RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed?

RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/2/2007 2:27:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Not very similar. The US did not colonize this area, subject them to extremely high taxes, and then ignore anything they had to say. The only similarity is warfare, and the Iraqi soil is occupied. Now ask yourself, does the Iraqi government want them there or not? Does the Iraqi government fear the further chaos that will ensue, once the US leaves? Of course they've colonized the area. They've seized Iraqi oil assets and handed the funds out as they see fit, they've attempted the same "shock therapy" tactics they tried in Russia in 1991 which is clear the decks, start from scratch and create a market democracy i.e. the American way. They've built an embassy the size of a village, they've handed out contracts right, left and centre to companies like Bechtel. They sacked senior Iraqi officials at one point. They've been colonised alright, the aim is to create a system open to US economic interests, is this not colonisation? Now Iraq is similar to the situation above, but not similar to the first one I offered, the American Revolution. Well the Republicans got thrown out as the majority for a number of reasons, and the management of Iraq being one of them. The people are using their voting power to create change in direction. Military personnel that have committed illegal acts have been tried, or have trials pending. The military contractor that is accused of murdering innocents, is being investigated. The sad part in all of this, is that none of it will go far enough, because there is too much corruption and political pandering in our government, and that is in both parties. This is where I mentioned previously that "we the people" are accountable, and we need to take as much political action as necessary to effect the change. I doubt it will be enough to hold responsible everyone that should be in the current war, but maybe it will be enough to put better checks and balances in, and open communication to hold people responsible. I am not about to lay off accountability to Bush and his admin, they have a responsibility to what has occurred. Many will call this Bush's war, and point the fingers in the blame game, and those type of people are as much of the problem as Bush is. Our country has come down to politics is a game, and you cheer for your favorite team. You ignore any wrong doing anyone in the team does, but you point fingers when the other team does these wrongs. Let me know if I missed any points. I believe on several we are just restating our position, and not going to sway the other, which I can respect.

Sinergy -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/2/2007 7:50:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania It is the bastards that send them into harm's way that are dishonorable. Paraphrased quote from Erich Marie Remarque. "It is always the wrong people who fight and die in wars." Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/2/2007 7:54:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein's crime was an intention to sell Iraqi oil on the open market for something other than US dollars. This would be a fairly substantial threat to the US economy. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/2/2007 7:59:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania That was on an entirely different thread... are you making that an excuse for not admitting that you thought something was in fact a law, but it isn't.... come now... everyone can be mistaken... even me last night on a thread that is in the Polls and Random Stupidity forum[:)], you see my ego does not revolve around being perfect or right all the time... I am mistaken quite often, and no one gets hurt... even me[;)] TheHeretic does seem to have a problem differentiating threads on "Polls and Random Stupidity" with threads about people discussing extant reality. I started a thread there called Dominating for Dummies which he took seriously. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/2/2007 8:34:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I started a thread there called Dominating for Dummies which he took seriously. Sinergy Perhaps you should go back and re-read my original reply on that thread. Or do you also prefer to attack things you haven't bothered to read?

LadyEllen -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 2:46:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. I disagree. The whole reason this situation was, is and will be the most monumental strategic blunder is that Hussein threatened his neighbours - notably Iran. His removal, though perhaps justified on human rights grounds, was a stupid move simply because in his absence we allowed not only AQ to move somewhere new where they werent previously welcome, but we also allowed the Iranians to move in and have dominance in the region. I feel we will yet come to regret the whole episode a lot more than we have until now. E

farglebargle -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 9:27:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein's crime was an intention to sell Iraqi oil on the open market for something other than US dollars. This would be a fairly substantial threat to the US economy. Sinergy What's a bigger threat? Unregulated mortgages? Oh, wow... You know.. The SAME EXACT THREAT exists with the Saudis, and every other oil dealer. Maybe the biggest threat is our reliance on foreign energy supplies. Wow, if Reagan had continued Carter's "Conservation" bullshit, and we did some real policy making in the 80's we wouldn't be dependent-like-a-junkie-dependent on our oil-fix, that we MUGGED A COUNTRY. ( Well, that and Bush needed to obey Bin Laden, and get the US troops out of Bin Laden's homeland, Saudi Arabia. ) It's all fucked up. Picking fights you can't win doesn't help.

farglebargle -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 9:31:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hussein threatened no-one, except the internal terrorists and insurrectionists he was trying to suppress. I disagree. The whole reason this situation was, is and will be the most monumental strategic blunder is that Hussein threatened his neighbours - notably Iran. Imagine how little I care about Iraq threatening Iran. Maybe I should have said, "No-one in the United States"... My point is that there really wasn't any Caseus Belli ( I know that's not spelled right... ) and what the US did was the moral equivalent of a Junkie sticking a shiv in an old lady, and stealing her purse. In the US's case, the addiction is to oil. And all the crap that goes along with building policy around it. ( Iraq solved the "We need bases in the ME, but were chased out of Saudi Arabia by Bin Laden" problem ) His removal, though perhaps justified on human rights grounds, was a stupid move simply because in his absence we allowed not only AQ to move somewhere new where they werent previously welcome, but we also allowed the Iranians to move in and have dominance in the region. I feel we will yet come to regret the whole episode a lot more than we have until now. E

LotusSong -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 2:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But you aren't trying to become the Chief Executive of the nation symbolized by a flag he chooses not to show appropriate, legal, respect for Bush does, but it sure doesn't erase the fact he has destroyed the country. This is just really stretching to find something "wrong" with him, don't you think?

TheHeretic -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 6:34:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong This is just really stretching to find something "wrong" with him, don't you think? OMG! Are we actually getting back to talking about Obama? You don't have to stretch to find something wrong with Barak. This is just one of those 'nail in the coffin' pics.

TheHeretic -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 6:40:19 PM)
For those who've been up in arms over the idea of a "battery" committed in response to violations of Title 4, tell me how many "crimes" you see in this video and rate the chances of a successful prosecution for any of them.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/3/2007 9:04:35 PM)
Having to listen to the the National Anthem being sung so horrible, my right hand would not be over my heart. Instead, it would be pulling a trigger of a 9mm. If nothing else, both hands would be over my ears. Either way, this does not look good for a senator nor presidental canidate. When it comes down to it, most voters don't care about big plans and statements. It are the little things that make all the difference.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/4/2007 2:13:13 AM)
quote: Farglebargle In the US's case, the addiction is to oil. And all the crap that goes along with building policy around it. Its not an addiction its a FOOD The whole western industrial establishment would "starve" without oil. We gorra 'ave it. Simple as that and all means must be and will be taken to maintain supplies regardless of what it says in your beloved constitution. Thats my order of the day for immediate action. All bleeding hearts please sit down and be quiet

Real0ne -> RE: Hmmm. Has this been discussed? (12/5/2007 1:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That and its irrelevant since rich said he would simply "claim an oops" to get away with it. (hence the jury already knows the truth that it was not an accident and it was not mensre) It was maliscious and on purpose. (it alwasys strikes me as being funny when people who appear to believe most earnestly the government would never do such a thing to their people are the first to use the same tactics themselves with in the scale of their personal resources) standard neocon installment of the principles of freedom! lol Now don't go giving all the credit for such a time-honored tradition to Conservatives alone, Real. Remember the AF's 'oops' at the Chinese Embassy during the Clinton Administration? I have trouble believing that someone such as yourself doesn't embrace the idea of jury nullification either. There is a big difference between "neo"con and con. Just like there are boys that will be gurls and gurls that will be boys there will also be liberals that are neocons. Of course I believe in jury null, but it really wont do you much good after admiting malice

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125