Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 18:11:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
939 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Hmmm, I wouldn't say that it firmly belongs on Saddam, I think the U.S. took
> the role of the trouble-maker kid on the playground saying "Ooooh, he's
> talkin' 'bout yo mama." There's a lot of underhanded U.S. stuff that went
> on, such as the bugs in Iraq's air defense system that was installed way
> before the invasion of Kuwait. The fact that we were preparing for a desert
> war 3 years before also speaks to the point that we make create our enemies.
Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not
the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to
orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's
feet. You're not really linking the skullduggery to the act - all it seems
you are offering is just it's-all-a-conspiracy vagueness. I'm not saying
that there isn't sneaky stuff happening, but whitewashing Saddam over what
was ultimately his decision seems the apologist route.
>
> > Are you saying that "real" arabs wanted Saddam in control of Kuwait?
> > Without a doubt they were uncomfortable with a western power mucking about
> > directly in the middle east (and with good reason), but your dismissal of
> > the decision as meer puppetry is simplistic.
>
> Well, from this Arab's perspective, the Saudis and Kuwaitis are like the
> "rednecks" of the Arab world. They're a bunch of ignorant, culturally
> bankrupt stooges, put in power by the British and kept there by America for
> the sake of oil.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand you are sceptical of the Saudis and
Kuwaitis - does the *rest* of the arab world support Saddam snatching Kuwait?
> Well, I'm just taking the common sense angle that the upper atmosphere is
> generally an undisturbed area of the earth. Sure, the occassional meteor or
> magnetic storm may come along but for the most part that region is left
> alone. So, who knows what sort of problems may be created by increasing
> launches? We know the ozone layer is already fragile, what effect does the
> combustion of a rocket have as it travels through this layer? So, I'd
> approach the matter with caution.
I think I've mentioned my source to you before - the rocket launches are
minimal.
>
> > > Well, it would be hard to argue that the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on it
> > > considering our firepower and our wealth and economic influence.
>
> > Tell that to Kuwait, Taiwan, Chechen, Bosnia.....
>
> Still, as I said, hard to argue since we easily could bring up a list much
> longer for countries with U.S. grievances.
You used the word "monopoly". Not "most". Not "greatest". Not "equal to
everyone else combined". Not...whatever. You're overstating the case,
which is what my point is.
> I don't know, perhaps because
> we're on this side, we don't look at it that way. We live with the image of
> John Wayne and the cavalry and that our country really means well. How often
> has that been true in the last century?
>
> Dan
John Wayne was a racist, but telling people that upsets them. Anyway, you
are correct, too many people think we can do no wrong, nor do evil things.
Sometimes we actually do good things, sometimes we just try and put a good
face on it, sometimes we even try and do good things and get lost along the
way, and other times we do fairly rotten things. Those that key only on the
good aren't being realistic, but those that just key on the bad are equally
unrealistic.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
