On Apr 12, 10:24=A0am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:19 pm, "Quran 47.4 When you meet the unbelievers in
> Jihad, chop off their heads!" <Mohammedmcpi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:55 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 10:19 pm, "Quran 47.4 When you meet the unbelievers in
> > > Jihad, chop off their heads!" <Mohammedmcpi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 10, 5:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 10, 3:07 pm, a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(PeterBP) wrote:
>
> > > > > > *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 8, 1:11 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:=
> > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 11:21 pm, James A. Donald
>
> > > > > > > > > > Rather, I think that policies such as giving one
hundred=
and fifty
> > > > > > > > > > million dollars to Fatah in return for them promising
to=
refrain from
> > > > > > > > > > terrorizing anyone except Jews, in return for them
promi=
sing not to
> > > > > > > > > > terrorize us, policies such as privileging Muslim
polyga=
my while
> > > > > > > > > > puni****ng Christian polygamy, policies of giving the
Mus=
lim religion
> > > > > > > > > > special privileges on state property and in state
funded=
institutions
> > > > > > > > > > while giving Christianity special disabilities and
restr=
ictions in
> > > > > > > > > > those same institutions, though they may postpone war,
a=
re likely to
> > > > > > > > > > result in the war being more severe and more apt to be
g=
enocidal when
> > > > > > > > > > it finally happens.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Holy wars tend to be genocidal. =A0Appeasement tends
to =
result in wars
> > > > > > > > > > being bigger and more brutal when they happen. =A0So
whe=
n we respond to
> > > > > > > > > > holy war with appeasement ...
>
> > > > > > > > > > If we look back to the early days of the republic at
the=
Indian wars,
> > > > > > > > > > we saw plenty of political correctness and
multicultural=
ism, as for
> > > > > > > > > > example the early federal government's settlement with
t=
he
> > > > > > > > > > Chickamauga. =A0It failed to take. =A0I doubt it will
ta=
ke this time
> > > > > > > > > > around.
>
> > > > > > > > "Quran 47.4 When you meet the unbelievers in Jihad, chop
off=
their
> > > > > > > > heads!"
>
> > > > > > > > > When do you get to the part of solutions?
>
> > > > > > > > The solution is first to stop the dhimmitude here, and
secon=
d to
> > > > > > > > strike at our enemies wherever they may be: =A0Starting
with=
Osama bin
> > > > > > > > Laden, who is not in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq, but in
sa=
fe haven
> > > > > > > > in our "ally" Pakistan.
>
> > > > > > > If he's not dead, or vacationing on the Riviera. =A0Or maybe
h=
e's
> > > > > > > in New York in Trump Tower.
>
> > > > > > > It would have been interesting if the US government had just
> > > > > > > gone after Mr. bin Laden and his friends, instead of ginning
u=
p
> > > > > > > all the mighty war and national-building crappola.
>
> > > > > > > 1. =A0No war in Afghanistan -- maybe a raid or two, but if
bin=
Laden
> > > > > > > was in Pakistan, why bother? =A0The Taliban might well have
be=
en
> > > > > > > glad to get rid of him, especially if the right people were
pa=
id off.
>
> > > > > > > 2. =A0No war in Iraq.
>
> > > > > > > 3. =A0No war in Somalia.
>
> > > > > > > 4. ....
>
> > > > > > ...profit?
>
> > > > > Overall, imperialism isn't profitable, but I guess Bush
> > > > > and Cheney and their friends in the oil business may
> > > > > have made some money.
>
> > > > Prove it
>
> > > Prove what? =A0That imperialism isn't profitable overall, or
> > > that Bush and Cheney and their friends in the oil business
> > > may have made some money?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Show me some numbers of these "war profits".
> > While you're at it, maybe look up some numbers of money made by OPEC
> > nations, since they are the puppet masters of oil prices.
>
> My statement was that Bush and Cheney and their friends
> may have made some money, which seems like a reasonable
> supposition given their connections to the oil business and
> the profits re****ted by the oil business recently. =A0There is
> nothing to prove -- no reasonable person could question the
> statement.
>
Big Oil has the right to make a profit. They aren't gouging us if
they're only making 8 cents to the gallon. And they must keep growing
in order to keep prospecting. Growth is the natural way of things.
Lack of growth is a scary thing when looking at the rest of the
economy. I really wish I worked for a big oil company, because oil is
recession-proof. Nobody has to worry about a pink-slip ever.
And I think people need to look at other factors when it comes to gas
prices, like how high it is in San Francisco and Chicago, thanks to
gas taxes, and the prices of gas in other nations. America still has
better prices than in Europe.
But the oil prices are manipulated by both OPEC and by the futures
markets. I'm sure that Iran's 2nd little speed boat thing on Friday
was to spark market fears of a war which would mean higher prices
because of more difficult distribution or whatever other reasons.
Propaganda tries to simplify oil prices into 2 vessels of blame: Big
Oil and the war. It isn't really that simple, and I'm on to the
propagandists.
> The contrary is that Bush, Cheney and company could not
> possibly have shared at all in the recent profitability of the
> oil companies. =A0This very unlikely.
>
> In my list of things which would have been avoided had
> the U.S. chosen a police action rather than war and
> nation-building (i.e. imperialism), I mentioned three wars.
> Someone else mentioned profit. =A0I replied that I thought
> imperialism was a losing proposition, but that Bush etc.
> might have made some money, mainly to forestall the
> inevitable and boring charge that Bush etc. made some
> kind of personal profit out of the wars. =A0For some reason
> you have insisted on the question. =A0Unfortunately,
> I don't know what pro****tion of current oil-company
> profits can be attributed to the shortages and other
> inefficiencies caused by the war; there is probably
> something there. =A0But I don't think it's very im****tant.
>
First, a police action is a joke and impossible. 2nd, if the US was
"imperialistic" then they'd take Iraq for themselves and not do all
this difficult nation building. It would be much simpler and by being
simpler it seems preferable. But no, they are nation building. And
I'm sorry I didn't follow the full argument and all the typical anti-
Bush charges.
> I think Bush and most of the people around him have
> been seeking power in general, not profits (in the
> sense of obtaining private wealth). =A0Hence the empire-
> building, which as we can observe has been neither
> successful nor profitable. =A0If all they meant to do was
> steal, it probably would have been easier to do it at
> home.
>
I disagree about seeking power, but you are exactly right about not
doing it for oil. (propaganda will always say otherwise) We could
overpower these damn environmentalists and drill our own land in
ANWR. And yesterday I read that there's been a massive oil find in
North Dakota. Hopefully they get to drilling that quick before the
environmentalists create some sympathetic sob story and claim that
some rare bird might be displaced by drilling.
We must never forget Saddam Hussein's history, and his dicking around
with UN inspectors all thru the 90's. And nevermind that picture with
Rumsfeld. There was a reason Saddam was installed, and sadly people
don't research what that reason was.
> Some people do attribute the present economic
> crisis to war expenditures. =A0And it is true that every
> modern empire has come to ruin of one sort or
> another, often economic ruin, so they have some
> history to argue from.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
