And you are someone who has had your leg blown off, I assume? Those people who did have their legs blown off were willing to make that sacrifice, who are you to make that choice for them? No one is forcing you to get yourt leg blown off for Cheney's millions, if you don't want to, don't. It's pretty poor, in my opinion, to attempt to demean their intentions. I do however, I feel a lot more comfortable about leaders that have actually fought themselves or who send their children to war. I think if you are going to take those kinds of decisions it is important to have a direct and emotional involvement.
For the record, only the pacific campaign of WW2 was fought against an actual threat to the U.S.
War is not isometric. The U.S. fought Hitler, even though he was no threat to them. They fought him because they needed help with Japan.
The people we need to fight, the people we need to be able to fight are not necessarily those that directly threaten us. To get to the letter D we must first be able to go past A, B and C. In WW2, we invaded and occupied both Iran and Iraq. They were no threat to us. But we needed their oil to win, and we needed our enemies not to have access to it. Just because someone posses no direct threat to me, does not mean they are not my enemies. There is a bigger picture.
1. I have served. Not in combat, fortunately, but in Germany, Korea, and Honduras. The people getting their legs blown off ARE being forced to do so. They're not losing legs for freedom. They're not losing legs to protect the United States. They're losing legs for the ego of the deserting coward and the greed (for money and power) of Cheney. The bleeding sore that is Iraq is an occupation that is consuming resources and returning...nothing. Well, unless you're Halliburton or Blackwater. For them it's a porkbarrel like no other.
2. I love it when people display their ignorance of history like this. It's such a pleasure to knock the softballs that they toss at me out of the park. Germany declared war on the US, which played perfectly into FDR's hands, because the war in Europe was the exisistential threat to the United States, long term. Priority was given to the war in Europe from Germany's declaration of war onward. The war in the Pacific was treated as at worst a holding action with some offensive action seeing it was the Navy's main effort.
3. We didn't need the oli of Iraq or Iran to win in WWII, but we did need to deny it to Hitler. We were fueled by Texas in WWII.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Brown, white or yellow. We have a higher moral responsability to our children than to theirs.
Anyway, why would you think it's their oil? Iraqi oil companies believe it or not existed pre invasion days. Does being born near something make it yours? Not unnecessarily Were you born near your computer? Whats that got to do with the topic?
Ownership doesn't work like that.
Is it somehow OK for brown people to suppress eachother over oil but not white people? Is that what you are trying to say? You know very well that is NOT what i was saying, stop trolling baff. What a load of old tosh. No more than what you say at times
I really love it when the closet nationalists come out in these topics, tho I'm not saying you are but really you need to read what you post as it really comes out as Immoral and callous.
Fact of the matter is that the true goals of the War of terror in Iraq was not just about r3emoving the leadership. It was also about Bus junior getting back at the guy who embarresed his Daddy and it was about getting at that lovely oil.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
race baiting is not cool. anyways, synapses of the iraq war. suppress the brown people.(thats a new one) Oil (links to Bush) Haliburton (links to Cheney) Vengence (assasination plot to Bush sr.) iraq war has been politicised for political gain. period. i've yet to see factual evidence.
Just like we are still waiting to see any evidence for the reason we went into this war in the first place.
The production of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons.
Personally i think the whole thing is an absolute farse, and possibly one of the biggest f*&kups in political history.
Perhaps we should of just beleived Saddam really did not have any WMD's and would never hand them off to a third party bent on mass death. Before you answer look at this...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm We know he had them because we sold him the means to produce them. And did nothing as he used them. I would think it would be more embarassing to reveal WMD,s created with western know how and technologies. Know doubt the Iraqi scientist involed in such programs were educated in western colleges , perhaps with grants supplied by the taxpayers. Yeah it would open up a whole can of worms to find out German companies supplied Saddam with the means to gas attack Israeli. ( Some of the most important guidance components in Scud missles shot at israeli were produced with good old German knowhow) and Saddam threatened to arm them with WMD.
Face it all the Goverments have lied for so long that there only recourse is to lie about any supposed WMD's found in Iraq, it would raise too many questions and be bad for business
race baiting is not cool. anyways, synapses of the iraq war. suppress the brown people.(thats a new one) Oil (links to Bush) Haliburton (links to Cheney) Vengence (assasination plot to Bush sr.) iraq war has been politicised for political gain. period. i've yet to see factual evidence.
Just like we are still waiting to see any evidence for the reason we went into this war in the first place.
The production of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons.
Personally i think the whole thing is an absolute farse, and possibly one of the biggest f*&kups in political history.
Perhaps we should of just beleived Saddam really did not have any WMD's and would never hand them off to a third party bent on mass death. Before you answer look at this...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm We know he had them because we sold him the means to produce them. And did nothing as he used them. I would think it would be more embarassing to reveal WMD,s created with western know how and technologies. Know doubt the Iraqi scientist involed in such programs were educated in western colleges , perhaps with grants supplied by the taxpayers. Yeah it would open up a whole can of worms to find out German companies supplied Saddam with the means to gas attack Israeli. ( Some of the most important guidance components in Scud missles shot at israeli were produced with good old German knowhow) and Saddam threatened to arm them with WMD.
Face it all the Goverments have lied for so long that there only recourse is to lie about any supposed WMD's found in Iraq, it would raise too many questions and be bad for business
It is a matter of fact that Saddam had chemical weapons 20+ years ago, i am not arguing this. This was also not the reason why OIF was started.
OIF was started because we were told that Iraq was, once again, porducing chemical weapons and in addition to those chemical weapons, he had also started production on nuclear weapons and biological agents.
This is the 'lie' to which i am referring to.
It was also said that he could launch such a weapon in 45 minutes [some trick ]
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Bushmonkey I clicked on that link softwar.... looks like standard right wing misinformation and propaganda to me.
Your second link is to Freerepublic:
Free Republic has an official policy which allows authorized moderators to remove postings identified as blatantly violent, racist or bigoted.[8][9]. Postings deemed to support "liberal" points of view may also be "moderated" per official policy, expressed in 2004 by the owner as: "we feel no compelling need to allow [liberals] a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society."[10] The owner reserves the right to revoke posting privileges and exclude any individual without recourse.[11]
After tthose 2 links I didnt feel like bothering your other links.
Bushmonkey I clicked on that link softwar.... looks like standard right wing misinformation and propaganda to me.
Your second link is to Freerepublic: Free Republic has an official policy which allows authorized moderators to remove postings identified as blatantly violent, racist or bigoted.[8][9]. Postings deemed to support "liberal" points of view may also be "moderated" per official policy, expressed in 2004 by the owner as: "we feel no compelling need to allow [liberals] a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society."[10] The owner reserves the right to revoke posting privileges and exclude any individual without recourse.[11]
After tthose 2 links I didnt feel like bothering your other links.
This could only be good for liberials since it keeps them out of trouble. The Democrate Underground is always scrambling to delete content their members put on there. It must be bad stuff they delete because the times I have went there, it is nothing but foul language and hate.
And you are someone who has had your leg blown off, I assume? Those people who did have their legs blown off were willing to make that sacrifice, who are you to make that choice for them? No one is forcing you to get yourt leg blown off for Cheney's millions, if you don't want to, don't. It's pretty poor, in my opinion, to attempt to demean their intentions. I do however, I feel a lot more comfortable about leaders that have actually fought themselves or who send their children to war. I think if you are going to take those kinds of decisions it is important to have a direct and emotional involvement.
For the record, only the pacific campaign of WW2 was fought against an actual threat to the U.S.
War is not isometric. The U.S. fought Hitler, even though he was no threat to them. They fought him because they needed help with Japan.
The people we need to fight, the people we need to be able to fight are not necessarily those that directly threaten us. To get to the letter D we must first be able to go past A, B and C. In WW2, we invaded and occupied both Iran and Iraq. They were no threat to us. But we needed their oil to win, and we needed our enemies not to have access to it. Just because someone posses no direct threat to me, does not mean they are not my enemies. There is a bigger picture.
1. I have served. Not in combat, fortunately, but in Germany, Korea, and Honduras. The people getting their legs blown off ARE being forced to do so. They're not losing legs for freedom. They're not losing legs to protect the United States. They're losing legs for the ego of the deserting coward and the greed (for money and power) of Cheney. The bleeding sore that is Iraq is an occupation that is consuming resources and returning...nothing. Well, unless you're Halliburton or Blackwater. For them it's a porkbarrel like no other.
2. I love it when people display their ignorance of history like this. It's such a pleasure to knock the softballs that they toss at me out of the park. Germany declared war on the US, which played perfectly into FDR's hands, because the war in Europe was the exisistential threat to the United States, long term. Priority was given to the war in Europe from Germany's declaration of war onward. The war in the Pacific was treated as at worst a holding action with some offensive action seeing it was the Navy's main effort.
3. We didn't need the oli of Iraq or Iran to win in WWII, but we did need to deny it to Hitler. We were fueled by Texas in WWII.
You didn't. You weren't there. We needed it. We denied it to Hitler. Britain and India.
I stand corrected on Germans declaration of War with the U.S., nonetheless Germany was not a direct threat to the U.S. Japan was. You don't have to attack me to be my enemy. FDR was up for attacking Germany all along, just as with Bush and Iraq he had been trying all sorts of tall stories to sell it to the American public for years in the run up to war. All wars are like this.
It was the same in Britain. Half of us liked Hitler. Churchill forced us into a war the people didn't want. Public opinion didn't change until they bombed London.
Just like 9/11. (Except 9/11 wasn't anything to do with Iraq, it just got everyones blood up).
The servicemen in Iraq are not being forced to do so, what utter claptrap. Your army is a 100% volunteer force. Every single man and woman in it signed up for it. No one forced them. And just like you, it is the ethos of a soldier to want to see action. They want to go. It's why they joined and what they trained for. I don't know a single soldier who doesn't want to be deployed into a combat zone. Not a one.
And I agree with you, it's not about freedom and it's not about protecting the U.S. (Although it is about protecting U.S. intrests, even Dick Cheney's). America is not under direct physical threat from Iraq. Your laughable freedoms are not at any critical risk.
But there are two ways to start a war, one is the Pearl Harbour method, where you just sit back and refuse to get involved until you are directly attacked, and then there is the other Pearl Harbour method, where it's you who strikes decisively first. You who knocks your rivals fleet out of action for years to come. (Except of course the Japs failed when they missed the carriers).
I know which I prefer.
So you can go isolationist if you like, but take a string from the British's bow, it is better to fight wars in other peoples countries than it is to fight them in your own. Have an expeditionary force, and use it. Attack really is the best form of defence.
Also remember divide and conquer, it is better to fight an infinite number of small wars than it is to fight one big one.
Lets have a little think about money.
Imagine what you would do if you won the state lottery, became a millionaire over night. Imagine what you might spend the money and how it would change your life. (Can you imagine shoplifting after such a win?).
Perhaps you would buy yourself a mansion or a ferrari, or setup you kids for life? Take a moment to explore this fantasy in your mind.
Now imagine that you have won the National lotttery, overnight you become a multi-millionaire, what would you do with 50 million? Once again perhaps you would be willing to spend a few moments imaging for yourself what you might do.
This time perhaps you would have the Ferrari and the mansion. And the kids set for life, and holidays anywhere in the world anytime. A few mansions, and be able to hang out with anyone in the world you chose.
Now lets imagine what you would do if you had hundreds of millions or even billions. How many mansions can you own? How many Ferrari's? You already party with George Clooney and Naomi Campbell and have done since you had 10's of millions.
What is there left to do for a person so wealthy. What ambitions? what goals, what's left to achieve? Answer? Do a Bill Gates, when you have that kind of money, what can you do with it?
Change the world.
And this is where Dick Cheney found himself. Then he went into politics.
Do you really think it makes any difference to Dick Cheney's life if Haliburton gets the contract? He already has more mansions than he has seen, his kids are set for life, he already has Ferrari's on tap. He has had more money than he can possibly ever spent for decades. He doesn't have the hours in the day to spend the money he already has. For a man like Dick Cheney, money isn't a motive for anything.
It isn't the rich people you have to watch, it's the poor ones. The ones without any money standing next to the open cash register.
Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesars monologue on political corruption from the Shakespeare play of that Name.
In Britain,our second chamber in parliament is not made up of elected representatives, it is made up of rich people. Already successful people. It is their very wealth that assures their honesty. They could abuse their position to earn them extra money, but unlike many of their elected counterparts in the 1st chamber, they don't need the money. Part of their job is to keep the elected career climbers under scrutiny. They are as close to incorruptable as any we can find.
I like to poke fun at Dick Cheney over Haliburton as much as the next man, but it's all tongue in cheek mate. It's not something you would want to take seriously in any way.
Brown, white or yellow. We have a higher moral responsability to our children than to theirs.
Anyway, why would you think it's their oil? Iraqi oil companies believe it or not existed pre invasion days. Does being born near something make it yours? Not unnecessarily Were you born near your computer? Whats that got to do with the topic?
Ownership doesn't work like that.
Is it somehow OK for brown people to suppress eachother over oil but not white people? Is that what you are trying to say? You know very well that is NOT what i was saying, stop trolling baff. What a load of old tosh. No more than what you say at times
I really love it when the closet nationalists come out in these topics, tho I'm not saying you are but really you need to read what you post as it really comes out as Immoral and callous.
Fact of the matter is that the true goals of the War of terror in Iraq was not just about r3emoving the leadership. It was also about Bus junior getting back at the guy who embarresed his Daddy and it was about getting at that lovely oil.
Iraqi oil companies did exist before our invasions. (Although they didn't exist before the British created them during our first invasion).
What you fail to understand is that before our invasion those Iraqi oil companies have been fought over perpetually for over 80 years. Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkish, Germans, British, Indians. We've all fought over them. They have been fought over by successive powers since the day we first left them there.
Saddam fought over them. There has been plenty of brown on brown suppression over those very companies. In fact, our invasion put a stop to the worst of it.
So no, I don't know what you mean. You were just being a sanctimonious racist as far as I can tell.Taking a cheap shot to make yourself feel all morally superior at my expense.
Maybe you were trying to imply that the invasion of Iraq was racially motivated. Or that I think upsetting brown people is not as bad as upsetting white people. Or that I don't value the lives of Iraqi's as much as I value the lives of my children because iraqi's are brown coloured. White self hate maybe? Or perhaps you were trying to imply that white people are better than brown people, and just because the browns want to kill and suppress each other over oil doesn't mean that we have to?
I don't know and I don't care. That comment was born out of ignorance. Brown people suppress each other over oil too. And in Iraq. Both before, during and after our invasion.
"Ownership" has everything to do with the topic. Who owns the Iraqi oil today? Is it the Sunni's or the Shia? Is it the Kurds?
You say it belongs to the Iraqi's but which Iraqi's? And why doesn't it belong to the Mesopotamians? That's the people we left it too originally.
Don't you understand that a resource as valuable as Iraqi oil changes hands every decade. The person with the biggest army in theatre owns Iraqi oil. Always has done, always will.
Does it belong to the people who live there? Saddam shifted out the Shia popluation from the oil fields. He replaced them with his own people the Sunni's. The region is historically migrant. Nomadic. No one lived there before they struck oil at all. So who's was it to start with?
It belongs to the Iraqi's. Could you possibly be more ignorant?
I don't see anything immoral about taking care of my families intrests first. I think this is the prime moral. All other morality is second to this. I think when push comes to shove, all of humanity does too.
I also think thare are a lot of people who enjoy being sanctimonious. Who embrace short-sightedness if it gives them the opportunity to take the moral high ground and lord it over others. I pwned joo with my higher morality! People would rather believe their fellow man to be a monster than try to comprehend his actions. They like to think they are special. Superior. You and your whole "wet liberal" crowd (lol, just a bit of revenge for the nationalist comment there) are just using other peoples misery as an emotional crutch to make you feel better about yourselves. You don't have the balls to face up to the real price of your own lifestyles.
As for callous. I'm callous when I need to be. I eat meat and I kill. There is no shame in it.
Baffs debate skills have improved greatly since I have came back. I am impressed . Baff, what have you been doing? You learned the bait, hook and catch debate style. Would make a formidable opponent
Im glad I really do not do debate anymore. My time is ended for that.
Comments
race baiting is not cool.
anyways, synapses of the iraq war.
suppress the brown people.(thats a new one)
Oil (links to Bush)
Haliburton (links to Cheney)
Vengence (assasination plot to Bush sr.)
iraq war has been politicised for political gain. period. i've yet to see factual evidence.
chips, dips chains & whips.
1. I have served. Not in combat, fortunately, but in Germany, Korea, and Honduras. The people getting their legs blown off ARE being forced to do so. They're not losing legs for freedom. They're not losing legs to protect the United States. They're losing legs for the ego of the deserting coward and the greed (for money and power) of Cheney. The bleeding sore that is Iraq is an occupation that is consuming resources and returning...nothing. Well, unless you're Halliburton or Blackwater. For them it's a porkbarrel like no other.
2. I love it when people display their ignorance of history like this. It's such a pleasure to knock the softballs that they toss at me out of the park. Germany declared war on the US, which played perfectly into FDR's hands, because the war in Europe was the exisistential threat to the United States, long term. Priority was given to the war in Europe from Germany's declaration of war onward. The war in the Pacific was treated as at worst a holding action with some offensive action seeing it was the Navy's main effort.
3. We didn't need the oli of Iraq or Iran to win in WWII, but we did need to deny it to Hitler. We were fueled by Texas in WWII.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Fact of the matter is that the true goals of the War of terror in Iraq was not just about r3emoving the leadership. It was also about Bus junior getting back at the guy who embarresed his Daddy and it was about getting at that lovely oil.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
The production of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons.
Personally i think the whole thing is an absolute farse, and possibly one of the biggest f*&kups in political history.
http://www.softwar.net/iraq.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1638638/posts
Graphic content follows http://members.tripod.com/kurdus/id89.htm
Perhaps we should of just beleived Saddam really did not have any WMD's and would never hand them off to a third party bent on mass death. Before you answer look at this...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm We know he had them because we sold him the means to produce them. And did nothing as he used them. I would think it would be more embarassing to reveal WMD,s created with western know how and technologies. Know doubt the Iraqi scientist involed in such programs were educated in western colleges , perhaps with grants supplied by the taxpayers. Yeah it would open up a whole can of worms to find out German companies supplied Saddam with the means to gas attack Israeli. ( Some of the most important guidance components in Scud missles shot at israeli were produced with good old German knowhow) and Saddam threatened to arm them with WMD.
Face it all the Goverments have lied for so long that there only recourse is to lie about any supposed WMD's found in Iraq, it would raise too many questions and be bad for business
The production of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons.
Personally i think the whole thing is an absolute farse, and possibly one of the biggest f*&kups in political history.
http://www.softwar.net/iraq.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1638638/posts
Graphic content follows http://members.tripod.com/kurdus/id89.htm
Perhaps we should of just beleived Saddam really did not have any WMD's and would never hand them off to a third party bent on mass death. Before you answer look at this...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm We know he had them because we sold him the means to produce them. And did nothing as he used them. I would think it would be more embarassing to reveal WMD,s created with western know how and technologies. Know doubt the Iraqi scientist involed in such programs were educated in western colleges , perhaps with grants supplied by the taxpayers. Yeah it would open up a whole can of worms to find out German companies supplied Saddam with the means to gas attack Israeli. ( Some of the most important guidance components in Scud missles shot at israeli were produced with good old German knowhow) and Saddam threatened to arm them with WMD.
Face it all the Goverments have lied for so long that there only recourse is to lie about any supposed WMD's found in Iraq, it would raise too many questions and be bad for business
It is a matter of fact that Saddam had chemical weapons 20+ years ago, i am not arguing this. This was also not the reason why OIF was started.
OIF was started because we were told that Iraq was, once again, porducing chemical weapons and in addition to those chemical weapons, he had also started production on nuclear weapons and biological agents.
This is the 'lie' to which i am referring to.
It was also said that he could launch such a weapon in 45 minutes [some trick
]
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Bushmonkey I clicked on that link softwar.... looks like standard right wing misinformation and propaganda to me.
Your second link is to Freerepublic:
Free Republic has an official policy which allows authorized moderators to remove postings identified as blatantly violent, racist or bigoted.[8][9]. Postings deemed to support "liberal" points of view may also be "moderated" per official policy, expressed in 2004 by the owner as: "we feel no compelling need to allow [liberals] a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society."[10] The owner reserves the right to revoke posting privileges and exclude any individual without recourse.[11]
After tthose 2 links I didnt feel like bothering your other links.
This could only be good for liberials since it keeps them out of trouble. The Democrate Underground is always scrambling to delete content their members put on there. It must be bad stuff they delete because the times I have went there, it is nothing but foul language and hate.
1. I have served. Not in combat, fortunately, but in Germany, Korea, and Honduras. The people getting their legs blown off ARE being forced to do so. They're not losing legs for freedom. They're not losing legs to protect the United States. They're losing legs for the ego of the deserting coward and the greed (for money and power) of Cheney. The bleeding sore that is Iraq is an occupation that is consuming resources and returning...nothing. Well, unless you're Halliburton or Blackwater. For them it's a porkbarrel like no other.
2. I love it when people display their ignorance of history like this. It's such a pleasure to knock the softballs that they toss at me out of the park. Germany declared war on the US, which played perfectly into FDR's hands, because the war in Europe was the exisistential threat to the United States, long term. Priority was given to the war in Europe from Germany's declaration of war onward. The war in the Pacific was treated as at worst a holding action with some offensive action seeing it was the Navy's main effort.
3. We didn't need the oli of Iraq or Iran to win in WWII, but we did need to deny it to Hitler. We were fueled by Texas in WWII.
You didn't. You weren't there. We needed it. We denied it to Hitler. Britain and India.
I stand corrected on Germans declaration of War with the U.S., nonetheless Germany was not a direct threat to the U.S. Japan was. You don't have to attack me to be my enemy. FDR was up for attacking Germany all along, just as with Bush and Iraq he had been trying all sorts of tall stories to sell it to the American public for years in the run up to war. All wars are like this.
It was the same in Britain. Half of us liked Hitler. Churchill forced us into a war the people didn't want. Public opinion didn't change until they bombed London.
Just like 9/11. (Except 9/11 wasn't anything to do with Iraq, it just got everyones blood up).
The servicemen in Iraq are not being forced to do so, what utter claptrap. Your army is a 100% volunteer force. Every single man and woman in it signed up for it. No one forced them. And just like you, it is the ethos of a soldier to want to see action. They want to go. It's why they joined and what they trained for. I don't know a single soldier who doesn't want to be deployed into a combat zone. Not a one.
And I agree with you, it's not about freedom and it's not about protecting the U.S. (Although it is about protecting U.S. intrests, even Dick Cheney's). America is not under direct physical threat from Iraq. Your laughable freedoms are not at any critical risk.
But there are two ways to start a war, one is the Pearl Harbour method, where you just sit back and refuse to get involved until you are directly attacked, and then there is the other Pearl Harbour method, where it's you who strikes decisively first. You who knocks your rivals fleet out of action for years to come. (Except of course the Japs failed when they missed the carriers).
I know which I prefer.
So you can go isolationist if you like, but take a string from the British's bow, it is better to fight wars in other peoples countries than it is to fight them in your own. Have an expeditionary force, and use it. Attack really is the best form of defence.
Also remember divide and conquer, it is better to fight an infinite number of small wars than it is to fight one big one.
Lets have a little think about money.
Imagine what you would do if you won the state lottery, became a millionaire over night. Imagine what you might spend the money and how it would change your life. (Can you imagine shoplifting after such a win?).
Perhaps you would buy yourself a mansion or a ferrari, or setup you kids for life? Take a moment to explore this fantasy in your mind.
Now imagine that you have won the National lotttery, overnight you become a multi-millionaire, what would you do with 50 million? Once again perhaps you would be willing to spend a few moments imaging for yourself what you might do.
This time perhaps you would have the Ferrari and the mansion. And the kids set for life, and holidays anywhere in the world anytime. A few mansions, and be able to hang out with anyone in the world you chose.
Now lets imagine what you would do if you had hundreds of millions or even billions. How many mansions can you own? How many Ferrari's? You already party with George Clooney and Naomi Campbell and have done since you had 10's of millions.
What is there left to do for a person so wealthy. What ambitions? what goals, what's left to achieve? Answer? Do a Bill Gates, when you have that kind of money, what can you do with it?
Change the world.
And this is where Dick Cheney found himself. Then he went into politics.
Do you really think it makes any difference to Dick Cheney's life if Haliburton gets the contract? He already has more mansions than he has seen, his kids are set for life, he already has Ferrari's on tap. He has had more money than he can possibly ever spent for decades. He doesn't have the hours in the day to spend the money he already has. For a man like Dick Cheney, money isn't a motive for anything.
It isn't the rich people you have to watch, it's the poor ones. The ones without any money standing next to the open cash register.
Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesars monologue on political corruption from the Shakespeare play of that Name.
In Britain, our second chamber in parliament is not made up of elected representatives, it is made up of rich people. Already successful people. It is their very wealth that assures their honesty. They could abuse their position to earn them extra money, but unlike many of their elected counterparts in the 1st chamber, they don't need the money. Part of their job is to keep the elected career climbers under scrutiny. They are as close to incorruptable as any we can find.
I like to poke fun at Dick Cheney over Haliburton as much as the next man, but it's all tongue in cheek mate. It's not something you would want to take seriously in any way.
Baff that was vary well put...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I really love it when the closet nationalists come out in these topics, tho I'm not saying you are but really you need to read what you post as it really comes out as Immoral and callous.Fact of the matter is that the true goals of the War of terror in Iraq was not just about r3emoving the leadership. It was also about Bus junior getting back at the guy who embarresed his Daddy and it was about getting at that lovely oil.
Iraqi oil companies did exist before our invasions. (Although they didn't exist before the British created them during our first invasion).
What you fail to understand is that before our invasion those Iraqi oil companies have been fought over perpetually for over 80 years. Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkish, Germans, British, Indians. We've all fought over them. They have been fought over by successive powers since the day we first left them there.
Saddam fought over them. There has been plenty of brown on brown suppression over those very companies. In fact, our invasion put a stop to the worst of it.
So no, I don't know what you mean. You were just being a sanctimonious racist as far as I can tell. Taking a cheap shot to make yourself feel all morally superior at my expense.
Maybe you were trying to imply that the invasion of Iraq was racially motivated. Or that I think upsetting brown people is not as bad as upsetting white people. Or that I don't value the lives of Iraqi's as much as I value the lives of my children because iraqi's are brown coloured. White self hate maybe? Or perhaps you were trying to imply that white people are better than brown people, and just because the browns want to kill and suppress each other over oil doesn't mean that we have to?
I don't know and I don't care. That comment was born out of ignorance. Brown people suppress each other over oil too. And in Iraq. Both before, during and after our invasion.
"Ownership" has everything to do with the topic. Who owns the Iraqi oil today? Is it the Sunni's or the Shia? Is it the Kurds?
You say it belongs to the Iraqi's but which Iraqi's? And why doesn't it belong to the Mesopotamians? That's the people we left it too originally.
Don't you understand that a resource as valuable as Iraqi oil changes hands every decade. The person with the biggest army in theatre owns Iraqi oil. Always has done, always will.
Does it belong to the people who live there? Saddam shifted out the Shia popluation from the oil fields. He replaced them with his own people the Sunni's. The region is historically migrant. Nomadic. No one lived there before they struck oil at all. So who's was it to start with?
It belongs to the Iraqi's. Could you possibly be more ignorant?
I don't see anything immoral about taking care of my families intrests first. I think this is the prime moral. All other morality is second to this. I think when push comes to shove, all of humanity does too.
I also think thare are a lot of people who enjoy being sanctimonious. Who embrace short-sightedness if it gives them the opportunity to take the moral high ground and lord it over others. I pwned joo with my higher morality! People would rather believe their fellow man to be a monster than try to comprehend his actions. They like to think they are special. Superior. You and your whole "wet liberal" crowd (lol, just a bit of revenge for the nationalist comment there) are just using other peoples misery as an emotional crutch to make you feel better about yourselves. You don't have the balls to face up to the real price of your own lifestyles.
As for callous. I'm callous when I need to be. I eat meat and I kill. There is no shame in it.
You are on a ROLL BAFF!
"I pwned joo with my higher morality"
thats priceless...and it resonates with me quite nicely. as do some of your other thoughts.
chips, dips chains & whips.
Baffs debate skills have improved greatly since I have came back. I am impressed . Baff, what have you been doing? You learned the bait, hook and catch debate style. Would make a formidable opponent
Im glad I really do not do debate anymore. My time is ended for that.
Keep the posts coming!