OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

"B J Conner" wrote in message
news:mUFfd.3925$jD4.1196@trnddc06...



Somebody is paying him something. Cheny probably fell in love with him
when
he saw him pull 29.92 on an onion sack. Yesterday was St. Crispins day, I
wonder if the vultures and chicken hawks have a day to reminisce and
chortle
over their foul deeds.


Oppooortunity my friend. In War there is opportunity, money to be made,
contracts to write, budgets to loot. And it mostly comes out of the Social
Security surplus. See, its all Joe Sixpack's money, right there for the
stealing. Nice and neat. Its Joe's blood, Joe's social security, and Joe's
kid's future. Its predatory capitalism at its best and if you wrap it in the
ol red, white and blue, Joe might even steal it for you. Keep Joe in the
dark, keep Joe in debt and, hell Joe might even thank you for ****ing him
out of his birthright of freedom.

Dave

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:34:46 GMT, wrote:



Whoa...where did you get the idea that I was opposed to the US taking out former
allies, whether we propped them up or not? I have no problem whatsoever with
taking out Saddam - he needed to go, and go now, for a variety of reasons. You
like some of them, but not others. If we two agree he needed to go, it makes no
difference what two others think were the BEST reasons. And the US didn't need
any "moral ground" - its government had its national interests and that's all
it, or any nation, needs. As to the rest, if you think Saddam could be trusted,
you're dreaming or VERY naive, and as to Chalibi tricking the US into taking out
Saddam for Iran, that's more fantasy, but as to the idea of getting rid of
Saddam being a plus for the Iranians and therefore, yet another plus for the US
_currently_, sure, it's just another on that long list of good reasons.

IMO, the real problem is, and has been, that Bush simply _couldn't_ go to the
American people and say, "Look, this SOB is bad news, there are lots of reasons
to take his ass out, and some I can or will talk about and others I won't, but
just the ones I'm going to discuss are enough to justify doing it" and be done
with it. But nope, the American people and the Clintonistas want to
Monday-morning QB everything, each for their own reasons, and so, a decision was
made to outline a couple of BIG reasons. Where the **** hit the fan was when
the "WMD" info turned out to be inaccurate _at least on the scale expected by
Dems, the media, liberal bed-wetters, etc._ Just look at what happens when
Kerry gets a rare hardball like, "So, Senator, is it your opinion that the world
would be better off with Saddam still in power?" And with his answer, we get to
witness crawfishing that would shame six Breaux Bridge cajuns.

Also, I'm getting busy, and while I enjoy this, and messing around with Wolfie
and the lovebirds, I'm going to be time-limited very shortly - gotta go rig
elections, send hookers to Kerry's suites, and figure out some way to ground all
those damned Gulfstreams full of Dem lawyers, donchaknow - so please don't take
a lack of response as anything more than no time.

TC,
R


No problem about the time -- hope you enjoyed Clarke's article and the
peak oil discussion-- they're worth the read.

Personally, I'm quite happy to see Saddam go bye-bye. When I offer up
perspectives or alternatives, do not automatically assume I agree with
everything in them. I post them because; A) they're interesting, b)
they are thought provoking, c) they could be right. I sometimes make
reference to stuff with which I might actually be in disagreement, but
is worth the mention. I find the Chalabi conspiracy theory to be
stretching things simply because I can't believe that everyone in the
administration is that stupid. If they can figure out the euro-dollar
war, they can figure out this pipsqueak. It does make for an
interesting read though, for some of it is bound to be accurate. After
all, no decent consiparcy theory can hold water if it is all wrong.

BTW, the idea that Saddam could "return to the fold" and be useful
against Islamic fundamentalists is not far-fetched nor naive -- it's
real-politk. He hated Islamic extremists as they posed a great threat
to him. His war with Iran and his crushing of the Shias post Gulf
War I is rooted in this hatred. This is why the connection of 9/11and
Al-Qaeda with Saddam is such a monumental lie.

Never assume that I'm a Kerry fan. While I'd vote against Bush were I
a U.S. citizen, I'd be holding my nose when I voted for Kerry. Why
does your primary system continually offer up such ****ty candidates
when there seems to be so many other better choices? (BTW, I'm not
saying ours are any better, just that our bad choices can't blow up
the world.) Just because I detest Bush and his boys doesn't mean that
I'm anti-Republican or pro-Democratic. I was never a Clinton fan. I
calls 'em as I see's 'em. If you recall, I wrote a piece a while
back on Republicans vs. neo-cons that was complimentary to basic,
Republican, conservative values (hence my reference to the article
being "familiar" which Warren obviously missed).

I can live with real politk reasons for war as well. Remember that
Canada benefits short-term if the U.S. wins the petro-dollar war. I
just can't stand all this phoney moralizing, "God told me to do it.",
mythology, and assorted bull**** that always seems to drive these
issues. You've basically said that the American public can't be
trusted with the real reasons for war so we have to invent lies for
war, wrap them up in religion, the flag, and the myth, and sell them
to the American public. That's depressing as I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

Peter Charles wrote:
snip
I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Nope. It's just you and me, Petah, just you and me. And you're not even
a real 'Merican. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

Peter Charles wrote:
snip
I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Nope. It's just you and me, Petah, just you and me. And you're not even
a real 'Merican. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:35:44 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Peter Charles wrote:
snip
I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Nope. It's just you and me, Petah, just you and me. And you're not even
a real 'Merican. ;-)


ya, I'm just one of those ersatz 'muricun Canuckistanni varieties.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

In article , minibrown_1
@mailhot.com says...

You've basically said that the American public can't be
trusted with the real reasons for war so we have to invent lies for
war, wrap them up in religion, the flag, and the myth, and sell them
to the American public. That's depressing as I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Ummm, this is the American electorate who couldn't figure out not to
vote for two people for president, can't locate Canada on a map, and
that believe that one party (pick one) is pure evil and the other (again
pick one) is on their side.

There were lots of good* reasons to remove Saddam, but "he's got
WMD and has used them before" is the one that reasonated best with
most people. Given that SH probably thought he had WMD and pretty much
every major country's intelligence agency thought he had them it seemed
a good reason at the time.

- Ken

* Assuming you believe there can be a "good" reason to go to war.

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

In article , minibrown_1
@mailhot.com says...

You've basically said that the American public can't be
trusted with the real reasons for war so we have to invent lies for
war, wrap them up in religion, the flag, and the myth, and sell them
to the American public. That's depressing as I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Ummm, this is the American electorate who couldn't figure out not to
vote for two people for president, can't locate Canada on a map, and
that believe that one party (pick one) is pure evil and the other (again
pick one) is on their side.

There were lots of good* reasons to remove Saddam, but "he's got
WMD and has used them before" is the one that reasonated best with
most people. Given that SH probably thought he had WMD and pretty much
every major country's intelligence agency thought he had them it seemed
a good reason at the time.

- Ken

* Assuming you believe there can be a "good" reason to go to war.

OT -- very thoughtful, imho
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:23:29 -0700, wrote:

In article , minibrown_1
says...

You've basically said that the American public can't be
trusted with the real reasons for war so we have to invent lies for
war, wrap them up in religion, the flag, and the myth, and sell them
to the American public. That's depressing as I would hope that the
American electorate is sophisticated enough to deal with at least some
semblence of the truth.

Ummm, this is the American electorate who couldn't figure out not to
vote for two people for president, can't locate Canada on a map, and
that believe that one party (pick one) is pure evil and the other (again
pick one) is on their side.

There were lots of good* reasons to remove Saddam, but "he's got
WMD and has used them before" is the one that reasonated best with
most people. Given that SH probably thought he had WMD and pretty much
every major country's intelligence agency thought he had them it seemed
a good reason at the time.

- Ken

* Assuming you believe there can be a "good" reason to go to war.

True, but it wasn't the real reason for war and that's my point. As
you have pointed out, it's one that resonates well, not the real one.
Keep in mind, the lie about SH and 9/11 also resonated very well and
that was total fiction from the get-go.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html