Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Saddam should have been left in power
37 views
Skip to first unread message
saracene
Jan 24, 2017, 6:05:10 PM1/24/17
to
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-19/saddam-husseins-cia-interrogator-admits-being-convinced-he-should-have-been-left-pow
In a new book due to hit shelves later this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who was responsible for interrogating Saddam Hussein after he was captured in 2003, admits being convinced by the fallen dictator that he was best suited to rule Iraq. Per an excerpt published in Time Magazine, Nixon recalls an encounter with Hussein in which he warned that America would fail in Iraq because "you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind."
When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”
Saddam Hussein
While Nixon found Hussein "thoroughly unlikeable," he admits to walking away with a "grudging respect" for the fallen dictator's ability maintain the Iraqi nation through forced consensus.
Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”
Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.
Saddam also would have inevitably maintained a hostile stance toward Iran; he was very proud of his opposition to the Islamic Republic and reserved special contempt for the Shia in Iraq who would follow Iran’s guidance over his. Iraq is now very much the junior partner to a much emboldened Iranian regime that has expanded its military and security influence in the chaotic aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow and the aborted Arab Spring.
In a new book due to hit shelves later this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who was responsible for interrogating Saddam Hussein after he was captured in 2003, admits being convinced by the fallen dictator that he was best suited to rule Iraq. Per an excerpt published in Time Magazine, Nixon recalls an encounter with Hussein in which he warned that America would fail in Iraq because "you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind."
When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”
Saddam Hussein
While Nixon found Hussein "thoroughly unlikeable," he admits to walking away with a "grudging respect" for the fallen dictator's ability maintain the Iraqi nation through forced consensus.
Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”
Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.
Saddam also would have inevitably maintained a hostile stance toward Iran; he was very proud of his opposition to the Islamic Republic and reserved special contempt for the Shia in Iraq who would follow Iran’s guidance over his. Iraq is now very much the junior partner to a much emboldened Iranian regime that has expanded its military and security influence in the chaotic aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow and the aborted Arab Spring.
JNugent
Jan 24, 2017, 8:15:53 PM1/24/17
to
On 24/01/2017 23:05, saracene wrote:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-19/saddam-husseins-cia-interrogator-admits-being-convinced-he-should-have-been-left-pow
>
> In a new book due to hit shelves later this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who was responsible for interrogating Saddam Hussein after he was captured in 2003, admits being convinced by the fallen dictator that he was best suited to rule Iraq. Per an excerpt published in Time Magazine, Nixon recalls an encounter with Hussein in which he warned that America would fail in Iraq because "you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind."
>
> When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”
>
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-19/saddam-husseins-cia-interrogator-admits-being-convinced-he-should-have-been-left-pow
>
> In a new book due to hit shelves later this month, John Nixon, a former CIA officer who was responsible for interrogating Saddam Hussein after he was captured in 2003, admits being convinced by the fallen dictator that he was best suited to rule Iraq. Per an excerpt published in Time Magazine, Nixon recalls an encounter with Hussein in which he warned that America would fail in Iraq because "you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind."
>
> When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”
>
> While Nixon found Hussein "thoroughly unlikeable," he admits to walking away with a "grudging respect" for the fallen dictator's ability maintain the Iraqi nation through forced consensus.
>
> Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”
>
> Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.
>
>
> Saddam also would have inevitably maintained a hostile stance toward Iran; he was very proud of his opposition to the Islamic Republic and reserved special contempt for the Shia in Iraq who would follow Iran’s guidance over his. Iraq is now very much the junior partner to a much emboldened Iranian regime that has expanded its military and security influence in the chaotic aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow and the aborted Arab Spring.
I absolutely agree.
>
> Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”
>
> Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.
>
>
> Saddam also would have inevitably maintained a hostile stance toward Iran; he was very proud of his opposition to the Islamic Republic and reserved special contempt for the Shia in Iraq who would follow Iran’s guidance over his. Iraq is now very much the junior partner to a much emboldened Iranian regime that has expanded its military and security influence in the chaotic aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow and the aborted Arab Spring.
The world would be a safer place with Saddam and Gadaffi still in power
in their respective countries.
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 3:20:17 AM1/25/17
to
Andy Wainwright
Jan 25, 2017, 3:31:04 AM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:15:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
Neither dictator had a lot of time for Islamic extremism, and were actually quite effective in policing it. They were also tolerant of women and gays to a much greater extent than most Arab countries.
After the post 9-11 invasion, my late father said Iraq would turn into a fundamentalist Islamic state, which is pretty much true when it comes to IS.
zx80
Jan 25, 2017, 4:10:43 AM1/25/17
to
zx80
Jan 25, 2017, 4:36:05 AM1/25/17
to
gaddafi
etc --
2011 -- before cameron enforced his standards
"Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free …
for all its citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and
loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the
state pays the average salary of the profession as if he or she is
employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive
farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their
farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known
as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available
throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green
Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the
family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the
government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank
accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the
price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can
boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African
World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and
medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they
need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only
free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25%
of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150
billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.
Gaddafi wrote, “They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq and what
they are itching to do to Iran. They want to take back the oil, which was
nationalized by these country’s revolutions. They want to re-establish
military bases that were shut down by the revolutions and to install
client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to
imperialist corporate interests. All else is lies and deception.”
Finally, the gold bullion held by the Libyan Central Bank (March 2011)
was among the 25 largest reserves in the world, as reported by the
Financial Times, citing the International Monetary Fund. This provided
Libya a critical lifeline after billions of Libya’s assets were seized by
the United States and the 27 member states of the European Union.
Many believe the NATO-led invasion of Libya was/is about oil and a vast
wealth of other natural resources. Yet another critical element that few
are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a single
African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currency] Dr
James Thring stated, “It’s one of these things that you have to plan
almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over
from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted … There
were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. …
Most countries in Africa were keen.” This would have eradicated the US
Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.b"
etc --
2011 -- before cameron enforced his standards
"Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free …
for all its citizens.
• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and
loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the
state pays the average salary of the profession as if he or she is
employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive
farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their
farms – all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known
as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available
throughout the desert country.
• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green
Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the
family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the
government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank
accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the
price.
• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can
boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African
World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and
medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they
need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only
free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25%
of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150
billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.
Gaddafi wrote, “They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq and what
they are itching to do to Iran. They want to take back the oil, which was
nationalized by these country’s revolutions. They want to re-establish
military bases that were shut down by the revolutions and to install
client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to
imperialist corporate interests. All else is lies and deception.”
Finally, the gold bullion held by the Libyan Central Bank (March 2011)
was among the 25 largest reserves in the world, as reported by the
Financial Times, citing the International Monetary Fund. This provided
Libya a critical lifeline after billions of Libya’s assets were seized by
the United States and the 27 member states of the European Union.
Many believe the NATO-led invasion of Libya was/is about oil and a vast
wealth of other natural resources. Yet another critical element that few
are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a single
African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currency] Dr
James Thring stated, “It’s one of these things that you have to plan
almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over
from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted … There
were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. …
Most countries in Africa were keen.” This would have eradicated the US
Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.b"
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 5:03:55 AM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:36:05 AM UTC, zx80 wrote:
> gaddafi
> gaddafi
>
> Yet another critical element that few
> are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a single
> African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currency] Dr
> James Thring stated, “It’s one of these things that you have to plan
> almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over
> from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted … There
> were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. …
> Most countries in Africa were keen.” This would have eradicated the US
> Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.b"
That makes sense, of course. Saddam however was not removed for any clear American interest, though it may have been perceived as an Israeli interest. If that one was about oil it was again a miscalculation.
> Yet another critical element that few
> are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a single
> African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currency] Dr
> James Thring stated, “It’s one of these things that you have to plan
> almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over
> from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted … There
> were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. …
> Most countries in Africa were keen.” This would have eradicated the US
> Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.b"
newsreader crashed again
Jan 25, 2017, 5:09:02 AM1/25/17
to
On 25 Jan 2017 10:03 AM ,saracene <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:36:05 AM UTC, zx80 wrote:
> >=20
> > Yet another critical element that few=20
> > are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a single=
> =20
> > African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currency] Dr=
> =20
> > James Thring stated, =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s one of these things that you h=
> ave to plan=20
> > almost in secret, because as soon as you say you=E2=80=99re going to chan=
> ge over=20
> > from the dollar to something else, you=E2=80=99re going to be targeted =
> =E2=80=A6 There=20
> > were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. =E2=
> =80=A6=20
> > Most countries in Africa were keen.=E2=80=9D This would have eradicated t=
> he US=20
> > Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.b"
>
> That makes sense, of course. Saddam however was not removed for any clear A=
>
> merican interest, though it may have been perceived as an Israeli interest.=
> If that one was about oil it was again a miscalculation.
>
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
>
A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar - 'the currency of the enemy' - for the more multilateral euro.
The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time.
Almost all of Iraq's oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York.
The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.
At the time of the change the UN issued a report saying that the move could cost Iraq up to £270 million. Independent experts questioned the value of buying into a plummeting currency.
'It was seen as economically bad because the entire global oil trade is conducted in dollars,' says Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies.
The marked appreciation of the euro, higher interest rates, and the ability to pay mainly European suppliers in euros is believed to have made hundreds of millions for the Iraqi oil-for-food programme.
UN officials insist that this benefit helps to pay for humanitarian aid, war reparations, and the cost of weapons inspectors.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
newsreader crashed again
Jan 25, 2017, 5:12:17 AM1/25/17
to
"Washington must be getting nervous with the latest announcement from Iran?s state-owned oil company, the National Iranian Oil CO (NIOC) which declared that Iran will replace US dollars with Euros for its oil trades according to a Reuter?s news article titled ?Exclusive: Iran wants euro payment for new and outstanding oil sales ? source?. Iran wants something (well almost anything) to bypass the US dollar with other currencies because of Washington?s willingness to impose sanctions whenever it wants on the Iranian republic."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/currency-war-escalation-iran-wants-euros-instead-of-us-dollars-for-oil-payments/5506266
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 5:20:39 AM1/25/17
to
Joe Bloggs
Jan 25, 2017, 5:43:37 AM1/25/17
to
has been since Bretton Woods. That is all that keeps the American
economy from collapsing, and able to run a massive trade deficit. Most
countries that need to buy oil, i.e. almost all, have to buy dollars
from the US in order to do so. Dollars that they produce out of thin air
which gives them foreign exchange in return. That is why any country
that threatens not to go along with this imposition will find the US
getting very hostile towards them.
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 5:59:25 AM1/25/17
to
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 6:07:29 AM1/25/17
to
http://www.monetary.org/was-the-iraqi-shift-to-euro-currency-to-real-reason-for-war/2010/12
So that “distracting process” could have been a major war motive. (Remember how Richard Nixon tried to scramble the strategic air defense bombers, during the watergate disaster?) Throw in the oil-grab factor; throw in the Neo-Conservatives Middle East agenda shared by the evangelical Christians supporting Israel’s interests. Then too we’ve all been reminded (many times) that S. H. tried to kill Mr. Bushes’ daddy. Add in the Arab League’s now forgotten watershed peace initiative toward Israel last year and the problems that posed for the war parties on both sides, etc, etc, etc. Mix all these factors into an environment of panic over the World Trade Center disaster, and Voilà – Gulf war II.
Joe Bloggs
Jan 25, 2017, 6:15:01 AM1/25/17
to
wanting to remove any potential threat to them. It was certainly nothing
to with WMD, which was the flimsy excuse they employed.
This was certainly 'generally known' to those with an ounce of savvy. Of
course, that rules out the vast majority of the brainwashed and the
distracted.
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 6:23:27 AM1/25/17
to
> It was certainly nothing
> to with WMD, which was the flimsy excuse they employed.
>
> This was certainly 'generally known' to those with an ounce of savvy. Of
> course, that rules out the vast majority of the brainwashed and the
> distracted.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspiracy/
>
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspiracy/
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 6:39:30 AM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:23:25 -0800 (PST), saracene
interesting to see you national socialists trying to reassure one
another
--
www.abelard.org
another
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 6:44:19 AM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:39:30 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
> interesting to see you national socialists trying to reassure one
> another
>
>
I wonder what you think about the dollar theory? It would at least make your support for the war rational. But they I suppose if your loyalty were really to Israel that would also have a twisted logic to it.
>
> interesting to see you national socialists trying to reassure one
> another
>
>
Joe Bloggs
Jan 25, 2017, 6:45:23 AM1/25/17
to
Petrodollar, and with it the ability to create dollars at will to pay
for what it needs, the US would have serious problems dealing with its
massive trading deficit. As for the Saudis, etc, being able to sell oil
in whatever currency is convenient to them, the US was careful to
negotiate a very powerful agreement in 1974 with them to ensure that
they wouldn't.
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 6:48:36 AM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 03:44:18 -0800 (PST), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:39:30 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>>
>> interesting to see you national socialists trying to reassure one
>> another
>>
>>
>I wonder what you think about the dollar theory?
baloney...but i would be surprised not to see that one dragged
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:39:30 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>>
>> interesting to see you national socialists trying to reassure one
>> another
>>
>>
>I wonder what you think about the dollar theory?
up again with swedehead involved!
> It would at least make your support for the war rational. But they I suppose if your loyalty were really to Israel that would also have a twisted logic to it.
national socialist rationalisation
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 6:49:57 AM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:15:53 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>The world would be a safer place with Saddam and Gadaffi still in power
>in their respective countries.
so would a grave yard
--
www.abelard.org
wrote:
>The world would be a safer place with Saddam and Gadaffi still in power
>in their respective countries.
--
www.abelard.org
newsreader crashed again
Jan 25, 2017, 6:53:24 AM1/25/17
to
On 25 Jan 2017 11:23 AM ,saracene <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:15:01 AM UTC, Joe Bloggs wrote:
> > On 25-Jan-17 10:59 AM, saracene wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:43:37 AM UTC, Joe Bloggs wrote:
> > >> On 25-Jan-17 10:20 AM, saracene wrote:
> again wrote:
> > >>>> On 25 Jan 2017 10:03 AM ,saracene <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:36:05 AM UTC, zx80 wrote:
> > >>>>>> gaddafi=3D20
> > >>>> On 25 Jan 2017 10:03 AM ,saracene <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:36:05 AM UTC, zx80 wrote:
> > >>>>>> =3D20
> > >>>>>> Yet another critical element that few=3D20
> > >>>>>> are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a s=
> ingle=3D
> > >>>>> =3D20
> > >>>>>> African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currenc=
> y] Dr=3D
> > >>>>> =3D20
> > >>>>>> James Thring stated, =3DE2=3D80=3D9CIt=3DE2=3D80=3D99s one of thes=
> e things that you h=3D
> > >>>>> ave to plan=3D20
> > >>>>>> almost in secret, because as soon as you say you=3DE2=3D80=3D99re =
> going to chan=3D
> > >>>>> ge over=3D20
> > >>>>>> from the dollar to something else, you=3DE2=3D80=3D99re going to b=
> e targeted =3D
> > >>>>> =3DE2=3D80=3DA6 There=3D20
> > >>>>>> were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gadda=
> fi. =3DE2=3D
> > >>>>> =3D80=3DA6=3D20
> > >>>>>> Most countries in Africa were keen.=3DE2=3D80=3D9D This would have=
> eradicated t=3D
> > >>>>> he US=3D20
> > >>>>>> Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.b"
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That makes sense, of course. Saddam however was not removed for any=
> > >>>>>
> clear A=3D
> > >>>>> merican interest, though it may have been perceived as an Israeli i=
> nterest.=3D
> > >>>>> If that one was about oil it was again a miscalculation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a wi=
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
> > >>>>
> ndfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on du=
> mping the US dollar - 'the currency of the enemy' - for the more multilater=
> al euro.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the=
> euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministe=
> rs were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.=
> 08, up 30 per cent from that time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Almost all of Iraq's oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-fo=
> > >>>>
> od programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (=
> =C2=A317.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow a=
> ccount in New York.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a high=
> er rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> At the time of the change the UN issued a report saying that the mov=
> > >>>>
> e could cost Iraq up to =C2=A3270 million. Independent experts questioned t=
> he value of buying into a plummeting currency.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 'It was seen as economically bad because the entire global oil trade=
> > >>>>
> is conducted in dollars,' says Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the C=
> entre for Global Energy Studies.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The marked appreciation of the euro, higher interest rates, and the =
> > >>>>
> ability to pay mainly European suppliers in euros is believed to have made =
> hundreds of millions for the Iraqi oil-for-food programme.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> UN officials insist that this benefit helps to pay for humanitarian =
> > >>>>
> aid, war reparations, and the cost of weapons inspectors.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> I reember that one. Was that really such a clear American interest? I=
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> f it really was the reason for the war how long will it take before it is g=
> enerally known?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It is generally known.
> > >
> > > That that was the real reason for the Iraq war?
> >=20
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It is generally known.
> > >
> > > That that was the real reason for the Iraq war?
> > That and the controllers of US foreign policy (i.e. the Israelis)=20
> > wanting to remove any potential threat to them.
>
> That I think more likely, very discreditable and serving no real American i=
>
> ntersest.
>
> > It was certainly nothing=20
> > to with WMD, which was the flimsy excuse they employed.
> >=20
> > This was certainly 'generally known' to those with an ounce of savvy. Of=
> =20
> > course, that rules out the vast majority of the brainwashed and the=20
> > distracted.
>
> Here's another attack on the dollars theory:-
>
> http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspi=
>
> Here's another attack on the dollars theory:-
>
> racy/
> >=20
His argument that not pricing commodities in dollars would not harm the dollar is somewhat dented by the fall in that currency when the conspiracy was mentioned publicly.
> http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/07/debunking-the-dumping-the-dollar-conspi=
> racy/
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 6:57:05 AM1/25/17
to
> and were actually quite effective in policing it. They were also tolerant of women and gays to a much greater extent than most Arab countries.
>
>After the post 9-11 invasion, my late father said Iraq would turn into a fundamentalist Islamic state, which is pretty much true when it comes to IS.
see how long they last now...
supporting national socialist dictatorships is above all a venal short
term policy...
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 7:15:49 AM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:57:05 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:01 -0800 (PST), Andy Wainwright
> >
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:01 -0800 (PST), Andy Wainwright
> >
> >Neither dictator had a lot of time for Islamic extremism,
>
> with a worse form of extremism
>
Who says Muslim diactors are worse than IS excpet certain memebers of the Israeli government?
>
> with a worse form of extremism
>
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 7:20:43 AM1/25/17
to
you are such a confused fellow
perhaps it is your determination to bring israel into every
thread...
are you a muslim or a national socialist? or are you as
confused as o'barmy?
--
www.abelard.org
Oleg Smirnov
Jan 25, 2017, 7:53:22 AM1/25/17
to
saracene, <news:6be66c72-6bea-4fae...@googlegroups.com>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw>
.. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary
Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello
to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of
the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me
a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've
made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th
of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't
know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well,
did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No,
no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go
to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about
terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments."
And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has
to look like a nail."
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing
in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said,
"Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece
of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the
Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that
describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting
with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off,
Iran." ..
<http://tinyurl.com/pysrhzl> nytimes.com
.. In the summer of 2002, .. I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush.
(OS: "later revealed to be the sinister Karl Rove" <https://clck.ru/AVz2e>, a
neoconservative, as it should be.) He .. told me something that at the time I
didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of
the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the
reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that
solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded
and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut
me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again,
creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to
just study what we do." ..
...
There might be a few particular resons, but the very basic reason seemed to be
such a dense delusion and detachment from reality, which can be metaphorically
likened to a state of severe drug intoxication.
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:15:53 AM UTC, JNugent
>> The world would be a safer place with Saddam and Gadaffi still in power in
>> their respective countries.
>
> I think this was quite clear to many intelligent lay people at the time. Ths
> stupidity (or worse) of the American policy makers was disturbing.
Worth a recall once again.
>> their respective countries.
>
> I think this was quite clear to many intelligent lay people at the time. Ths
> stupidity (or worse) of the American policy makers was disturbing.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw>
.. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary
Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello
to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of
the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me
a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've
made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th
of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't
know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well,
did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No,
no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go
to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about
terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments."
And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has
to look like a nail."
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing
in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said,
"Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece
of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the
Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that
describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting
with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off,
Iran." ..
<http://tinyurl.com/pysrhzl> nytimes.com
.. In the summer of 2002, .. I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush.
(OS: "later revealed to be the sinister Karl Rove" <https://clck.ru/AVz2e>, a
neoconservative, as it should be.) He .. told me something that at the time I
didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of
the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the
reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that
solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded
and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut
me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again,
creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to
just study what we do." ..
...
There might be a few particular resons, but the very basic reason seemed to be
such a dense delusion and detachment from reality, which can be metaphorically
likened to a state of severe drug intoxication.
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 7:59:12 AM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:52:30 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu>
wrote:
>There might be a few particular resons, but the very basic reason seemed to be
>such a dense delusion and detachment from reality, which can be metaphorically
>likened to a state of severe drug intoxication.
you are the deluded one
--
www.abelard.org
wrote:
>There might be a few particular resons, but the very basic reason seemed to be
>such a dense delusion and detachment from reality, which can be metaphorically
>likened to a state of severe drug intoxication.
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 10:13:13 AM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:20:43 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:15:48 -0800 (PST), saracene
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:57:05 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:01 -0800 (PST), Andy Wainwright
> >
> >> >
> >> >Neither dictator had a lot of time for Islamic extremism,
> >>
> >> with a worse form of extremism
> >>
> >Who says Muslim diactors are worse than IS excpet certain memebers of the Israeli government?
>
> i.s. are attempting to be muslim dictators
>
> you are such a confused fellow
Prehpas I missed word out. Something like "established". But you know what I mean.
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:15:48 -0800 (PST), saracene
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:57:05 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:01 -0800 (PST), Andy Wainwright
> >
> >> >
> >> >Neither dictator had a lot of time for Islamic extremism,
> >>
> >> with a worse form of extremism
> >>
> >Who says Muslim diactors are worse than IS excpet certain memebers of the Israeli government?
>
> i.s. are attempting to be muslim dictators
>
> you are such a confused fellow
>
> perhaps it is your determination to bring israel into every
> thread...
>
> are you a muslim or a national socialist? or are you as
> confused as o'barmy?
>
Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
> perhaps it is your determination to bring israel into every
> thread...
>
> are you a muslim or a national socialist? or are you as
> confused as o'barmy?
>
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 10:16:45 AM1/25/17
to
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 10:44:48 AM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:53:22 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the
> reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that
> solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded
> and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut
> me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued.
> "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
> you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again,
> creating other new realities, which you can study too, "
Good to be reminded of that with all this current talk of "post truth".
>The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the
> reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that
> solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded
> and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut
> me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued.
> "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
> you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again,
> creating other new realities, which you can study too, "
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 11:37:48 AM1/25/17
to
you are not a 'we'
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 11:38:40 AM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:13:12 -0800 (PST), saracene
--
www.abelard.org
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:20:43 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:15:48 -0800 (PST), saracene
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:57:05 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:01 -0800 (PST), Andy Wainwright
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Neither dictator had a lot of time for Islamic extremism,
>> >>
>> >> with a worse form of extremism
>> >>
>> >Who says Muslim diactors are worse than IS excpet certain memebers of the Israeli government?
>>
>> i.s. are attempting to be muslim dictators
>>
>> you are such a confused fellow
>
>Prehpas I missed word out. Something like "established". But you know what I mean.
>>
>> perhaps it is your determination to bring israel into every
>> thread...
>>
>> are you a muslim or a national socialist? or are you as
>> confused as o'barmy?
>>
>Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
it's baloney
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:20:43 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:15:48 -0800 (PST), saracene
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:57:05 AM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:01 -0800 (PST), Andy Wainwright
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Neither dictator had a lot of time for Islamic extremism,
>> >>
>> >> with a worse form of extremism
>> >>
>> >Who says Muslim diactors are worse than IS excpet certain memebers of the Israeli government?
>>
>> i.s. are attempting to be muslim dictators
>>
>> you are such a confused fellow
>
>Prehpas I missed word out. Something like "established". But you know what I mean.
>>
>> perhaps it is your determination to bring israel into every
>> thread...
>>
>> are you a muslim or a national socialist? or are you as
>> confused as o'barmy?
>>
>Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 12:29:38 PM1/25/17
to
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 12:31:23 PM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >>
> >Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
>
> it's baloney
I don't agree with it either.
> >>
> >Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
>
> it's baloney
>
>
So what were the real resons for the war IYVHO? I am really curious.
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 12:36:30 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:29:37 -0800 (PST), saracene
while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
diminishing small...
for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
then get yourself an appropriate map and meditate long on it....
then consider your dependence on oil....
you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
then there are several other reasons and purposes...and you
have already run out of boxes....
and still you have no input channel....
so where is the point??
>> you are not a 'we'
--
www.abelard.org
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:37:48 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:16:43 -0800 (PST), saracene
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:59:12 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:52:30 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >There might be a few particular resons, but the very basic reason seemed to be
>> >> >such a dense delusion and detachment from reality, which can be metaphorically
>> >> >likened to a state of severe drug intoxication.
>> >>
>> >> you are the deluded one
>> >>
>> >Tell us what you beleive about the real reasons for the war, so we can all see what an imbecile you either are or are pretending to be.
>>
>> the likelihood that you will 'see' anything is diminishing small
>
>Tell me then. The "we" referred to the forum.
'the forum' is not a 'we'
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:37:48 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:16:43 -0800 (PST), saracene
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:59:12 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:52:30 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov" <os...@netc.eu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >There might be a few particular resons, but the very basic reason seemed to be
>> >> >such a dense delusion and detachment from reality, which can be metaphorically
>> >> >likened to a state of severe drug intoxication.
>> >>
>> >> you are the deluded one
>> >>
>> >Tell us what you beleive about the real reasons for the war, so we can all see what an imbecile you either are or are pretending to be.
>>
>> the likelihood that you will 'see' anything is diminishing small
>
>Tell me then. The "we" referred to the forum.
while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
diminishing small...
for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
then get yourself an appropriate map and meditate long on it....
then consider your dependence on oil....
you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
then there are several other reasons and purposes...and you
have already run out of boxes....
and still you have no input channel....
so where is the point??
>> you are not a 'we'
www.abelard.org
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 12:38:51 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:31:22 -0800 (PST), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> >Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
>>
>> it's baloney
>
>I don't agree with it either.
then perhaps you are not beyond salvation
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> >Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
>>
>> it's baloney
>
>I don't agree with it either.
>So what were the real resons for the war IYVHO? I am really curious.
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 12:56:38 PM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:36:30 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >Tell me then. The "we" referred to the forum.
>
> 'the forum' is not a 'we'
Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
> >Tell me then. The "we" referred to the forum.
>
> 'the forum' is not a 'we'
>
> while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
> diminishing small...
No need to squirma dn wriggle like that, just state your case explicitly. Lay your cards on the table.
> while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
> diminishing small...
>
> for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
Why does everyone call it the Second Gulf War? Did the US hold any sovereignty over Iraq that would justify a claim to police it?
> for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
>
> then get yourself an appropriate map and meditate long on it....
There is no need for that. I could ask you to meditate on the nature of the Arab mind, your understanding or appreciation of that relevant factor being approximately zero.
> then get yourself an appropriate map and meditate long on it....
>
> then consider your dependence on oil....
So you adhere to the oil theory, or one of them? Once I thought it must be to do with the US desire to secure Iraqui oilfields for itself against the risk of losing Saudi ones to revolution.
> then consider your dependence on oil....
I take it you disagree with then Australian Prime Minister John Howard "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
>
> you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
> at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
>
> then there are several other reasons and purposes...
Tell me them. Has Israel anythign to do with them? Or Bush's macho desire to outdo his dad?
> you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
> at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
>
> then there are several other reasons and purposes...
>and you
> have already run out of boxes....
> and still you have no input channel....
>
> so where is the point??
>
>
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 12:58:52 PM1/25/17
to
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 1:11:12 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:56:35 -0800 (PST), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:36:30 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>> >Tell me then. The "we" referred to the forum.
>>
>> 'the forum' is not a 'we'
>
>Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
ho hum...you only have the most vague comprehension of
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:36:30 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>> >Tell me then. The "we" referred to the forum.
>>
>> 'the forum' is not a 'we'
>
>Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
what others 'think' on 'the subject'
>> while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
>> diminishing small...
>
>No need to squirma dn wriggle like that, just state your case explicitly. Lay your cards on the table.
as stated, you lack an input channel
>> for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
>
>Why does everyone call it the Second Gulf War?
>Did the US hold any sovereignty over Iraq that would justify a claim to police it?
'nations'
under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...it was a prison owned
by a madman...
look at you...you believe every shallow category instilled by your
culture...
how do you hope to think independently while you are ruled by
such/your boxes?
>> then get yourself an appropriate map and meditate long on it....
>
>There is no need for that. I could ask you to meditate on the nature of the Arab mind, your understanding or appreciation of that relevant factor being approximately zero.
>> then consider your dependence on oil....
>
>So you adhere to the oil theory, or one of them? Once I thought it must be to do with the US desire to secure Iraqui oilfields for itself against the risk of losing Saudi ones to revolution.
>I take it you disagree with then Australian Prime Minister John Howard "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
you even have some outlandish belief in some abstract 'reason' or
reasons...
every person is an individual....and thus have their own 'reasons'
>> you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
>> at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
>>
>> then there are several other reasons and purposes...
>
>Tell me them. Has Israel anythign to do with them? Or Bush's macho desire to outdo his dad?
'israel' is not a person...
and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
>>and you
>> have already run out of boxes....
>> and still you have no input channel....
>>
>> so where is the point??
>You are merely being evasive.
that you are entrapped by/within
>Why don't you come out with and admit your naive neocon aganda? Are you into post realtiy?
what is 'post reality'?
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 1:11:56 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:58:50 -0800 (PST), saracene
--
www.abelard.org
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:38:51 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:31:22 -0800 (PST), saracene
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>>
>> >> >Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
>> >>
>> >> it's baloney
>> >
>> >I don't agree with it either.
>>
>> then perhaps you are not beyond salvation
>>
>> >So what were the real resons for the war IYVHO? I am really curious.
>>
>> see above
>You haven't given any. You just dropped hints it was something to do with oil and some other factors.
ho hum
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:38:51 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:31:22 -0800 (PST), saracene
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>>
>> >> >Tell us what you think of the dollar theory.
>> >>
>> >> it's baloney
>> >
>> >I don't agree with it either.
>>
>> then perhaps you are not beyond salvation
>>
>> >So what were the real resons for the war IYVHO? I am really curious.
>>
>> see above
>You haven't given any. You just dropped hints it was something to do with oil and some other factors.
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 2:21:07 PM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:11:12 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >
> >Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
>
> ho hum...you only have the most vague comprehension of
> what others 'think' on 'the subject'
I know that very very few agree with you.
> >
> >Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
>
> ho hum...you only have the most vague comprehension of
> what others 'think' on 'the subject'
>
> >> while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
> >> diminishing small...
> >
> >No need to squirma dn wriggle like that, just state your case explicitly. Lay your cards on the table.
>
> already done many times over several years
I am asking you now. If your beliefs on thie matter were nothing to be ashamed of you could not only state them clearly but put up an honest defence
> >> while the he likelihood that you will 'see' anything remains
> >> diminishing small...
> >
> >No need to squirma dn wriggle like that, just state your case explicitly. Lay your cards on the table.
>
> already done many times over several years
>
> as stated, you lack an input channel
>
> >> for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
> >
> >Why does everyone call it the Second Gulf War?
>
> because they have poor judgement
Everyone except you?
> as stated, you lack an input channel
>
> >> for your starter, it wasn't a 'war'...it was a police action...
> >
> >Why does everyone call it the Second Gulf War?
>
> because they have poor judgement
>
> >Did the US hold any sovereignty over Iraq that would justify a claim to police it?
>
> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
> 'nations'
No. There is war.
> >Did the US hold any sovereignty over Iraq that would justify a claim to police it?
>
> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
> 'nations'
> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
>it was a prison owned
> by a madman...
>
> look at you...you believe every shallow category instilled by your
> culture...
Like what? Tell me some of the categories you want to revise?
> look at you...you believe every shallow category instilled by your
> culture...
>
> how do you hope to think independently while you are ruled by
> such/your boxes?
>
> how do you hope to think independently while you are ruled by
> such/your boxes?
>
> >There is no need for that. I could ask you to meditate on the nature of the Arab mind, your understanding or appreciation of that relevant factor being approximately zero.
>
> rotfl...there is no 'arab mind' outside your boxes...
Sadam thought there was. You have an American insularity.
>
> rotfl...there is no 'arab mind' outside your boxes...
>
> >> then consider your dependence on oil....
> >
> >So you adhere to the oil theory, or one of them? Once I thought it must be to do with the US desire to secure Iraqui oilfields for itself against the risk of losing Saudi ones to revolution.
>
> what difference does it make?
Does what make? My current position is that feeling itself to be the sovereign power the clique in charge of America's government felt it could do what it felt like doing, without the need to be particularly rational. That's the best justification I can come up with. But of course many motives and factors come into play, as with Britain's decision to go to war in 1939. One I have not far mentioned was revenge for 9/11, kicking some Mulsim ass. There's a broad category for you.
> >> then consider your dependence on oil....
> >
> >So you adhere to the oil theory, or one of them? Once I thought it must be to do with the US desire to secure Iraqui oilfields for itself against the risk of losing Saudi ones to revolution.
>
> what difference does it make?
>
> >I take it you disagree with then Australian Prime Minister John Howard "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
>
> i am not responsible for howard any more than i am responsible for you
You disagree with him profoundly though. He would presumably account you an outrageous cynic.
> >I take it you disagree with then Australian Prime Minister John Howard "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
>
> i am not responsible for howard any more than i am responsible for you
>
> you even have some outlandish belief in some abstract 'reason' or
> reasons...
> every person is an individual....and thus have their own 'reasons'
That's your personal pseudophilosophical bollocks. I hold no such outlandish belief.
> you even have some outlandish belief in some abstract 'reason' or
> reasons...
> every person is an individual....and thus have their own 'reasons'
>
> >> you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
> >> at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
> >>
> >> then there are several other reasons and purposes...
> >
> >Tell me them. Has Israel anythign to do with them? Or Bush's macho desire to outdo his dad?
>
> there you go again!!...no input channel...i can't read minds
So even in hindsight you can give all your support to a war policy without even knowing or caring whether or not Israel's objectives or Bush's ego were the tipping factors?
> >> you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
> >> at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
> >>
> >> then there are several other reasons and purposes...
> >
> >Tell me them. Has Israel anythign to do with them? Or Bush's macho desire to outdo his dad?
>
> there you go again!!...no input channel...i can't read minds
>
> 'israel' is not a person...
Pedantic irrelevance. Nor is Iraq, nor the US.
> 'israel' is not a person...
>
> and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
And nor do you appear to care. You have your own silly reasons for endorsing the war.
> and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
>
> >You are merely being evasive.
>
> no i am not...
You are. You are wriggling and squriming.
> >You are merely being evasive.
>
> no i am not...
>i just do not have the illusions that you harbour...
> that you are entrapped by/within
>
> >Why don't you come out with and admit your naive neocon agenda? Are you into post realtiy?
>
> no input channel again...what is a 'neocon'?
What Fukuyame was explicating before he changed his mind about it.
> no input channel again...what is a 'neocon'?
> what is 'post reality'?
>
>
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 2:47:27 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:21:05 -0800 (PST), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:11:12 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
>>
>> ho hum...you only have the most vague comprehension of
>> what others 'think' on 'the subject'
>
>I know that very very few agree with you.
you have no idea
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:11:12 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Why not? I speak for myself and a number of others who think as I do on this subject.
>>
>> ho hum...you only have the most vague comprehension of
>> what others 'think' on 'the subject'
>
>I know that very very few agree with you.
you have loose screws...so i'm going to cut much of your emotional
posturing
>>it was a prison owned
>> by a madman...
>
>I don't accept that, but even if it was, how does it become America's right to invade it?
>> >There is no need for that. I could ask you to meditate on the nature of the Arab mind, your understanding or appreciation of that relevant factor being approximately zero.
>>
>> rotfl...there is no 'arab mind' outside your boxes...
>
>Sadam thought there was. You have an American insularity.
>> >I take it you disagree with then Australian Prime Minister John Howard "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
>>
>> i am not responsible for howard any more than i am responsible for you
>
>You disagree with him profoundly though. He would presumably account you an outrageous cynic.
>> >> you see? what is the point, you can't hold two things in your head
>> >> at one time...and at 3 that already exceeds your capacity...
>> >>
>> >> then there are several other reasons and purposes...
>> >
>> >Tell me them. Has Israel anythign to do with them? Or Bush's macho desire to outdo his dad?
>>
>> there you go again!!...no input channel...i can't read minds
>
>So even in hindsight you can give all your support to a war policy without even knowing or caring whether or not Israel's objectives or Bush's ego were the tipping factors?
>> and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
>
>And nor do you appear to care.
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 3:33:17 PM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:47:27 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >
> >I know that very very few agree with you.
>
> you have no idea
Wrong. I do read the posts here.
> >
> >I know that very very few agree with you.
>
> you have no idea
>
> you have loose screws...so i'm going to cut much of your emotional
> posturing
And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
> you have loose screws...so i'm going to cut much of your emotional
> posturing
> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
> 'nations'
No. There is war.
> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
Under what presumptuos theory was that? Thomas Aquinas'?
>
> >>it was a prison owned
> >> by a madman...
> >
> >I don't accept that, but even if it was, how does it become America's right to invade it?
>
> they had the will and the ability
>
> >Sadam thought there was. You have an American insularity.
>
> you can't read madsam's 'mind' either
You are always going on irrlevantly about reading minds. His words and views are out there for anyone to read.
> >Sadam thought there was. You have an American insularity.
>
> you can't read madsam's 'mind' either
>
>>
> >> i am not responsible for howard any more than i am responsible for you
> >
> >You disagree with him profoundly though. He would presumably account you an outrageous cynic.
>
> why would i care?
It's of interest to me. It gives you a place on the spectrum. A little box to fit you.
>>
> >> i am not responsible for howard any more than i am responsible for you
> >
> >You disagree with him profoundly though. He would presumably account you an outrageous cynic.
>
> why would i care?
>
> >So even in hindsight you can give all your support to a war policy without even knowing or caring whether or not Israel's objectives or Bush's ego were the tipping factors?
>
> certainly
So it's your own war, your own cause. Weren't we originally talking about the real reasons why America went to war? The question was both what those were and whether you agreed with them. Now that is apparently irrelevant to you.
> >So even in hindsight you can give all your support to a war policy without even knowing or caring whether or not Israel's objectives or Bush's ego were the tipping factors?
>
> certainly
>
> >> and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
> >
> >And nor do you appear to care.
>
> too right i don't care...
>
You have your belligerent neo-con agenda. Also all your motives are supposed to be selfish. You really are a confused chappie.
> >> and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
> >
> >And nor do you appear to care.
>
> too right i don't care...
>
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 3:50:03 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:33:16 -0800 (PST), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:47:27 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >I know that very very few agree with you.
>>
>> you have no idea
>
>Wrong. I do read the posts here.
>>
>> you have loose screws...so i'm going to cut much of your emotional
>> posturing
>
>And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
>
>> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
>> 'nations'
>
>No. There is war.
oh no there isn't
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:47:27 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >I know that very very few agree with you.
>>
>> you have no idea
>
>Wrong. I do read the posts here.
>>
>> you have loose screws...so i'm going to cut much of your emotional
>> posturing
>
>And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
>
>> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
>> 'nations'
>
>No. There is war.
>> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
>
>Under what presumptuos theory was that? Thomas Aquinas'?
>
>Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
>> >>it was a prison owned
>> >> by a madman...
>> >
>> >I don't accept that, but even if it was, how does it become America's right to invade it?
>>
>> they had the will and the ability
>
>So did Hitler with Poland and Czechoslavaka. But they didn't have the ability to ensure peace and good government. In their stupidity and hubris they fucked up.
have very little similarity
I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the
fire, churchill House of Commons, 7 July 1927
>> >Sadam thought there was. You have an American insularity.
>>
>> you can't read madsam's 'mind' either
>
>You are always going on irrlevantly about reading minds. His words and views are out there for anyone to read.
every person who uses words means something only they fully
understand or define...
further, you're daft enough to believe a mad socialist dictator
>> >> i am not responsible for howard any more than i am responsible for you
>> >
>> >You disagree with him profoundly though. He would presumably account you an outrageous cynic.
>>
>> why would i care?
>
>It's of interest to me. It gives you a place on the spectrum. A little box to fit you.
>> >So even in hindsight you can give all your support to a war policy without even knowing or caring whether or not Israel's objectives or Bush's ego were the tipping factors?
>>
>> certainly
>
>So it's your own war, your own cause. Weren't we originally talking about the real reasons why America went to war? The question was both what those were and whether you agreed with them. Now that is apparently irrelevant to you.
further...at the relevant time...the governments agreed with me
by virtue of the fact they *acted* in accord with my wishes...
not yours...
like the remoaners, you socialists have been whining ever since...
you lost
>> >> and i have no idea of what occurred in bush's head...
>> >
>> >And nor do you appear to care.
>>
>> too right i don't care...
>>
>You have your belligerent neo-con agenda. Also all your motives are supposed to be selfish. You really are a confused chappie.
it is you who is confused...what you now(later) wanted did
no occur...
and now you keep on doing your remoaner act...
it won't change the fact that you lost
it won't change the fact that another murderous socialist was expunged
you should adjust to reality...not you loose screw theories!
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
Jan 25, 2017, 6:17:41 PM1/25/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:50:03 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
> >
> >> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
> >> 'nations'
> >
> >No. There is war.
>
> oh no there isn't
Isn't that a box which encourages involvement in other nations? You amaze me.
> >And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
> >
> >> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
> >> 'nations'
> >
> >No. There is war.
>
> oh no there isn't
>
> >> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
> >
> >Under what presumptuos theory was that? Thomas Aquinas'?
> >
> >Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
>
> certainly i believe in just war
So you have a philosophy of international law. A mediaeval one it would seem.
> >> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
> >
> >Under what presumptuos theory was that? Thomas Aquinas'?
> >
> >Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
>
> certainly i believe in just war
> >So did Hitler with Poland and Czechoslavaka. But they didn't have the ability to ensure peace and good government. In their stupidity and hubris they fucked up.
>
> your boxes lead you into trying to equate things which
> have very little similarity
>
> I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the
> fire, churchill House of Commons, 7 July 1927
A convenient and very false analogy. Saddam was no threat to the west. Or is your heart still bleeding for all the Iraqis he oppressed?
> I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the
> fire, churchill House of Commons, 7 July 1927
>
> >You are always going on irrelevantly about reading minds. His words and views are out there for anyone to read.
>
> no input channel yet again...
No inputting of irrelevant crap.
> no input channel yet again...
>
> every person who uses words means something only they fully
> understand or define...
More cod philosophy.
> every person who uses words means something only they fully
> understand or define...
>
> further, you're daft enough to believe a mad socialist dictator
And you are so prejudiced you can't give credit where it is due.
> further, you're daft enough to believe a mad socialist dictator
>
>
> >
> >It's of interest to me. It gives you a place on the spectrum. A little box to fit you.
>
> the box is...i don't care!
Don't care was made to care. Very defensive you are. Do you think I care that you don't care?
>
> >
> >It's of interest to me. It gives you a place on the spectrum. A little box to fit you.
>
> the box is...i don't care!
>
> >So it's your own war, your own cause. Weren't we originally talking about the real reasons why America went to war? The question was both what those were and whether you agreed with them. Now that is apparently irrelevant to you.
>
> 'america' is not a person...every person has their own reasons
Only a few people had the power.
> >So it's your own war, your own cause. Weren't we originally talking about the real reasons why America went to war? The question was both what those were and whether you agreed with them. Now that is apparently irrelevant to you.
>
> 'america' is not a person...every person has their own reasons
>
> further...at the relevant time...the governments agreed with me
> by virtue of the fact they *acted* in accord with my wishes...
Like if it rains and I wanted it to then God has done what I wanted.
> further...at the relevant time...the governments agreed with me
> by virtue of the fact they *acted* in accord with my wishes...
> not yours...
The American government is not my government.
>
> like the remoaners, you socialists have been whining ever since...
>
> you lost
I told you I supported the war Britian's decision to support America. I just think it's humilating not to be clear about our reasons.
> like the remoaners, you socialists have been whining ever since...
>
> you lost
>
> >>
> >You have your belligerent neo-con agenda. Also all your motives are supposed to be selfish. You really are a confused chappie.
>
> what i intended occurred...
Iraq devastated and plunged into civil war? Ancient monuments destroyed? Isis appearing? Are you proud of all that?
> >>
> >You have your belligerent neo-con agenda. Also all your motives are supposed to be selfish. You really are a confused chappie.
>
> what i intended occurred...
>
> it is you who is confused...what you now(later) wanted did
> no occur...
> and now you keep on doing your remoaner act...
A pitiful analogy. I'm not whining; I'm enjoying plunging the knife into you.
> it is you who is confused...what you now(later) wanted did
> no occur...
> and now you keep on doing your remoaner act...
>
> it won't change the fact that you lost
> it won't change the fact that another murderous socialist was expunged
Together with many thouands of innocent people.
> it won't change the fact that you lost
> it won't change the fact that another murderous socialist was expunged
abelard
Jan 25, 2017, 6:26:53 PM1/25/17
to
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:17:40 -0800 (PST), saracene
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:50:03 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>> >And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
>> >
>> >> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
>> >> 'nations'
>> >
>> >No. There is war.
>>
>> oh no there isn't
>
>Isn't that a box which encourages involvement in other nations? You amaze me.
>>
>> >> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
>> >
>> >Under what presumptuos theory was that? Thomas Aquinas'?
>> >
>> >Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
>>
>> certainly i believe in just war
>
>So you have a philosophy of international law. A mediaeval one it would seem.
not one...not one box...
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:50:03 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
>
>> >And I'll restore just this bit, which I think deserves an answer:-
>> >
>> >> that is not the only box that encourages involvement in other
>> >> 'nations'
>> >
>> >No. There is war.
>>
>> oh no there isn't
>
>Isn't that a box which encourages involvement in other nations? You amaze me.
>>
>> >> under madsam irak was not a legitimate nation...
>> >
>> >Under what presumptuos theory was that? Thomas Aquinas'?
>> >
>> >Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
>>
>> certainly i believe in just war
>
>So you have a philosophy of international law. A mediaeval one it would seem.
you want a world simple enough for you to manage...
i don't live in such a simplistic model
>> >So did Hitler with Poland and Czechoslavaka. But they didn't have the ability to ensure peace and good government. In their stupidity and hubris they fucked up.
>>
>> your boxes lead you into trying to equate things which
>> have very little similarity
>
>They show a close similarity in certain relevant respects.
next you'll tell me russia is like rhubarb because the both start with
an 'r'!
>> I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the
>> fire, churchill House of Commons, 7 July 1927
>
>A convenient and very false analogy. Saddam was no threat to the west. Or is your heart still bleeding for all the Iraqis he oppressed?
you make empty assertions with the confidence of a lunatic
>> it won't change the fact that you lost
>> it won't change the fact that another murderous socialist was expunged
>
>Together with many thouands of innocent people.
your interminable emotionalism again expunged
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
Jan 25, 2017, 9:31:05 PM1/25/17
to
On 25/01/2017 11:49, abelard wrote:
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> The world would be a safer place with Saddam and Gadaffi still in power
>> in their respective countries.
> so would a grave yard
...whatever that's supposed to mean.
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> The world would be a safer place with Saddam and Gadaffi still in power
>> in their respective countries.
...whatever that's supposed to mean.
saracene
Jan 26, 2017, 3:53:42 AM1/26/17
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:26:53 PM UTC, abelard wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
> >>
> >> certainly i believe in just war
> >
> >So you have a philosophy of international law. A mediaeval one it would seem.
>
> not one...not one box...
> you want a world simple enough for you to manage...
International law is something that needs a coherent foundation. You speak up for incoherence and mysterious dogmatism.
> >> >
> >> >Do you espouse some mediaeval theory of "just war"? I wouldn't put it past you. Do you have a philosophy of international law?
> >>
> >> certainly i believe in just war
> >
> >So you have a philosophy of international law. A mediaeval one it would seem.
>
> not one...not one box...
> you want a world simple enough for you to manage...
>
> i don't live in such a simplistic model
>
> >> >So did Hitler with Poland and Czechoslavaka. But they didn't have the ability to ensure peace and good government. In their stupidity and hubris they fucked up.
> >>
> >> your boxes lead you into trying to equate things which
> >> have very little similarity
> >
> >They show a close similarity in certain relevant respects.
>
> bollox
>
> next you'll tell me russia is like rhubarb because the both start with
> an 'r'!
>
> >> I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the
> >> fire, churchill House of Commons, 7 July 1927
> >
> >A convenient and very false analogy. Saddam was no threat to the west. Or is your heart still bleeding for all the Iraqis he oppressed?
>
> incredible...quite incredible...
> you make empty assertions with the confidence of a lunatic
There were not WMDs. If you believe he presented a threat, to the west, not just Israel, it is up to you to explain how.
> >> I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the
> >> fire, churchill House of Commons, 7 July 1927
> >
> >A convenient and very false analogy. Saddam was no threat to the west. Or is your heart still bleeding for all the Iraqis he oppressed?
>
> incredible...quite incredible...
> you make empty assertions with the confidence of a lunatic
>
> >> it won't change the fact that you lost
> >> it won't change the fact that another murderous socialist was expunged
> >
> >Together with many thouands of innocent people.
>
> yes, some of them were doubtless 'innocent'
Most of them people wanting to live their lives, bring up their children safely etc.
> >> it won't change the fact that you lost
> >> it won't change the fact that another murderous socialist was expunged
> >
> >Together with many thouands of innocent people.
>
> yes, some of them were doubtless 'innocent'
>
> your interminable emotionalism again expunged
>
>
Delete what you like, but you lying if you say that's all you deleted.
> your interminable emotionalism again expunged
>
>
0 new messages