Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 19:50:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1593 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Not controlling the flow of oil (or do you have cites for that?), but
enabling the free flow of oil to occur. And I said I didn’t want to get
into corrupt UN policies...;-)
|
John’s right. Haliburton will make it’s money just from infrastructure
contracts, the oil in this case is almost secondary.
|
Awww. “Haliburton” again????
| |
And anyway, the puppet
democrazy
|
Awww. More “puppet” talk?
| |
that we establish isn’t going to be hostile to us even if the
people are. So we’ll get all the oil we need.
|
We always could, even from SH if we wanted!
| |
| |
| |
And no, it isn’t,since the evidence is the exact opposite - his
nationality does matter.
|
So are you proposing another civil war because McVeigh and Nichols were
Americans? :-)
|
I don’t get it. McVeigh may have been waging a civil war with no backing.
|
But that is precisely my point-- OBL was acting independently from the
policies of his country, so equating the nationality of a terrorist and the
policy of his government is wrong thinking.
| |
| |
| |
That’s fine, except you carefully ignore my point: Bush is convenient on
what he wants to pay attention to and what he wants to ignore (an act that
he repeats to alarming degrees).
|
Yes, and this brings us back to Chris’ original statement a while back-- the
US should tow the UN line or cut bait. I agree that pandering to the UN
when convenient is silly when everyone knows that we will act in our own
best interests when we need to (because sure as hell nobody else will!)
|
You mean, we’ll act in the best interests of the corporatocracy.
|
Hmmm. Now we are getting somewhere-- new, invented words:-)
| |
Attacking
Hussein wasn’t in my best interests.
|
Well, it isn’t all about you.
| |
It may well be that my best interests would be served by making some
sacrifices in short-term autonomy in order to gain world-wide trust and
decrease our offensive foreign policy. But maybe that’s just me.
|
I will never understand the desire of certain Americans’ preoccupation with
looking good in the eyes of the world. It is beyond reason.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
And I agree with that, but Bush only really mentions it in relation to
our own security, and where Iraq is going scares me more than Saddam ever
did.
|
|
|
A democratic Iraq scares you???
|
A festering hatred for The West in a population that’s been beaten, starved,
shot, insulted, tortured, debased, and denied medical care but the US and
allies,
|
You are a very confused person. We liberated Iraq from the one who did those
things to the Iraqi people. Iraqis will be thanking us for generations.
| |
simmering under a faux pro-West democracy scares me. Actually, it
sounds somewhat like the population of Iran leading up to the ousting of the
Shaw. And current Saudi Arabia. Oh, and Palestinians. Oops. We might have
a problem on our hands!
|
Absurd! The examples you give are in no way analogous to Iraq!
| |
| |
| |
“We are fighting for Iraq, not against Iraq. Isn’t this obvious?” And then
you agree with my assessment that we are NOT fighting for Iraq, but for our
own self-interest, and then say you are not shooting yourself in the foot
and are only being honest?
|
Why must these be mutually exclusive? They certainly aren’t in my mind--
WIN-WIN.
|
Good point! Because the US has the mandate of heaven, whatever is good for
us is good for everyone.
|
Are you claiming that Freedom and Democracy are not good for everyone?
| |
| |
Are you insinuating that the intelligence cited was fabricated?
|
I sure as hell will! Or as good as, anyway. Let’s see...there’s a vast
body of intelligence reports about the region. It’s analyzed by hundreds of
CIA and other intelligence speciallists. The vast majority of them conclude
that Sadam’s teeth have been pulled, essentially forever. Some incredibly
small minority, potentially at the direction of Paul Wolfowitz, are willing
to support the administration’s desire to have an excuse to enter the region
and subdivide the hostiles. And the president uses the reports that the vast
majority of the intelligence community disagrees with. If you don’t think
that’s fabrication, deception, and the trumping up of evidence, what do you
think it is? I don’t believe for one second that if Clinton had done this,
you’d just be happy as a clam.
|
I believe you are shooting from the hip WRT your “facts”.
| |
| |
| |
Not at this time of night - but Bush was citing Saddam as the direct
threat, not the secondary threat.
|
I don’t think so. Maybe to our ally Israel....
|
Gosh, I remember it like Bruce. I listened to Powell address the UN and I
bought it...for around 24 hours...until foreign reporters deluged my brain
with US intelligence experts who said it was false evidence. They were
absolutely claiming the US was under threat.
|
Yes, under threat from proliferation of WMDs at the hands of SH to US enemies.
| |
| |
| |
Bottom Line: Bush the Elder should never have supported him in the first
place.
|
Perhaps. But at the time we had a bigger enemy in Iran. Do you think that
unholy alliances are wrong?
|
Yes! We can not take the high road unless we take the high road. For
instance, we should cut all trade relations with China untill they get with
the program. Sure it would cost us. Sure it would be uncomfortable. But
that’s where the high road leads.
|
But we also want to live to be able to take any road as well...
| |
| |
| |
But Bush is okay with scumbags (remember, this is the guy who didn’t
want the communist governments in eastern europe overthrown).
|
Roosevelt was okay with Stalin-- arguably the biggest scumbag of all time...
|
Indeed! Roosevelt should have been dragged into the street by the hair and
stoned.
|
Ahem. I was referring to Stalin. But, you are entitled to your opinion.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) No. We replaced an errant CIA stooge with a compliant one. ;) (...) Read (URL): Many Iraqis believe the decision to launch military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was unwarranted, according to a poll by Oxford Research (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Actually, it's not Haliburton again. It's Haliburton, still. This is hardly an over-and-done-with matter, no matter how much Conservatives, Neo-Cons, and the administration might wish it were. (URL) This> is worth reading because it provides (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) John's right. Haliburton will make it's money just from infrastructure contracts, the oil in this case is almost secondary. And anyway, the puppet democrazy that we establish isn't going to be hostile to us even if the people are. So we'll get (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 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
|
|
|
|
