> > "Dij` Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:o-GdnRhMGbBdWWHX...@posted.toastnet...
If only we could. Sadly the oil dependency isn't just the USA's & the
Mid East isn't the only society burdened by the social evils
exacerbated by oil wealth.
I disagree with such comments about Israel. These are Yankee nativist
tropes that look nicely dressed up in realpolitik jargon but are just
poorly considered (and some are veiled antisemitism).
The aspersion that Israel is a beachhead into the region is facile
because there are strategic limitations in using Israel for anything
other than brief aerial campaigns. OTOH our trade in Arab oil does
foster military threats against Israel since oil wealth underwrites
nationalist military conflict.
So this puts American oil interests INTO conflict with the UN
resolution to create Israel which we are obliged to support.
The answer to this dilemma ultimately becomes a military one.
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
> I should have been more specific. You actually believe that it is why the
> U.S. did an unprovoked attack against the Country?
You're claiming a premise that it was unprovoked.
We had been in a functional state of war with Iraq since 1991. The
armistice was a failed one as hostilities never ended.
Whether it was practical, well executed or wise is another question,
but by international law it was provoked.
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
> I hope you aren't going to use that shallow and supremely naive nonsense
> that it happened because Bush was evil and stupid.
He was naive.
He got a clue when he fired Rumsfeld & told Cheney to shove it.
/l
Kitty P
"Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodeca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:356a4542-ffaa-488c...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
/l
---------------
Ok - so go back to 1990. The Gulf War was initiated with United Nations
Authorization and with many other nations assisting. The reason was to expel
Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This war sort of started that way, but the other
forces withdrew. The U.S. got support by stating that there were weapons of
mass destruction and to provide in Bush's words, for a "...unified,
democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain
itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror." The other countries withdrew
their forces when it became evident that there were no weapons. Since the
U.S. didn't leave then, what is the difference between that and Iraq
invading Kuwait?
Kitty
indiosd...@yahoo.canada
>in Japan and Germany because we -- and they -- had no choice. I doubt
>if it will work everywhere so well.
Speaking of war, not sure if anyone else here plays "Barack Obama's Drone
Attack!", but I've been able to discover some of the cheat codes. You
press F10 to open (and later close) the window where you type in the
codes.
"moralmode" takes it out of the default fun mode (which hides the number
of civilian casualties)
"whirledpeas" gives you the nobel peace prize even if you haven't achieved
the 5:1 civilian/combatant death ratio
"preservative" keeps your hope level from decaying
"bigsmile" makes your approval ratings immune to civilian casualties
"publicoption" restores your health to 100% (which seems useless, since
I've never gotten close enough to the action to take damage)
"bigapple" freezes the action and does an animated broadway show
"doaskdotell" puts a rainbow flag on the side of your MQ-1 (this was
supposed to be standard on the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 releases, but
they never quite got around to it)
I find playing BODA! is a great way to work out my frustrations re: US
foreign policy...
Luke
daletx
Instead, he had the cojones to go after them Weapons of Mass
Destruction. Boy, I know *I* feel safer after we found them Weapons of
Mass Destruction.
So, now that *that* little matter is cleared up, why are we still there?
Oh, and we went into Afghanistan to get the guys behind 9/11, right?
"Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed and the four other al Qaeda planners of 9/11." So, um,
why are we still *there*?
And, yes, Wilson, I know you've explained this all to my ignernt ass
many times over the last several years. I don't expect to understand it
this time, either.
DT
(Mostly because the explanations never answer the questions.)
daletx
The difference, of course, is that We're the Good Guys...
DT
daletx
Luke, you are the King (or Queen, your choice) of sending me off to
gewgle things that don't exist.
DT
Wilson
They do, but you refuse to accept them. Personally, I am ready to get
out of both of those places. But honestly, if we had taken the
collective advice of Obama, Pelosi and Reed, and gotten out of Iraq two
years ago, that country would almost certainly be worse off today than
it is. And so would we.
--
Wilson
Wilson
There's a huge difference between the US not leaving and Iraq invading
Kuwait. We stayed because if we'd left when everyone else did Iraq
would almost certainly have fallen apart, leading to much more suffering
and bloodshed.
If we'd never gone and allowed the tyrant to stay in power ... who
knows? Maybe it might not have turned out so bad. Maybe it would have
been worse.
--
Wilson
Wilson
Still, a great parody. Would be an even greater actual game.
--
Wilson
indiosd...@yahoo.canada
>indiosd...@yahoo.canada wrote:
>> Speaking of war, not sure if anyone else here plays "Barack Obama's Drone
>> Attack!", but I've been able to discover some of the cheat codes. You
>> press F10 to open (and later close) the window where you type in the
>> codes.
>>
>> "moralmode" takes it out of the default fun mode (which hides the number
>> of civilian casualties)
>>
>> "whirledpeas" gives you the nobel peace prize even if you haven't achieved
>> the 5:1 civilian/combatant death ratio
>>
>> "preservative" keeps your hope level from decaying
>>
>> "bigsmile" makes your approval ratings immune to civilian casualties
>>
>> "publicoption" restores your health to 100% (which seems useless, since
>> I've never gotten close enough to the action to take damage)
>>
>> "bigapple" freezes the action and does an animated broadway show
>>
>> "doaskdotell" puts a rainbow flag on the side of your MQ-1 (this was
>> supposed to be standard on the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 releases, but
>> they never quite got around to it)
>>
>> I find playing BODA! is a great way to work out my frustrations re: US
>> foreign policy...
>
>gewgle things that don't exist.
Thank you. I suppose I should be relieved that google doesn't yet index
my mental universe. Heh, _every_ search query would be met with "Did you
mean: ryan gosling"...
Luke
indiosd...@yahoo.canada
Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>daletx wrote:
>> indiosd...@yahoo.canada wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of war, not sure if anyone else here plays "Barack Obama's
>>> Drone Attack!", but I've been able to discover some of the cheat
>>> codes. You press F10 to open (and later close) the window where you
>>> type in the codes.
>>>
>>> "moralmode" takes it out of the default fun mode (which hides the
>>> number of civilian casualties)
>>>
>>> "whirledpeas" gives you the nobel peace prize even if you haven't
>>> achieved the 5:1 civilian/combatant death ratio
>>>
>>> "preservative" keeps your hope level from decaying
>>>
>>> "bigsmile" makes your approval ratings immune to civilian casualties
>>>
>>> "publicoption" restores your health to 100% (which seems useless,
>>> since I've never gotten close enough to the action to take damage)
>>>
>>> "bigapple" freezes the action and does an animated broadway show
>>>
>>> "doaskdotell" puts a rainbow flag on the side of your MQ-1 (this was
>>> supposed to be standard on the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 releases,
>>> but they never quite got around to it)
>>>
>>> I find playing BODA! is a great way to work out my frustrations re:
>>> US foreign policy...
>>
>> gewgle things that don't exist.
>
Thanks. It is actual, mostly, just not a game. And only BO can play.
Luke
Kitty P
As for the Iraqi people, they are undoubtedly in a better place. But as for
my friends and family who paid the taxes that fought that war and subsequent
rebuilding - not so much.
Kitty
Wally Chapman
I don't see how Iraq could be much more of a hellhole than it is now;
the only difference would be that we wouldn't be throwing young lives,
money and munitions away. I personally don't care what happens to the
Iraqis. They'll end up with the government they deserve - same as
Afghanistan, which has never been successfully subdued by any nation.
But, of course, "The war must go on", sez the Top Sergeant, "it's the
only one we've got."
Wally
Wally Chapman
"cockadoodledoo" turns your player into a chicken.
Wally
Lee Rudolph
>As for the Iraqi people, they are undoubtedly in a better place.
Excluding (at the very least) the dead ones (far more than Saddam
would or could have killed in the same amount of time), and (I hope
you'd agree when not trying to pacify Wild Wilson) the "ethnically
cleansed" ones. Oh, and the women.
Lee Rudolph
Kitty P
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hdnn1b$hsr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I was referring to all of the educational programs, schools, hospitals, etc.
that have been built for them while friends of mine have had to give up
their health insurance because of the cost actually.
Love
says...
>
>Love wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I hope you aren't going to use that shallow and supremely naive
>>>> nonsense that it happened because Bush was evil and stupid.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wilson
>>>
>>> No. I'm going to use the shallow argument that it was about greed,
>>> and that it benefited Bush and his friends.
>>
>> "Evil and stupid" would be a more generous assessment.
>>
>> "Maintaining the open market for oil" (by means of war)
>> is barely more generous than "greedy".
>
>
>So you would consign your southern neighbor to a destitute future,
>barely above third world status? Because that's what the effective
>control of a major part of the world's oil by someone like Saddam would
>mean. You'd really want to see that?
Well, for a lot of people stateside, that is the present,
but all kidding aside, I think it's irrational to even
believe that that is what would have happened, or that
the USA couldn't get by quite merrily without any mideast
oil at all. See, it wasn't oil that made the USA the
richest country on earth (according to a friend that will
remain nameless), it was freedom.
>Saying that it was all about greed is half a step away from saying it
>was an inside job. You might as well go all the way and become a
>truther. There's just as much evidence for it.
Perhaps my response was too nuanced to parse correctly.
I didn't actually say it was about greed.
But I will now. I believe it was at least partly about
greed, or rather that greed played a motivational role
even if unadmitted even to themselves by those who were
so motivated.
This isn't a court of law and frankly I had to look
truther up to even get your point, which I still don't
get, actually.
>If it was about money, greed and power (same things really), Bush would
>have been better off cutting a deal with Saddam and letting him stay on
>as leader. Which is allegedly what Jacque Chirac tried to do.
>
>Seriously, much more money could have been made by cutting a deal with
>the despot. If Bush was evil and greedy that's what he would have done.
Well, I don't think evil and greedy covers it. That's
too cartoonish. I think people are people and their
decision-making is full of influences, and where their
own interests or the interest of their friends are
concerned, they are likely to be a little blind or too
generous with the benefit of the doubt.
That's why democracies are usually set up to make their
leaders sensitive to criticisms and public opinions
and not set up to turn their leaders into crusade pop
stars.
Even a dick like Saddam probably convinced himself that
he had a higher purpose. I can only imagine what a
not-completely-a-dick like Dubya could have convinced
himself of. It could even have been some nonsense about
the American Empire er I mean New American Century being
the best thing for everyone, and that oil was just one
of the geostrategic hingepins he needed to work with,
and luckily one that he happened to know something about.
Love
dodeca...@yahoo.com says...
I can honestly say that he gained a few esteem points in my
mind for those. Rove would have earned him some more, but
hey, it's not like he could have benefitted from my approval
anyway.
Love
Don't forget all the opportunities created by moving out
of your former neighbourhood and into an enclave of religious
homogeneity.
daletx
Dang, we're agreeing again. Who knows, indeed? Of course, it was sold
by the previous administration as an absolute certainty.
I've still got issues with invading somebody over something they *might* do.
DT
daletx
"If we pull out *now*, all those fine young American lives will have
been wasted."
Heard that one back in '69. A lot of them 40-year-old cliches are
getting recycled...just like some of us expected would happen.
DT
daletx
And let's not forget "they tried to kill my daddy".
DT
Lee Rudolph
*Have* their "educational programs, schools, hospitals, etc." yet been
built back up to anything like what they were before we (and they)
bombed their late-Saddam-era ""educational programs, schools, hospitals",
water-treatment facilities, power generation and transmission facilities,
etc., into dysfunctional rubble?
Certainly in many cases "we" (i.e., you, I, and other low-bracket
taxpayers) have *paid* for such building (sometimes many times over);
but how much of those payments have produced functional "educational
programs", etc., etc., as contrasted with bulging bank accounts?
Lee Rudolph
Kirsten
>>
>> Speaking of war, not sure if anyone else here plays "Barack Obama's
>> Drone Attack!", but I've been able to discover some of the cheat
>> codes. You press F10 to open (and later close) the window where you
>> type in the codes.
>> "moralmode" takes it out of the default fun mode (which hides the
>> number of civilian casualties)
>>
>> "whirledpeas" gives you the nobel peace prize even if you haven't
>> achieved the 5:1 civilian/combatant death ratio
>>
>> "preservative" keeps your hope level from decaying
>>
>> "bigsmile" makes your approval ratings immune to civilian casualties
>>
>> "publicoption" restores your health to 100% (which seems useless,
>> since I've never gotten close enough to the action to take damage)
>>
>> "bigapple" freezes the action and does an animated broadway show
>>
>> "doaskdotell" puts a rainbow flag on the side of your MQ-1 (this was
>> supposed to be standard on the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 releases,
>> but they never quite got around to it)
>>
>> I find playing BODA! is a great way to work out my frustrations re: US
>> foreign policy...
>>
>> Luke
>
> Luke, you are the King (or Queen, your choice) of sending me off to
> gewgle things that don't exist.
>
> DT
Heh I must admit I thought Activision had brought out a new game: it
could be alot of fun.
Sort of you're a drone pilot sitting in Fort Benning, and you have to
ruin the day of someone sitting in Afghanistan.
As an added build if you put it on the Internet, maybe 1 in a hundred
game missions could actually be a real one.
Best wishes
Kirsten
Kirsten
>>
>> Speaking of war, not sure if anyone else here plays "Barack Obama's
>> Drone Attack!", but I've been able to discover some of the cheat
>> codes. You press F10 to open (and later close) the window where you
>> type in the codes.
>> "moralmode" takes it out of the default fun mode (which hides the
>> number of civilian casualties)
>>
>> "whirledpeas" gives you the nobel peace prize even if you haven't
>> achieved the 5:1 civilian/combatant death ratio
>>
>> "preservative" keeps your hope level from decaying
>>
>> "bigsmile" makes your approval ratings immune to civilian casualties
>>
>> "publicoption" restores your health to 100% (which seems useless,
>> since I've never gotten close enough to the action to take damage)
>>
>> "bigapple" freezes the action and does an animated broadway show
>>
>> "doaskdotell" puts a rainbow flag on the side of your MQ-1 (this was
>> supposed to be standard on the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 releases,
>> but they never quite got around to it)
>>
>> I find playing BODA! is a great way to work out my frustrations re: US
>> foreign policy...
>>
>> Luke
>
> "cockadoodledoo" turns your player into a chicken.
>
> Wally
And "giftification" means the drone drops a small expensive gift from
Tiffany's.
The elf just shot the food!
Best wishes
Kirsten
Hidden Draggin
We could ALL be Sparticus!!
We could all be tried for war crimes !
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
Kitty P
> "Kitty P" <pain...@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:hdnn1b$hsr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> "Kitty P" <pain...@charter.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>As for the Iraqi people, they are undoubtedly in a better place.
>>>
>>> Excluding (at the very least) the dead ones (far more than Saddam
>>> would or could have killed in the same amount of time), and (I hope
>>> you'd agree when not trying to pacify Wild Wilson) the "ethnically
>>> cleansed" ones. Oh, and the women.
>>>
>>> Lee Rudolph
>>
>>I was referring to all of the educational programs, schools, hospitals,
>>etc.
>>that have been built for them while friends of mine have had to give up
>>their health insurance because of the cost actually.
>
> *Have* their "educational programs, schools, hospitals, etc." yet been
> built back up to anything like what they were before we (and they)
> bombed their late-Saddam-era ""educational programs, schools, hospitals",
> water-treatment facilities, power generation and transmission facilities,
> etc., into dysfunctional rubble?
Haven't you watched the news clips on what wonderful things have been done
in the name of democracy by? You know - how democracy has given those poor
ignorant (even though their civilization is melleniums older) souls? I was
recruited to start a computer training program by a private company - MTC
(Management and Training Corp). Maybe I was the only one that got to see the
propoganda.
>
> Certainly in many cases "we" (i.e., you, I, and other low-bracket
> taxpayers) have *paid* for such building (sometimes many times over);
> but how much of those payments have produced functional "educational
> programs", etc., etc., as contrasted with bulging bank accounts?
Now that is a good point. I'm hoping you saw the tongue in cheek in my
comments. But there should be no doubt that the financial drain of that war
has been devastating to America. I think we are one large natural disaster
(like Katrina) from the Country not being able to take care of its own
citizens in a time of crisis. As much as I like Obama, I think that social
security and medicare are about to be savaged and are not something that I'm
going to get to recoup from a lifetime of contributions. I don't know any
men of working age in my neighborhood who are employed right now because of
unemployment in the area. It's more than possible that we are in much
deeper shit than anyone is talking about, and will be walking a tightrope
for at least another year. When I watch the family of five next door
bringing home their two little boxes of food bank food each week I really
don't see the difference between caring for them and the caring for the
people of Iraq. What I do see is enough money still being spent on the war
that would take care of the poor and elderly for many years.
>
> Lee Rudolph
indiosd...@yahoo.canada
My version came like that, where I'm stuck in white house coup risking the
lives of our young drones. Is there a way to get it out of chicken mode?
Can we trade in the effete ivy-league warlord for someone who rides into
battle with the intention of making his enemy's head into a drinking
vessel? (I'd rather have a peacemaker in the whitehouse, but if the
electorate insists on a warmonger, why not a warmonger who understands the
consequences of war? Oh, no, I'm drifting out of BODA! and into reality
and frustration again, aggghhhh...)
Luke
Keynes
The USA can buy oil on the open market.
When a retired marine and I were arguing against
invading Iraq (before the fact with right wingnuts),
it was pointed out that if Saddam was allowed to keep
Kuwait, or even Saudi, it would be no skin off our nose.
Saddam's rule was bad but Saudi/Kuwait's is/was even worse.
Saudi finances taliban and jihad. (In case you didn't know.)
Almost all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
The damage and murder and expenses we've done in mid east
wars is a whole lot more destruction than would have occurred
if we had just minded our own business. (But the MI complex
exists to be used, so any excuse will do.)
Sure, the energy tycoons might suffer for it, but
anyone can buy all the oil they need without owning
any wells. Oil dictators need to sell their oil. They're
not going to stop selling it. The whole series of mid
east wars are about who gets to own the wells. But
why should any citizen care about that? Yet these
wars over ownership are at the expense and blood
of folks who really have no stake in ownership of
the wells. It's really none of our business.
The oil oligarchy set us up so that we'd spend the
money and the lives of disinterested american citizens
so that the american oligarchs alone could own and
profit from the wells. All this talk of justice and
real politic is just a smoke screen. Who cares who
owns the wells? We've just been swindled again.
Wilson
I suppose that living in a major metro area of Cannuckistan, a land
where energy practically shoots from it's citizens fingertips for free,
you might not be fully cognizant of just how dependent the US is on oil.
You think we've got economic problems now? It's a walk in the park
compared to what we'd see if the Middle East, which has half of the
world's supply of oil, got shut down.
But you are also right. It is irrational to believe the US would slide
into third world status without putting up a fight. As you aren't
terribly attached to Alberta anyway, I don't suppose you would miss it
all that much.
--
Wilson
Keynes
Who would shut down oil wells?
Where do you get this stuff?
Wilson
As do I. When Bush decided to invade Iraq I was thinking about how much
shit we'd be in if he was wrong about the WMDs. I expected he had to
have complete and unassailable proof that they were there. I was wrong.
But that said, once we went in and broke the country it was our
responsibility to put it back together. It would have been a terrible
black mark on us to quit and let the nation descend into complete
anarchy, much worse than what we have to live with for doing it in the
first place.
--
Wilson
Wilson
If a tyrant like Saddam had control of close to one half of the world's
oil supply, he would be able to exert an awful lot of influence over all
of the world. No one would be able to stand up to him, without military
force. And how do you suppose that military would be able to move,
without fuel?
You are old enough to remember the oil crisis of the late 70s which was
caused by certain members of OPEC deciding that they wouldn't sell oil
to anyone supporting Israel. At that time spare production capacity
exceeded demand by something like 25%. As of 2007 it exceeded demand by
something like 2%.
To answer your question: Anyone who wanted to increase the price of
oil. Right now Saudi Arabia has to maintain production to pay for
domestic needs. A despot ruling by fear would not have that constraint.
If you doubt me, just look at the deprivations North Korea is able to
place on it's people. They live just north of one of the most
prosperous success stories in the world today, yet their people live in
abject poverty and near starvation. The regime survives.
Peggy Noonan wrote something recently about how it is some seem to
believe that America is so strong it can take endless abuse and just
bounce back:
"I think I know part of the answer. It is that they've never seen things
go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008
(or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don't have the habit of worry.
They talk about their "concerns"-they're big on that word. But they're
not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the
golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa's
lap.
They don't feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious
about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases-"strongest
nation in the world," "indispensable nation," "unipolar power," "highest
standard of living"-and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to
imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.
We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and
daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but
they're not optimists-they're unimaginative. They don't have faith,
they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are
callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They
don't even notice."
--
Wilson
Kitty P
This is what interests me about conservative views that I've seen in the
newspaper and occasional forays into Fox news. It seems that it is seen as a
mission of goodwill and peace to reconstruct a country and culture that the
U.S. has been bombed to smithereens. Yet it is unthinkable to provide food
and shelter to the most vulnerable in the U.S.with those same tax dollars.
Am I off on that?
Kitty
Wilson
I respect your perspective Wally, but I am pretty sure it could be
worse. Based on reports of people who are there it actually was worse
just a few years ago. And there are other places far worse today.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Wilson
I'm not a conservative, but I'd say that yes you are.
I am sure that there are some who fall through the cracks of the social
programs we've put into place. But to listen to Democrat party rhetoric
it sounds as if thousands if not millions are starving. That's just not
the case. We do take care of our poor in this country. That same
political demonization tries to portray the Republicans as against all
of that and the majority of them clearly are not.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Wally Chapman
<smip>
> If a tyrant like Saddam had control of close to one half of the world's
> oil supply, he would be able to exert an awful lot of influence over all
> of the world. No one would be able to stand up to him, without military
> force. And how do you suppose that military would be able to move,
> without fuel?
This is what sank Germany in WW II. At that time, Russia had the
largest oil reserve in the world - maybe still does, I dunno.
So here's what I'm wondering - if Germany went to war, in fact, to take
control of oil in other nations, and Stalin and his bunch stood their
ground well, does that make Stalin a good guy?
Wally
Keynes
Why is it that so many (even if they work hard)
can't support themselves, while others who don't
work at all have much more than they need?
Could it be that our society is basically unjust?
Wilson
Kitty P
We do have a different perspective. Why should even one person be homeless,
hungry, or without basic health care in the U.S. when billions of tax
dollars are being spent on a war?
Kitty
Kitty P
Sometimes...not often...I just want to take a pony whip to you Wilson.
Kitty
>
> --
> Wilson
> http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
>
>
Hidden Draggin
> "Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Yt6dnXCnQ6RrMZ3W...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > Keynes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:28:23 -0500, "Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Kitty P wrote:
> >>>> "Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:Lu2dnXOMxOsRrZ3W...@supernews.com...
> >>>>> daletx wrote:
> >>>>>> Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>>> daletx wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Kitty P wrote:
Oh...the image....the image...will you wear leather?
(pant pant)
Oh yeah...shiny black leather corset with the goodies
all pushed up?
I wish I was corrigible!
Hidden Draggin
Me...ME...ME....MEMEME FIRST!!! It might almost be like
actual human contact!
Keynes
There are those who can't hear screams of agony.
Kitty P
"Hidden Draggin" <ans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:842be234-9ed2-44e4...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
---
You are a rather incorrigible fella heh
Love
Playing favourites now? :(
--
Love
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Lee Rudolph
>On Nov 15, 11:21=A0pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes...not often...I just want to take a pony whip to you Wilson.
>> Kitty
>
>Oh...the image....the image...will you wear leather?
>(pant pant)
>Oh yeah...shiny black leather corset with the goodies
>all pushed up?
Maybe you should settle for following the advice of Konrad
Lorenz, as channeled by Dharmatroll, and discard a few pet
hypotheses every day before breakfast (Y,TIWWCIN).
>I wish I was corrigible!
Probably better than dirigible.
Lee "type B:Limp" Rudolph
Beerlet Dhiblang
> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:356a4542-ffaa-488c...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 13, 8:36 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > I should have been more specific. You actually believe that it is why the
> > U.S. did an unprovoked attack against the Country?
>
> You're claiming a premise that it was unprovoked.
>
> We had been in a functional state of war with Iraq since 1991. The
> armistice was a failed one as hostilities never ended.
>
> Whether it was practical, well executed or wise is another question,
> but by international law it was provoked.
>
> /l
> ---------------
>
> Ok - so go back to 1990. The Gulf War was initiated with United Nations
> Authorization and with many other nations assisting. The reason was to expel
> Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This war sort of started that way, but the other
> forces withdrew. The U.S. got support by stating that there were weapons of
> mass destruction and to provide in Bush's words, for a "...unified,
> democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain
> itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror." The other countries withdrew
> their forces when it became evident that there were no weapons. Since the
> U.S. didn't leave then, what is the difference between that and Iraq
> invading Kuwait?
> Kitty
It comes down to whether any failed armistice justifies increased
hostilities and invasion. Provoked? Technically, yes. Justified?
That's a separate argument. History appears to weigh in against some
(but not all) of the Bush admin's justifications for occupying Iraq.
My position on this is that if there were valid reasons to occupy Iraq
(and many on the left admitted as much), the fact that it was done
half-assed completely offset those justifications. Letting Saddam's
armies disperse and failing to secure ammo dumps were two significant
errors.
The duplicity of the French & Russians in the region should also be
noted, they have no qualms in dealing with genocidal tyrants (Sudan,
Iraq...) but the USA has been constrained from doing so. Meanwhile
we're supposed to play the new Rome/world cop. Our position as world
cop & lead energy consumer creates a real conundrum.
We're world cop b/c of our industrial wealth that is directly built on
energy consumption and we're obliged to defend Israel by way of our
U.N. obligations. But the USA benefits from oil trade but has been
expected to shoulder the burden from its side effects - increased
militarism in the Mid East - that threaten Israel.
The only way out of this mess is fusion power.
/l
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
> "Beerlet Dhiblang" <dodecapus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:356a4542-ffaa-488c...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 13, 8:36 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > I should have been more specific. You actually believe that it is why the
> > U.S. did an unprovoked attack against the Country?
>
> You're claiming a premise that it was unprovoked.
>
> We had been in a functional state of war with Iraq since 1991. The
> armistice was a failed one as hostilities never ended.
>
> Whether it was practical, well executed or wise is another question,
> but by international law it was provoked.
>
> /l
> ---------------
>
> Ok - so go back to 1990. The Gulf War was initiated with United Nations
> Authorization and with many other nations assisting. The reason was to expel
> Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This war sort of started that way, but the other
> forces withdrew. The U.S. got support by stating that there were weapons of
> mass destruction and to provide in Bush's words, for a "...unified,
> democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain
> itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror." The other countries withdrew
> their forces when it became evident that there were no weapons. Since the
> U.S. didn't leave then, what is the difference between that and Iraq
> invading Kuwait?
To answer your question directly the difference was the sanctions,
which were in direct response to genocide & the no fly zones over the
Kurd & Swamp Arab areas.
Aside from facile aspersions against the oily and duplicitous
Cheneyites (with the politicritical / hypocritical Dems playing
innocent with greenwashing), there're a bigger problem.
The U.N. can't keep relegating the USA as menial proxy and then
complain when the private cop force demonstrates more independence
than desired.
I'm not anti-war but the cost in blood & treasury in this venture have
far surpassed the worst-case outcomes promised by the Bushies. I don't
approve of the type of machinations that seek proxy conflict but if an
ulterior or surreptitious objective was to have a terror war of
attrition in the midst of Baghdad then it succeeded magnificently ...
or as Bush put it, "Bring it on."
/l
Wilson
>> Kitty P wrote:
>>>
>>> This is what interests me about conservative views that I've seen in
>>> the newspaper and occasional forays into Fox news. It seems that it
>>> is seen as a mission of goodwill and peace to reconstruct a country
>>> and culture that the U.S. has been bombed to smithereens. Yet it is
>>> unthinkable to provide food and shelter to the most vulnerable in
>>> the U.S.with those same tax dollars. Am I off on that?
>>>
>>> Kitty
>>
>>
>> I'm not a conservative, but I'd say that yes you are.
>>
>> I am sure that there are some who fall through the cracks of the
>> social programs we've put into place. But to listen to Democrat
>> party rhetoric it sounds as if thousands if not millions are
>> starving. That's just not the case. We do take care of our poor in
>> this country. That same political demonization tries to portray the
>> Republicans as against all of that and the majority of them clearly
>> are not.
>
> homeless, hungry, or without basic health care in the U.S. when
> billions of tax dollars are being spent on a war?
>
> Kitty
This world is not perfect nor is it perfectible. As a place of duality,
light makes shadows, mountains valleys. That is the nature of the
place.
I believe as long as we are trying to do the right thing we are on the
right path. There will always be problems to overcome. No matter how
good of a job we do, there will always be another step to take. And I
believe that is a blessing.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Kitty P
> http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
There you go - just ruining the potential for a good argument by reasonable
higher order talk :)
Kitty
Kitty P
/l
-----------
Perhaps another way out of this mess is to just stop. When people in our
lives are spinning out of control, it is reasonable to offer a life line. It
is not reasonable to take over their lives and try to get them to live as
we ourselves do in hopes that since it works for us it will work for them.
That's on a personal level. I don't think it's that big of a jump to apply
that concept to the U.S. We have become imperialists. War is appropriate to
protect our shores, but killing others for alternate agendas regarding
strategic military placement to be on top and show dominance, not unlike
dogs on the street, is wrong. Will the world blow itself up if the U.S.
doesn't intervene? I doubt it. Will others step in if it really is
necessary, and the U.S. doesn't? Probably. We are the bad guys. The American
people are better than that. It's time to stop.
Kitty
Kitty P
/l
-----
Isn't that all our problems? We have no idea what the real reasons were. I'm
not completely anti-war either. Strong borders are necessary, just as good
locks on our doors is necessary. Also, if the U.S. had invaded Darfur
instead - to help people - I would be singing a completely different tune.
Kitty
Beerlet Dhiblang
Well ... that's the quandary I feel at times. I also feel guilty about
being resigned to the state of things.
/l
Wilson
I just wish things were as simple as Kitty makes them seem.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Beerlet Dhiblang
I understand the sentiment.
It's tempting to dismiss criticisms about Iraq when France & Russia
continue patronizing Sudan and Dutch Shell, Nigeria. The criticisms of
the Reagan-era support for Saddam also ring hollow since the USA's
support amounted to 1% of the materiel supplied by France, Russia &
China.
We have other despotic or war-torn states that enjoy trade with the
right-thinking West, like Burma, Congo and so on.
Like other quandaries, this is a problem our politicrits daren't
broach for fear of Americans becoming too interested in politics.
Another one I like to remind people about is the role our Asian trade
deficits played in setting the conditions for the mortgage bubble &
resulting panic. That stemmed from China amassing a financial war
chest by raking us and/or beggaring her workers, to the tune of $2
Trillion US over the past two decades.
Keep that karma comin' baby, we like it wet & hard....
/l