A view on the US role in Iraq
Dec 1st 2006, 4:59 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:57:53 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <C195D694.3EEC2%[email protected]>, Donna Evleth
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Which brings us back to the first
>> question: what was wrong with giving the inspectors more time?
>12 years, 17 UNSC resolutions.
Ummm... the UN didn't bless the invasion, did it?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
>In article <C195D694.3EEC2%[email protected]>, Donna Evleth
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Which brings us back to the first
>> question: what was wrong with giving the inspectors more time?
>12 years, 17 UNSC resolutions.
Ummm... the UN didn't bless the invasion, did it?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Dec 1st 2006, 5:21 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:42:57 -0000 'John Rennie'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000 'John Rennie'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
>>>would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that ghastly
>>>mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too
>>>happy
>>>if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
>>>invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't then
>>>the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct
>>>interest.
>>>The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for America'
>>>can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
>> So according to your theory, a world dominated by an American empire
>> - HQ in Washington - with its corporations actively sucking wealth and
>> resources back home from client countries, is good for us all is it?
>> Excuse me while I rotfl.
>I think you must have been rolling on the floor in hysterics whilst typing
>that bit of bilge. It is NOT in America's interests to dominate the rest
>of the world. It IS in its interests to ensure that the rest of the world
>is stable which means forswearing lunatic invasions. An example of looking
>after America's interests was Marshall Aid. Americans shouldn't kid
>themselves that this was an example of American generosity to poor shattered
>Europe. The America needed Europe to get on its feet again and become
>prosperous for the benefit of its own economy. I only wish that America
>would take more interest in North Africa where unemployment is at very high
>levels; they, Algeria, Tunisia etc would love to become 'client' countries.
Well, given that the US outsources torture to both of those countries,
I'd guess they already are client states.
Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
And the profits of course all go back to the parent US company.
Multiply that by 150 countries and countless outlets and you begin
to see the $billions involved. Same thing applies to all US corps
- years ago, when India would not permit repatriation of corporate
profits, IBM and others pulled out. Nothing about helping others
in that policy. Eventually US got the Indian Govt to change the laws.
When Mr Bremer was put in control of Iraq one of the first Orders
he made was to permit the free repatriation of 100% corporate profits
- and there have been plenty of them in Iraq for the likes of Bechtel.
That's what I mean by sucking wealth out of client countries.
It's what America's been doing for decades and it's what a lot
of US foreign policy is about: the Americanisation of everybody
and making the world safe for American corporations to profit.
Sorry if that distresses you.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000 'John Rennie'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
>>>would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that ghastly
>>>mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too
>>>happy
>>>if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
>>>invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't then
>>>the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct
>>>interest.
>>>The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for America'
>>>can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
>> So according to your theory, a world dominated by an American empire
>> - HQ in Washington - with its corporations actively sucking wealth and
>> resources back home from client countries, is good for us all is it?
>> Excuse me while I rotfl.
>I think you must have been rolling on the floor in hysterics whilst typing
>that bit of bilge. It is NOT in America's interests to dominate the rest
>of the world. It IS in its interests to ensure that the rest of the world
>is stable which means forswearing lunatic invasions. An example of looking
>after America's interests was Marshall Aid. Americans shouldn't kid
>themselves that this was an example of American generosity to poor shattered
>Europe. The America needed Europe to get on its feet again and become
>prosperous for the benefit of its own economy. I only wish that America
>would take more interest in North Africa where unemployment is at very high
>levels; they, Algeria, Tunisia etc would love to become 'client' countries.
Well, given that the US outsources torture to both of those countries,
I'd guess they already are client states.
Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
And the profits of course all go back to the parent US company.
Multiply that by 150 countries and countless outlets and you begin
to see the $billions involved. Same thing applies to all US corps
- years ago, when India would not permit repatriation of corporate
profits, IBM and others pulled out. Nothing about helping others
in that policy. Eventually US got the Indian Govt to change the laws.
When Mr Bremer was put in control of Iraq one of the first Orders
he made was to permit the free repatriation of 100% corporate profits
- and there have been plenty of them in Iraq for the likes of Bechtel.
That's what I mean by sucking wealth out of client countries.
It's what America's been doing for decades and it's what a lot
of US foreign policy is about: the Americanisation of everybody
and making the world safe for American corporations to profit.
Sorry if that distresses you.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
Dec 1st 2006, 5:37 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:42:57 -0000 'John Rennie'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000 'John Rennie'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
>>>>would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that
>>>>ghastly
>>>>mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too
>>>>happy
>>>>if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
>>>>invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't
>>>>then
>>>>the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct
>>>>interest.
>>>>The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for
>>>>America'
>>>>can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
>>> So according to your theory, a world dominated by an American empire
>>> - HQ in Washington - with its corporations actively sucking wealth and
>>> resources back home from client countries, is good for us all is it?
>>> Excuse me while I rotfl.
>>I think you must have been rolling on the floor in hysterics whilst typing
>>that bit of bilge. It is NOT in America's interests to dominate the rest
>>of the world. It IS in its interests to ensure that the rest of the world
>>is stable which means forswearing lunatic invasions. An example of
>>looking
>>after America's interests was Marshall Aid. Americans shouldn't kid
>>themselves that this was an example of American generosity to poor
>>shattered
>>Europe. The America needed Europe to get on its feet again and become
>>prosperous for the benefit of its own economy. I only wish that America
>>would take more interest in North Africa where unemployment is at very
>>high
>>levels; they, Algeria, Tunisia etc would love to become 'client'
>>countries.
> Well, given that the US outsources torture to both of those countries,
> I'd guess they already are client states.
> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
> And the profits of course all go back to the parent US company.
> Multiply that by 150 countries and countless outlets and you begin
> to see the $billions involved. Same thing applies to all US corps
> - years ago, when India would not permit repatriation of corporate
> profits, IBM and others pulled out. Nothing about helping others
> in that policy. Eventually US got the Indian Govt to change the laws.
> When Mr Bremer was put in control of Iraq one of the first Orders
> he made was to permit the free repatriation of 100% corporate profits
> - and there have been plenty of them in Iraq for the likes of Bechtel.
> That's what I mean by sucking wealth out of client countries.
> It's what America's been doing for decades and it's what a lot
> of US foreign policy is about: the Americanisation of everybody
> and making the world safe for American corporations to profit.
> Sorry if that distresses you.
Your adolescent nonsense doesn't distress me. All you are pointing out is
that America does not behave in its own interests. Mr Bremer was a prime
example of a man who damaged America as well as Iraq. You don't seem to be
able to grasp that point. Of course my comments about Marshall Aid are
relevant today. That was real aid not the airy billions promised by Bush
re the Tsumani or the earthquake in Pakistan much of which never
materialised. As for Fast Food joints - KFCs, Pizzahuts and MacDonalds are
clustered around Tian an Men square and the Chinese can't get enough of
their products. Personally although I never eat their food I found their
presence rather comforting.
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:42:57 -0000 'John Rennie'
> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000 'John Rennie'
>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
>>>>would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that
>>>>ghastly
>>>>mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too
>>>>happy
>>>>if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
>>>>invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't
>>>>then
>>>>the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct
>>>>interest.
>>>>The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for
>>>>America'
>>>>can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
>>> So according to your theory, a world dominated by an American empire
>>> - HQ in Washington - with its corporations actively sucking wealth and
>>> resources back home from client countries, is good for us all is it?
>>> Excuse me while I rotfl.
>>I think you must have been rolling on the floor in hysterics whilst typing
>>that bit of bilge. It is NOT in America's interests to dominate the rest
>>of the world. It IS in its interests to ensure that the rest of the world
>>is stable which means forswearing lunatic invasions. An example of
>>looking
>>after America's interests was Marshall Aid. Americans shouldn't kid
>>themselves that this was an example of American generosity to poor
>>shattered
>>Europe. The America needed Europe to get on its feet again and become
>>prosperous for the benefit of its own economy. I only wish that America
>>would take more interest in North Africa where unemployment is at very
>>high
>>levels; they, Algeria, Tunisia etc would love to become 'client'
>>countries.
> Well, given that the US outsources torture to both of those countries,
> I'd guess they already are client states.
> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
> And the profits of course all go back to the parent US company.
> Multiply that by 150 countries and countless outlets and you begin
> to see the $billions involved. Same thing applies to all US corps
> - years ago, when India would not permit repatriation of corporate
> profits, IBM and others pulled out. Nothing about helping others
> in that policy. Eventually US got the Indian Govt to change the laws.
> When Mr Bremer was put in control of Iraq one of the first Orders
> he made was to permit the free repatriation of 100% corporate profits
> - and there have been plenty of them in Iraq for the likes of Bechtel.
> That's what I mean by sucking wealth out of client countries.
> It's what America's been doing for decades and it's what a lot
> of US foreign policy is about: the Americanisation of everybody
> and making the world safe for American corporations to profit.
> Sorry if that distresses you.
Your adolescent nonsense doesn't distress me. All you are pointing out is
that America does not behave in its own interests. Mr Bremer was a prime
example of a man who damaged America as well as Iraq. You don't seem to be
able to grasp that point. Of course my comments about Marshall Aid are
relevant today. That was real aid not the airy billions promised by Bush
re the Tsumani or the earthquake in Pakistan much of which never
materialised. As for Fast Food joints - KFCs, Pizzahuts and MacDonalds are
clustered around Tian an Men square and the Chinese can't get enough of
their products. Personally although I never eat their food I found their
presence rather comforting.
Dec 1st 2006, 5:58 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C196002A.3EF1C%[email protected]...
>> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
>> c.travel.europe
>> Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:16:50 -0800
>> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>> There you go again, Donna.
>> According to your convoluted logic liberation of Iraq has been solely
>> all about Bush.
>> You are either terminally naive or your judgement has been distorted by
>> your venomous anti-
>> American, anti-Bush bias.
> Was or was not Bush the one who made the decision to invade? I believe he
> is the Commander-in-Chief. I don't remember Clinton invading Iraq.
> And you still have not answered my questions: why not give the inspectors
> more time? Why the screaming rush? And why all the efforts to stampede?
> Remember Colin Powell's famous speech, which he now says was a mistake?
<fx: sticks chest out proudly>
Remember that I was the first poster here who called his appearance before
the UN, a charade. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...b99c38898f04a7
Feb 6, 2003
<fx: hangs head in shame>
Remember that I also stupidly changed my view when the war seemed to go
so smoothly.
One thing is for sure... Mr Powell destroyed every chance for the Presidency
as a result of his shabby performance before the UN. Had he resigned as
Secretary of State before that same body on that date, he would now be
almost a shoo-in for president in 2008.
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> Donna Evleth
>
news:C196002A.3EF1C%[email protected]...
>> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
>> c.travel.europe
>> Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:16:50 -0800
>> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>> There you go again, Donna.
>> According to your convoluted logic liberation of Iraq has been solely
>> all about Bush.
>> You are either terminally naive or your judgement has been distorted by
>> your venomous anti-
>> American, anti-Bush bias.
> Was or was not Bush the one who made the decision to invade? I believe he
> is the Commander-in-Chief. I don't remember Clinton invading Iraq.
> And you still have not answered my questions: why not give the inspectors
> more time? Why the screaming rush? And why all the efforts to stampede?
> Remember Colin Powell's famous speech, which he now says was a mistake?
<fx: sticks chest out proudly>
Remember that I was the first poster here who called his appearance before
the UN, a charade. See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...b99c38898f04a7
Feb 6, 2003
<fx: hangs head in shame>
Remember that I also stupidly changed my view when the war seemed to go
so smoothly.
One thing is for sure... Mr Powell destroyed every chance for the Presidency
as a result of his shabby performance before the UN. Had he resigned as
Secretary of State before that same body on that date, he would now be
almost a shoo-in for president in 2008.
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> Donna Evleth
>
Dec 1st 2006, 6:00 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:25:58 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:15:06 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above
>>>>> you
>>>>> are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
>>>>What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat
>>>>analysis
>>>>by PJ?
>>> He referred to me as a simpleton for a start. Oh, and what he says is
>>> complete fantasy, and wont ever happen with the current government.
>>> You need some serious fascism to achieve that type of stuff - and that
>>> aint gonna happen any time soon.
>>> A pretty good fantasy though. He's not the only old fart on RTE that
>>> assumes to understand the future.
>>But these aren't predictions, they're a statement of the current facts. I
>>don't know about whether you're a simpleton or not, but it's somewhat
>>simple-minded to deny the existence what's in front of your nose.
> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
> and that has ruined
> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a foothold,
it's something more substantial than that.
> It's achieved the
> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or... well,
I'll let you clarify.
> The current
> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
> as they
> have proven incompetent time and time again.
> Heck, you can't even seem to get much oil out of the place anyway!
> --
> ---
> DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
> ---
> --
message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:25:58 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:15:06 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above
>>>>> you
>>>>> are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
>>>>What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat
>>>>analysis
>>>>by PJ?
>>> He referred to me as a simpleton for a start. Oh, and what he says is
>>> complete fantasy, and wont ever happen with the current government.
>>> You need some serious fascism to achieve that type of stuff - and that
>>> aint gonna happen any time soon.
>>> A pretty good fantasy though. He's not the only old fart on RTE that
>>> assumes to understand the future.
>>But these aren't predictions, they're a statement of the current facts. I
>>don't know about whether you're a simpleton or not, but it's somewhat
>>simple-minded to deny the existence what's in front of your nose.
> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
> and that has ruined
> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a foothold,
it's something more substantial than that.
> It's achieved the
> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or... well,
I'll let you clarify.
> The current
> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
> as they
> have proven incompetent time and time again.
> Heck, you can't even seem to get much oil out of the place anyway!
> --
> ---
> DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
> ---
> --
Dec 1st 2006, 6:09 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> DVH wrote:
>> "John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
> [..]
>> >> A fine post.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above
>> > you
>> > are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
>> What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat
>> analysis
>> by PJ?
> Because it's simple-minded, that's why.
Complexity isn't a virtue.
> Because it's yet another case
> of a man seeing what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
> *If* the only problem was a murderous Sunni minority, then there'd be
> little real long-term problem; the US could just team up with Iran and
> Syria and they'd pretty soon be outnumbered and outgunned. But because
> Iran and Syria have already been demonised by GW Bush, such an alliance
> is going to be very difficult to put together (and of course such an
> alliance would also cause the Iranin and Syrian leadership difficulty
> with their own populace).
What do you suppose the west's duty is now? If you think we have a "duty" to
do anything, that is.
> It's been interesting, if depressing, to see the neocon apologists spin
> the situation in Iraq as the reality has changed from an easy military
> victory to small amount of unrest to increasingly deadly terrorism and
> sectarian killings; whatever happens is 'as they expected',
A reference for that quote would be handy.
> however
> hotly they had denied in advance that it would happen.
> Looking back to what was said in ukpm in advance of the invasion, the
> person who was most nearly correct in his prognosis was the
> sadly-missed Steve Glynn, who at the time was derided by the neocons on
> the group as 'defeatist'.
So he was, judging from the outcome.
I see he's alive and well and posting elsewhere, by the way.
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> DVH wrote:
>> "John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
> [..]
>> >> A fine post.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above
>> > you
>> > are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
>> What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat
>> analysis
>> by PJ?
> Because it's simple-minded, that's why.
Complexity isn't a virtue.
> Because it's yet another case
> of a man seeing what he wants to see and disregarding the rest.
> *If* the only problem was a murderous Sunni minority, then there'd be
> little real long-term problem; the US could just team up with Iran and
> Syria and they'd pretty soon be outnumbered and outgunned. But because
> Iran and Syria have already been demonised by GW Bush, such an alliance
> is going to be very difficult to put together (and of course such an
> alliance would also cause the Iranin and Syrian leadership difficulty
> with their own populace).
What do you suppose the west's duty is now? If you think we have a "duty" to
do anything, that is.
> It's been interesting, if depressing, to see the neocon apologists spin
> the situation in Iraq as the reality has changed from an easy military
> victory to small amount of unrest to increasingly deadly terrorism and
> sectarian killings; whatever happens is 'as they expected',
A reference for that quote would be handy.
> however
> hotly they had denied in advance that it would happen.
> Looking back to what was said in ukpm in advance of the invasion, the
> person who was most nearly correct in his prognosis was the
> sadly-missed Steve Glynn, who at the time was derided by the neocons on
> the group as 'defeatist'.
So he was, judging from the outcome.
I see he's alive and well and posting elsewhere, by the way.
Dec 1st 2006, 6:15 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:25:58 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:15:06 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
>>>>>What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat
>>>>>analysis
>>>>>by PJ?
>>>> He referred to me as a simpleton for a start. Oh, and what he says is
>>>> complete fantasy, and wont ever happen with the current government.
>>>> You need some serious fascism to achieve that type of stuff - and that
>>>> aint gonna happen any time soon.
>>>> A pretty good fantasy though. He's not the only old fart on RTE that
>>>> assumes to understand the future.
>>>But these aren't predictions, they're a statement of the current facts. I
>>>don't know about whether you're a simpleton or not, but it's somewhat
>>>simple-minded to deny the existence what's in front of your nose.
>> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
> No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
You're quite right. There are large parts of Iraq that are very peaceful and
that is because geographically that part of Iraq that isn't between the
Tigris and the Euphrates
is largely desert. Take a look via google earth - Eastern Iraq hardly has
any towns of any size. The parts that are in a mess are where people
live.
>> and that has ruined
>> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
> And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
> the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a
> foothold, it's something more substantial than that.
They must be on the insurgents side for all the good that they are doing.
>> It's achieved the
>> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
> That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
> mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or...
> well, I'll let you clarify.
>> The current
>> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
> What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
> murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
You can wait and see. Let's hope others kick some sense into Bush's minute
brain.
>> as they
>> have proven incompetent time and time again.
>> Heck, you can't even seem to get much oil out of the place anyway!
>> --
>> ---
>> DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
>> ---
>> --
>
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:25:58 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:15:06 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
>>>>>What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat
>>>>>analysis
>>>>>by PJ?
>>>> He referred to me as a simpleton for a start. Oh, and what he says is
>>>> complete fantasy, and wont ever happen with the current government.
>>>> You need some serious fascism to achieve that type of stuff - and that
>>>> aint gonna happen any time soon.
>>>> A pretty good fantasy though. He's not the only old fart on RTE that
>>>> assumes to understand the future.
>>>But these aren't predictions, they're a statement of the current facts. I
>>>don't know about whether you're a simpleton or not, but it's somewhat
>>>simple-minded to deny the existence what's in front of your nose.
>> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
> No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
You're quite right. There are large parts of Iraq that are very peaceful and
that is because geographically that part of Iraq that isn't between the
Tigris and the Euphrates
is largely desert. Take a look via google earth - Eastern Iraq hardly has
any towns of any size. The parts that are in a mess are where people
live.
>> and that has ruined
>> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
> And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
> the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a
> foothold, it's something more substantial than that.
They must be on the insurgents side for all the good that they are doing.
>> It's achieved the
>> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
> That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
> mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or...
> well, I'll let you clarify.
>> The current
>> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
> What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
> murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
You can wait and see. Let's hope others kick some sense into Bush's minute
brain.
>> as they
>> have proven incompetent time and time again.
>> Heck, you can't even seem to get much oil out of the place anyway!
>> --
>> ---
>> DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
>> ---
>> --
>
Dec 1st 2006, 6:53 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
[email protected] wrote:
> The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
> ceases to amaze me.
I think it may be worse than that. It has long been noted that
Americans have a tendency to believe their own propaganda. They turn it
into a self justifying faith which while representing itself as a
reasonable point of view is actually incompatible with the enlightened
attitude towards facts and external reality on which our civilisation
has long prided itself.
> America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
> or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
> and always will be. America has one interest and one interest only in
> Iraq and thats OIL and the money and power it brings, let us not forget
> that America has consistently undermined many demodratic states simply
> because their people democraticaly chose to elect leaders who would not
> toe the American line, take for example Venezuela and Nicaragua. Lets
> see how much America respects democracy if Daniel Ortega is elected
> president in what is universally accepted as a free and fair election.
> Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
> puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
> THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
> rather than dollars. This war is purely and simply a business
> transaction, your country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and
> is set to spend hundreds more and it is not doing that so some
> tribesman in the middle of a desert can rest easy in his hammock that
> his vote will count the same as everyone elses, all those hundreds of
> billions will need to be repaid with considerable interest and you can
> put the house on that one!
Here's some analysis from a communist source. I think there is
something in it:-
http://www.pcp.pt/index.php?option=c...799&Itemid=291
> The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
> ceases to amaze me.
I think it may be worse than that. It has long been noted that
Americans have a tendency to believe their own propaganda. They turn it
into a self justifying faith which while representing itself as a
reasonable point of view is actually incompatible with the enlightened
attitude towards facts and external reality on which our civilisation
has long prided itself.
> America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
> or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
> and always will be. America has one interest and one interest only in
> Iraq and thats OIL and the money and power it brings, let us not forget
> that America has consistently undermined many demodratic states simply
> because their people democraticaly chose to elect leaders who would not
> toe the American line, take for example Venezuela and Nicaragua. Lets
> see how much America respects democracy if Daniel Ortega is elected
> president in what is universally accepted as a free and fair election.
> Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
> puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
> THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
> rather than dollars. This war is purely and simply a business
> transaction, your country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and
> is set to spend hundreds more and it is not doing that so some
> tribesman in the middle of a desert can rest easy in his hammock that
> his vote will count the same as everyone elses, all those hundreds of
> billions will need to be repaid with considerable interest and you can
> put the house on that one!
Here's some analysis from a communist source. I think there is
something in it:-
http://www.pcp.pt/index.php?option=c...799&Itemid=291
Dec 1st 2006, 7:28 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
Why do you care?
news:[email protected]...
> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
Why do you care?
Dec 1st 2006, 7:33 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:37:13 -0000 'John Rennie'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:42:57 -0000 'John Rennie'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000 'John Rennie'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
>>>>>would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that
>>>>>ghastly
>>>>>mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too
>>>>>happy
>>>>>if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
>>>>>invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't
>>>>>then
>>>>>the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct
>>>>>interest.
>>>>>The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for
>>>>>America'
>>>>>can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
>>>> So according to your theory, a world dominated by an American empire
>>>> - HQ in Washington - with its corporations actively sucking wealth and
>>>> resources back home from client countries, is good for us all is it?
>>>> Excuse me while I rotfl.
>>>I think you must have been rolling on the floor in hysterics whilst typing
>>>that bit of bilge. It is NOT in America's interests to dominate the rest
>>>of the world. It IS in its interests to ensure that the rest of the world
>>>is stable which means forswearing lunatic invasions. An example of
>>>looking
>>>after America's interests was Marshall Aid. Americans shouldn't kid
>>>themselves that this was an example of American generosity to poor
>>>shattered
>>>Europe. The America needed Europe to get on its feet again and become
>>>prosperous for the benefit of its own economy. I only wish that America
>>>would take more interest in North Africa where unemployment is at very
>>>high
>>>levels; they, Algeria, Tunisia etc would love to become 'client'
>>>countries.
>> Well, given that the US outsources torture to both of those countries,
>> I'd guess they already are client states.
>> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
>> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
>> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
>> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
>> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
>> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
>> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
>> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
>> And the profits of course all go back to the parent US company.
>> Multiply that by 150 countries and countless outlets and you begin
>> to see the $billions involved. Same thing applies to all US corps
>> - years ago, when India would not permit repatriation of corporate
>> profits, IBM and others pulled out. Nothing about helping others
>> in that policy. Eventually US got the Indian Govt to change the laws.
>> When Mr Bremer was put in control of Iraq one of the first Orders
>> he made was to permit the free repatriation of 100% corporate profits
>> - and there have been plenty of them in Iraq for the likes of Bechtel.
>> That's what I mean by sucking wealth out of client countries.
>> It's what America's been doing for decades and it's what a lot
>> of US foreign policy is about: the Americanisation of everybody
>> and making the world safe for American corporations to profit.
>> Sorry if that distresses you.
>Your adolescent nonsense doesn't distress me. All you are pointing out is
>that America does not behave in its own interests.
Not at all. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.
Incomprehensible Irish logic maybe?
>Mr Bremer was a prime
>example of a man who damaged America as well as Iraq.
Very likely.
>You don't seem to be
>able to grasp that point.
Actually I grasped it a long time ago.
My comments on him were simply about how he signed an Order about
corp profits, not whether he had a view of the wider picture. After
all he is American.
>Of course my comments about Marshall Aid are
>relevant today.
Not in the context of this debate they're not.
The Marshall Aid package was an attempt to get Europe back on its feet
after WWII which was in America's interest.
As you say yourself below, Iraqi aid has largely not materialised
because it's not in America's interests, so the two things are very
different.
>That was real aid not the airy billions promised by Bush
>re the Tsumani or the earthquake in Pakistan much of which never
>materialised. As for Fast Food joints - KFCs, Pizzahuts and MacDonalds are
>clustered around Tian an Men square and the Chinese can't get enough of
>their products. Personally although I never eat their food I found their
>presence rather comforting.
Fine, everybody to their own but nothing you've said changes one word
of my previous post despite your blustering.
Looks like this "adolescent" is better informed than you. Lol.
Your debating skills/knowledge are on a par with DVH - ie very poor.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:42:57 -0000 'John Rennie'
>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000 'John Rennie'
>>>> posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>>>>>If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
>>>>>would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that
>>>>>ghastly
>>>>>mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too
>>>>>happy
>>>>>if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
>>>>>invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't
>>>>>then
>>>>>the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct
>>>>>interest.
>>>>>The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for
>>>>>America'
>>>>>can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
>>>> So according to your theory, a world dominated by an American empire
>>>> - HQ in Washington - with its corporations actively sucking wealth and
>>>> resources back home from client countries, is good for us all is it?
>>>> Excuse me while I rotfl.
>>>I think you must have been rolling on the floor in hysterics whilst typing
>>>that bit of bilge. It is NOT in America's interests to dominate the rest
>>>of the world. It IS in its interests to ensure that the rest of the world
>>>is stable which means forswearing lunatic invasions. An example of
>>>looking
>>>after America's interests was Marshall Aid. Americans shouldn't kid
>>>themselves that this was an example of American generosity to poor
>>>shattered
>>>Europe. The America needed Europe to get on its feet again and become
>>>prosperous for the benefit of its own economy. I only wish that America
>>>would take more interest in North Africa where unemployment is at very
>>>high
>>>levels; they, Algeria, Tunisia etc would love to become 'client'
>>>countries.
>> Well, given that the US outsources torture to both of those countries,
>> I'd guess they already are client states.
>> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
>> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
>> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
>> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
>> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
>> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
>> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
>> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
>> And the profits of course all go back to the parent US company.
>> Multiply that by 150 countries and countless outlets and you begin
>> to see the $billions involved. Same thing applies to all US corps
>> - years ago, when India would not permit repatriation of corporate
>> profits, IBM and others pulled out. Nothing about helping others
>> in that policy. Eventually US got the Indian Govt to change the laws.
>> When Mr Bremer was put in control of Iraq one of the first Orders
>> he made was to permit the free repatriation of 100% corporate profits
>> - and there have been plenty of them in Iraq for the likes of Bechtel.
>> That's what I mean by sucking wealth out of client countries.
>> It's what America's been doing for decades and it's what a lot
>> of US foreign policy is about: the Americanisation of everybody
>> and making the world safe for American corporations to profit.
>> Sorry if that distresses you.
>Your adolescent nonsense doesn't distress me. All you are pointing out is
>that America does not behave in its own interests.
Not at all. I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.
Incomprehensible Irish logic maybe?
>Mr Bremer was a prime
>example of a man who damaged America as well as Iraq.
Very likely.
>You don't seem to be
>able to grasp that point.
Actually I grasped it a long time ago.
My comments on him were simply about how he signed an Order about
corp profits, not whether he had a view of the wider picture. After
all he is American.
>Of course my comments about Marshall Aid are
>relevant today.
Not in the context of this debate they're not.
The Marshall Aid package was an attempt to get Europe back on its feet
after WWII which was in America's interest.
As you say yourself below, Iraqi aid has largely not materialised
because it's not in America's interests, so the two things are very
different.
>That was real aid not the airy billions promised by Bush
>re the Tsumani or the earthquake in Pakistan much of which never
>materialised. As for Fast Food joints - KFCs, Pizzahuts and MacDonalds are
>clustered around Tian an Men square and the Chinese can't get enough of
>their products. Personally although I never eat their food I found their
>presence rather comforting.
Fine, everybody to their own but nothing you've said changes one word
of my previous post despite your blustering.
Looks like this "adolescent" is better informed than you. Lol.
Your debating skills/knowledge are on a par with DVH - ie very poor.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
Dec 1st 2006, 8:11 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:00:13 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
>No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
Oh don't be ridiculous. There's not even a part safe enough for the
president to land in.
>> and that has ruined
>> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
>And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
>the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a foothold,
>it's something more substantial than that.
Well, you don't seem to be able to quantify that, so I can only
presume it to be imagined. Given that America is losing ground on
every front in that region, I'm having trouble seeing even what your
delusion is.
>> It's achieved the
>> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
>That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
>mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or... well,
>I'll let you clarify.
I'd prefer to let you sound off about America's successes in the
region. It's a short list.
>> The current
>> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
>What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
>murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
When you can get Iraq's death rate under that of Saddam's, then we can
talk about moving to the next target.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
>No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
Oh don't be ridiculous. There's not even a part safe enough for the
president to land in.
>> and that has ruined
>> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
>And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
>the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a foothold,
>it's something more substantial than that.
Well, you don't seem to be able to quantify that, so I can only
presume it to be imagined. Given that America is losing ground on
every front in that region, I'm having trouble seeing even what your
delusion is.
>> It's achieved the
>> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
>That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
>mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or... well,
>I'll let you clarify.
I'd prefer to let you sound off about America's successes in the
region. It's a short list.
>> The current
>> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
>What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
>murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
When you can get Iraq's death rate under that of Saddam's, then we can
talk about moving to the next target.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Dec 1st 2006, 8:35 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:00:13 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
>>No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
> Oh don't be ridiculous. There's not even a part safe enough for the
> president to land in.
So how does the President occasionally land there?
>>> and that has ruined
>>> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
>>And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
>>the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a
>>foothold,
>>it's something more substantial than that.
> Well, you don't seem to be able to quantify that, so I can only
> presume it to be imagined. Given that America is losing ground on
> every front in that region, I'm having trouble seeing even what your
> delusion is.
I know you are. You can't cope with reality.
>>> It's achieved the
>>> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
>>That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
>>mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or...
>>well,
>>I'll let you clarify.
> I'd prefer to let you sound off about America's successes in the
> region.
You can't improve on your empty statement.
> It's a short list.
Why do you want it to be long? They won the war, deposed Saddam, frightened
a lot of neighbouring tyrants.
>>> The current
>>> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
>>What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
>>murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
> When you can get Iraq's death rate under that of Saddam's, then we can
> talk about moving to the next target.
Please yourself. Meanwhile events will continue to move on even if you think
talking about them should be postponed.
message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:00:13 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>> The current facts are that Iraq is a complete mess
>>No, the majority of Iraq is peaceful. Parts are a mess.
> Oh don't be ridiculous. There's not even a part safe enough for the
> president to land in.
So how does the President occasionally land there?
>>> and that has ruined
>>> any possibly chances of any foothold taking place.
>>And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
>>the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a
>>foothold,
>>it's something more substantial than that.
> Well, you don't seem to be able to quantify that, so I can only
> presume it to be imagined. Given that America is losing ground on
> every front in that region, I'm having trouble seeing even what your
> delusion is.
I know you are. You can't cope with reality.
>>> It's achieved the
>>> exact opposite by weakening America's position massively.
>>That is an empty statement. You could fill it up by explaining whether you
>>mean America's regional influence since Gulf I, since last year, or...
>>well,
>>I'll let you clarify.
> I'd prefer to let you sound off about America's successes in the
> region.
You can't improve on your empty statement.
> It's a short list.
Why do you want it to be long? They won the war, deposed Saddam, frightened
a lot of neighbouring tyrants.
>>> The current
>>> administration wont be solving anything in a hurry either,
>>What problem do you want them to solve, exactly? If it's the problem of a
>>murderous dictator next door, let's wait and see...
> When you can get Iraq's death rate under that of Saddam's, then we can
> talk about moving to the next target.
Please yourself. Meanwhile events will continue to move on even if you think
talking about them should be postponed.
Dec 1st 2006, 8:42 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
In article <[email protected]. com>,
[email protected] says...
> <Why was Bush in such a screaming hurry?
>
> Donna Evleth>
>
> There you go again, Donna.
>
> According to your convoluted logic liberation of Iraq has been solely
> all about Bush.
>
> You are either terminally naive or your judgement has been distorted by
> your venomous anti-
> American, anti-Bush bias.
>
>
>
> President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
> support for his Iraq Liberation Act in 98.
>
>
> HR.4655
> Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
>
>
> Oct 7, 98:
> Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
>
>
> The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
> The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
> WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
> The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
> Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in '03
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in...ion_legitimacy
>
>
> In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of
> United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Adopted 296-133 by the House
> of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate), the United States Congress
>
> granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.
>
>
>
> >From October 2002 until the invasion of March 2003, Saddam was provided
>
> with ample time to get his WMDs out of the country.
>
>
> In over 3 years into the war in Iraq, not a single US Senator has voted
> against funding for the war
>
> Thanks again for continuously presenting the opportunity to post this
> again, again and again, Donna .
>
>
I see Party Central is once again responding to your desperate cries for
help in beating off all dem dang libruls.
When are you going to ask them for that proof that "1 in 4" blacks
living in poverty is a smaller ratio than "1 in 9" whites doing so?
Surely that would be an easier task for them than "proving" that WMDs
were any more than a pretext for a grab for oil?
How's it feel to know a bunch of ill-trained, ill-equipped, non-
christian sand-niggers are kicking your "asses" all over the Middle
East, peabrain? It must make you wonder whose side god is really on.
[email protected] says...
> <Why was Bush in such a screaming hurry?
>
> Donna Evleth>
>
> There you go again, Donna.
>
> According to your convoluted logic liberation of Iraq has been solely
> all about Bush.
>
> You are either terminally naive or your judgement has been distorted by
> your venomous anti-
> American, anti-Bush bias.
>
>
>
> President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
> support for his Iraq Liberation Act in 98.
>
>
> HR.4655
> Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
>
>
> Oct 7, 98:
> Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
>
>
> The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
> The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
> The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
> WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
> The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
> The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
> Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in '03
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_in...ion_legitimacy
>
>
> In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of
> United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Adopted 296-133 by the House
> of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate), the United States Congress
>
> granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.
>
>
>
> >From October 2002 until the invasion of March 2003, Saddam was provided
>
> with ample time to get his WMDs out of the country.
>
>
> In over 3 years into the war in Iraq, not a single US Senator has voted
> against funding for the war
>
> Thanks again for continuously presenting the opportunity to post this
> again, again and again, Donna .
>
>
I see Party Central is once again responding to your desperate cries for
help in beating off all dem dang libruls.
When are you going to ask them for that proof that "1 in 4" blacks
living in poverty is a smaller ratio than "1 in 9" whites doing so?
Surely that would be an easier task for them than "proving" that WMDs
were any more than a pretext for a grab for oil?
How's it feel to know a bunch of ill-trained, ill-equipped, non-
christian sand-niggers are kicking your "asses" all over the Middle
East, peabrain? It must make you wonder whose side god is really on.
Dec 1st 2006, 8:47 am
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>On 1 Dec 2006 03:38:21 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>What Democrats said about Weapons of Mass Destruction
>What on earth made you think I was on the Democrats side?
Peej has a very limited worldview: Republicans and Democrats and
Arabs.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>On 1 Dec 2006 03:38:21 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>What Democrats said about Weapons of Mass Destruction
>What on earth made you think I was on the Democrats side?
Peej has a very limited worldview: Republicans and Democrats and
Arabs.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Dec 1st 2006, 8:59 am
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:28:16 GMT 'DVH'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
>> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
>> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
>> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
>> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
>> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
>> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
>> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
>Why do you care?
I visit other countries to sample *their* culture and food and to get
away from western decadence, not to eat or see McDonalds muck all
over the place. The presence of these damn places also interferes with
taking pix. Do I really want a picture of the night market in Chiang
Mai to be ruined by a McDonalds burger sign lit up like a xmas tree?
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
>> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
>> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
>> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
>> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
>> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
>> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
>> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
>Why do you care?
I visit other countries to sample *their* culture and food and to get
away from western decadence, not to eat or see McDonalds muck all
over the place. The presence of these damn places also interferes with
taking pix. Do I really want a picture of the night market in Chiang
Mai to be ruined by a McDonalds burger sign lit up like a xmas tree?
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
