#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
Rand Simberg wrote:
Was invading Iraq a smart thing to do? Yes. I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449 American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it. Also around 20,000 to 30,000 Iraqis (Bush wasn't sure of the exact number in his speech, but what's 10,000 deaths this way or that?) who may not of wholeheartedly supported our plan to liberate them in retrospect. The Iraqi's themselves also seem to be troubled by it, as 7% of the nation's population filed for passports so they can just get out of the place before even more hell breaks loose: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/exodus.php So they're fleeing from the gift of democracy we gave them? That should make all the neocons stop and think, shouldn't it? No, it was a stupid thing to do...but he did it anyway. You're certainly entitled to your stupid opinions. Well, you how we chattering masses are. Others' mileage varies. Ah, yes...record gas prices at the same time as record oil company profits, and coincidentally an oil man as president. A connection to the war in Iraq?: http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=10198 And remember that secret conference that Cheney had with the big oil companies long before 9/11 that they wouldn't release the minutes to under executive privilege?: http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml Pat |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:45:30 -0400, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Was invading Iraq a smart thing to do? Yes. I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449 American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it. So? Some do, some don't. Either way, it has zero relevance as to whether or not it actually was wise. Otherwise, there have never been any wise wars, since all wars have casualties with family members, all of whom wish they had them back. This is a monumentally dumb argument. The Iraqi's themselves also seem to be troubled by it, as 7% of the nation's population filed for passports so they can just get out of the place before even more hell breaks loose: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/exodus.php So they're fleeing from the gift of democracy we gave them? That should make all the neocons stop and think, shouldn't it? It might, if it weren't counterbalanced by all the people going back to Iraq, as well as other positive indicators (the best for the nation in decades). http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Pr...aheri_0606.htm |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
Rand Simberg wrote:
I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449 American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it. So? Some do, some don't. Either way, it has zero relevance as to whether or not it actually was wise. Yeah, they're just people, who cares? There is an implied agreement between the government and military personal of the United States: They are willing to fight and die for us assuming that we send them into battle for a just and honest purpose that is necessary for the defense of our nation. You don't trump up evidence of a Iraqi nuclear program that strangely UN inspectors can't seem to find any evidence of, then ship them off to war with no idea when they're coming home (if ever; the neocons want to build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq to assure an American military presence in the heart of the Mideast oil region) and happily show up on an aircraft carrier stating "Mission Accomplished, major combat as ended!" when there are still 4/5ths of the casualties to go. Otherwise, there have never been any wise wars, since all wars have casualties with family members, all of whom wish they had them back. This is a monumentally dumb argument. When the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and the Germans promptly declared war on us, that was a wise war to get into. Even the first Gulf War was wise, as one of our allies was attacked and we took the time and effort to build a collation between our allies and then go in, chase the Iraqis out, destroy a large part of the Iraqi military, and come home in short order. The President got cheered in Congress at the end of that war, because he was smart enough to leave it to the military and have well-established goals in mind rather than some diffuse idea of "bringing democracy to the Mideast at gunpoint" that the military thought was crazy from day one. Then there's that great photo of Rumsfeld and his good buddy Saddam: http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg You know if Iraq is connected to Al-Queda and 9/11 due to the fact that some Al-Queda members visited Iraq, then we had better have a real close look at Rumsfeld; this guy not only visited Iraq, he hobnobbed with The Evil One himself, and supplied him with weapons. The Iraqi's themselves also seem to be troubled by it, as 7% of the nation's population filed for passports so they can just get out of the place before even more hell breaks loose: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/19/news/exodus.php So they're fleeing from the gift of democracy we gave them? That should make all the neocons stop and think, shouldn't it? It might, if it weren't counterbalanced by all the people going back to Iraq, as well as other positive indicators (the best for the nation in decades). http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Pr...aheri_0606.htm I love your choice of source material: The New York Times? Not likely. The Times Of London? Forget it. Washington Post? Uh-uh. The Wall Street Journal, fer chrisakes (a hotbed of far-left thought if there ever was one)? No way. Nope, for the straight poop on the situation in Iraq, go to Commentary magazine, published by The American Jewish Committee. We all know that American Jews have completely unbiased opinions regarding Iraq, and the fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was considered the single greatest military threat to the survival of Israel would never color their attitude regarding how political aspects of the situation in Iraq should be handled in regards to any possible WMDs. When we invaded Iraq, we did Israel the biggest favor it ever had; we fought a war for it without it having to lift a finger.* I assume that the present situation regarding Iran and our seemingly helpless stand against a pretty damn obvious nuclear weapons program is that we feel it is now time for Israel to return the favor we did it. Or just go away and leave us alone in our Iraqi misery. So who is Amir Taheri? He's a speaker for Benador Associates. And who pray tell, are Benador Associates? They are a public relations firm who will ship you Neoconservative speakers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benador_Associates ....packed in moist peat moss to keep them fresh until they arrive- unfortunately as you can see by the list of speakers, a lot of the Neocons are actually Paleocons as far as age goes, so don't expect them to arrive in any too fresh of condition by any means. As for Taheri himself, he's of Iranian extraction, so we know that he has completely unbiased views toward Saddam Hussein's Iraq, despite the fact that Saddam invaded his country and killed around 134,000 of his fellow Iranians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri He also wrote something yesterday that torqued off a lot of people: http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/68837.htm .....this appearing in that renowned journal of international politics that is the New York Post. I know it's not The Canada Free Press, but it tries. :-) * Israel's way of saying "thanks" was a little odd; they promptly started selling Harpy antiradar drones to the Red Chinese who might need them at some point down the line in case a certain piece of offshore real estate become silly and does a goofy thing like proclaim its independence from China. From there they headed toward Venezuela to upgrade Mr. Commie's F-16s. But we said "What The ****?!" on that one, so now the South American Red Menace is thinking of selling them to...you guessed it...Iran. Pat |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:14:49 -0400, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: I can think of the parents spouses, and children of around 2,449 American soldiers who might have second thoughts about the wisdom of it. So? Some do, some don't. Either way, it has zero relevance as to whether or not it actually was wise. Yeah, they're just people, who cares? The issue isn't about whether or not we care. Every death of our soldiers in war is a tragedy. There is an implied agreement between the government and military personal of the United States: They are willing to fight and die for us assuming that we send them into battle for a just and honest purpose that is necessary for the defense of our nation. There's no evidence that anything other than that occurred. [standard Bush derangement and ad hominem attack on Amir Tehari snipped] |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
On or about Wed, 17 May 2006 06:16:13 -0400, Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that:
Pat Flannery wrote: It was Libby BTW. Who cares? People who like to see the law respected. Which wouldn't include Bush and his supporters evidently. -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
On or about Sat, 20 May 2006 10:14:49 -0400, Pat Flannery made the sensational claim that:
You don't trump up evidence of a Iraqi nuclear program that strangely UN inspectors can't seem to find any evidence of A former head of Mossad was on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago saying he felt that it was entirely possible those WMD's were actually there, and giving an example of a whole squadron of fighters the Iraqis had buried to avoid having them shot down. Why an Israeli intelligence officer would buy into the whole Iraqi WMD thing is left as an exercise for the reader. -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
Rand Simberg wrote:
Don't stupidly confuse inarticulateness with inability to understand words. He got an MBA from Harvard. Did you? http://www.thum.org/oxon/archives/000564.html |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
On Tue, 23 May 2006 06:41:35 -0400, in a place far, far away,
LooseChanj made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On or about Wed, 17 May 2006 06:16:13 -0400, Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that: Pat Flannery wrote: It was Libby BTW. Who cares? People who like to see the law respected. I'm one of those people, but the only thing that Libby has been indicted for was lying to a grand jury, which has nothing to do with Dick Cheney's notes. I'm still waiting for this to turn into a real story. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Mars and Africa
Pat Flannery wrote:
Ah, yes...record gas prices at the same time as record oil company profits, and coincidentally an oil man as president. A connection to the war in Iraq?: Probably not. If your markup is 5% over costs, you'll have record profits everytime your costs increase when your market is essentially guaranteed. But that takes thinking - something you are markedly incapable of doing of the topic is Bush. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 2 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |