On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT), "bungalow_steve@yahoo.com" <bungalow_steve@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:58pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But which problem do the idiotic idiots here at usenet care about most.???
fundamentally it's a control vs can't control issue, for instance if a
satellite was in orbit over the US and randomly killed one American
every 5 weeks with a high power laser all the money and attention
(usenet chatter) would be spent on solving that problem, the number of
lives killed is almost irrelevant
It only appears to be a controllable problem.
If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
We would likely end up losing more Americans in a few hours than many times the number of troops that have died in Iraq in the last 5 years. It'd only take a stolen or purchased Russian suitcase nuke, or maybe a truckload of any of several easily-produced deadly gases, or maybe a pile of anthrax, smallopox, botulinus, or some other screwball disease.
But they are currently getting their asses kicked all over the Iraqi desert, are distracted and financially as well as psychologically stressed, and that is all because of our military.
Remove our military, and more Americans will die - a lot more.
If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we weren't in Iraq?
In article <2%eGj.537$NU2.52@news01.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar wrote:
Dave Head wrote:
If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that
keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we
weren't in Iraq?
That's sort of like pointing out that while the military is being consumed in Iraq the borders are wide open with Shrub allowing mexican trucks to come right in and roam the nation (IMO probably without so much as cargo inspection).
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack those governments the US has been proping up for all these years. By not propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the reason they are hopeless.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
In article <2%eGj.537$NU2.52@news01.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar wrote:
Dave Head wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east.
The attacks are motivated by the desires of the enemy to get control of the entire middle east and all its oil. If you think anything else, you've never learned about "following the money."
Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack
those governments the US has been proping up for all these years.
Yeah, they would. You WANT Osama Bin Laden in control of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, etc. etc.???
By not
propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the
reason they are hopeless.
And removes ourselves from a vital supply of oil. You want $9 / gallon gasoline? Abandoning the middle east looks like one way to get it.
Matthew T. Russotto 26 March 2008 06:20:37 [ permanent link ]
In article <rbadneSh8q-GOnTanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com>, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks.
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they don't already hold. Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message news:18cju39ebh6dgannn70a2djnpsk5thhbff@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent
P) wrote:
In article <2%eGj.537$NU2.52@news01.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar wrote:
Dave Head wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east.
The attacks are motivated by the desires of the enemy to get control of
the
entire middle east and all its oil. If you think anything else, you've
never
learned about "following the money."
The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is following the money?
There will always be a small band of extremists like Osama. What gives him bigger numbers and financial support is the rage engendered by the U.S. invasion. Also didn't help that we took a stable country, disbanded the security forces, and left the armories and weapons depots unguarded. Suddenly you had several hundred thousand men trained in using weapons out of work, pissed off, and with access to massive amounts of explosives and weapons from looted weapons dumps.
Not good.
Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack
those governments the US has been proping up for all these years.
Yeah, they would. You WANT Osama Bin Laden in control of Saudi Arabia,
Iran,
Kuwait, etc. etc.???
Uh, do you grasp the difference between Shia and Sunni when you talk about Osama in charge of Iran?
Your view on this is hopelessly simplistic. Our invasion of Iraq has been a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and strengthened it, it's obvious and even the publicly released portions of CIA intelligence estimates agree on this.
By not
propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the
reason they are hopeless.
And removes ourselves from a vital supply of oil. You want $9 / gallon
gasoline? Abandoning the middle east looks like one way to get it.
Pulling out of Iraq is not abandoning the Middle East. Did you notice what happened to the price of oil and gas since we invaded Iraq? The price of oil doubled.
The several hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war - we could have spent some of that figuring out new energy sources, getting better mileage, investing in technology and infrastructure to get us off of Middle East oil. Instead, we spend about $30,000 per American in order to double the price of oil, turn a secular stable Middle East country in to an unstable one in a religious civil war, and prove to many that Osama's claims that we want to occupy Muslim lands might be true. What do you think happens when Arabs hear a leading American presidential candidate (McCain) say we may be occupying Iraq for the next hundred years?
In article <FuqdnSeIO6FwJ3TanZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Bo Raxo wrote:
weapon that could get out of their control. They were all about command and
control, and their technologies reflected it. American astronauts flew
their craft, for example, while Soviet cosmonauts were basically cargo in an
automated machine that flew itself. So the idea of a suitcase nuke really
goes against the grain of their technological asthete.
I can see that. Although, governments are rather silly. I can see them making the suitcase nukes and securing them in such a manner as to defeat their entire purpose because of that very mentality you mention.
with bio weapons. Instead, all we've seen is a handful of people made sick
via doctored mail packets, and IIRC two deaths.
I think it was more than two, but a small number none the less and it doesn't change the point you are making. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi3sYzDsSGI says 5 ) Most everything is overblown by the government and the media for their own purposes. Like the 'bird flu'.
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in message news:2%eGj.537$NU2.52@news01.roc.ny...
Dave Head wrote:
If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that
keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we
weren't in Iraq?
Thanks to President Bush the funding, leadership and covert capability of terrorist groups has been compromised. It is not accident that we have not been attacked in the US since 9/11.
In article <SdWdnX7tz4toL3TanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <rbadneSh8q-GOnTanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks.
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
I didn't expect this sort of neo-con asshattery from you.
OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they
don't already hold.
And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies like dominos!
Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea?
Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke. We can no longer afford his. Israel can borrow the money it needs from China instead of the US borrowing it and then giving it to Israel. US citizens buy crap from china who loans the dollars to Israel who then buy military equipment on the open market from businesses like those in the US defense industry.
Anyway, the question is not *if* the US will pull out of the middle east but *WHEN*. The US government can do it now before the dollar is worth less than toilet paper, before foreigners own practically everything in the US, or be forced to when the dollar collapse occurs.
Now maybe the radical islamists (who BTW got their modern start as tools of US and British intelligence) may set their goals higher and go after the USA should they take over every nation in the middle east (unlikely), but which USA can fend them off better? The one that got out before it was too late and avoided economic disaster or the USA that economically imploded fighting in the middle east?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:02:59 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel
victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE!
Last time they did it, they got what they wanted - which was to attack there. You have a point - if it worked once, bin Laden might try it again. Not because they defeated us - we're just a tool that they have used against local enemies.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:22:49 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
Yes, it is. Pulling out of Iraq would show the world that we are not willing
to finish what we started.
It would show the world that we are not willing to finish what bin Laden started. Bin Laden ordered the attack for the express purpose of having us go to war against the rulers of Mid East countries. His biggest hope was for us to attack Saudi Arabia, but our attacking Iraq was a big victory for him.
Matthew T. Russotto 27 March 2008 22:19:46 [ permanent link ]
In article <opnGj.558$NU2.540@news01.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <rbadneSh8q-GOnTanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks.
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
Iraq (including the 9th province),
What stopped them from doing that before 2003 (or 1990 for that matter)?
Saddam Hussein (who was sometimes supported by the US)
It sounds like Bush didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.
Afghanistan, and anywhere else they don't already hold.
Why didn't those radical Islamists attack us before 1993? They
certainly had the country to themselves after the mid '80s.
Afghanistan was actually still involved in civil war for much of that time, so your characterization is false.
Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
At least that money can go to repairing our transportation infrastructure.
Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
resume, this time with open state backing.
But if there are so few Arabs left, how will they do it?
Who says there will be few Arabs? A lot of them will be killed (mostly NOT those directing things), but there will be plenty left. It doesn't take many to pull off a suicide attack.
And why bother once their main grievance has been eliminated?
For the same reason Hitler continued his aggression after being granted the Rhineland and the Sudetenland. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto 27 March 2008 23:55:11 [ permanent link ]
In article <j7WdncS0s9pqynfanZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com>, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <SdWdnX7tz4toL3TanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <rbadneSh8q-GOnTanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks.
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
I didn't expect this sort of neo-con asshattery from you.
OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they
don't already hold.
And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies
like dominos!
Cambodia and Laos (and of course South Vietnam) did.
Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea?
Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke.
That's a non sequitur. The state of the budget (or the dollar) doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle East is a good idea. In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars, and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of oil from the Middle East than the US does. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
In article <xo6dncQ3su0CZnbanZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <j7WdncS0s9pqynfanZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <SdWdnX7tz4toL3TanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <rbadneSh8q-GOnTanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks.
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
I didn't expect this sort of neo-con asshattery from you.
OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they
don't already hold.
And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies
like dominos!
Cambodia and Laos (and of course South Vietnam) did.
So what? Oh that's right, 50,000 americans died for nothing and the nation was put into ever spiraling debt for nothing.
Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea?
Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke.
That's a non sequitur.
No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to invade and take over the US. The US will go broke.
The state of the budget (or the dollar)
doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle
East is a good idea.
Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic.
In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle
East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would
likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars,
and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of
oil from the Middle East than the US does.
And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof? Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar? Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left there long enough. I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by staying. I heard GWB on the radio this morning blathering about Iran's nuclear weapon program again... despite the NIE report showing there isn't one. McCain not even able to keep the various factions straight as he tries to set up war. The US can leave now and maybe survive or it can stay watch the empire fail for certain.
The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil resources in more stable parts of the world.
Until then, the US government's blundering attempts to control the region will only result in larger and more dangerous reactions. It's like a driver who doesn't know what to do after a blow out. He tries to correct but the car gets more and more out of control until it crashes and burns when it would have been better to just ease back on the controls and coast safely to a stop.
In article <mvydnVI8ycHQnHHanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <GtednXPcSJ2hfnbanZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <85ednc0fO-Uwf3banZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same
as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
following the money?
In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
money to the families of suicide bombers.
Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
as I understand it... go figure.
Non sequitur again.
Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the result of over half a century of US federal government interference and meddling in the region.
Matthew T. Russotto 28 March 2008 02:02:15 [ permanent link ]
In article <zdCdndkiJP5BnHHanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com>, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <xo6dncQ3su0CZnbanZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <j7WdncS0s9pqynfanZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <SdWdnX7tz4toL3TanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <rbadneSh8q-GOnTanZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
very likely end the attacks.
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
I didn't expect this sort of neo-con asshattery from you.
OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they
don't already hold.
And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies
like dominos!
Cambodia and Laos (and of course South Vietnam) did.
So what? Oh that's right, 50,000 americans died for nothing and the
nation was put into ever spiraling debt for nothing.
Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea?
Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke.
That's a non sequitur.
No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when
there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to
invade and take over the US. The US will go broke.
No. Money makes no sense as a motive for the US for the Iraq war. Even if the object was to enrich Haliburton, a deal with Saddam would have done that better.
The state of the budget (or the dollar)
doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle
East is a good idea.
Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and
bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic.
And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems. The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance.
In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle
East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would
likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars,
and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of
oil from the Middle East than the US does.
And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof?
You ain't seen nothing. A regional war in the middle east involving not only Iran and Iraq but Saudi Arabia will make $110 look cheap. Now if we could get Iran and Iraq involved in a low-intensity border dispute, that might work a little better....
Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar?
Which is cause and which is effect? The way I see it, the drop in the US dollar is largely caused by domestic issues (in particular a whole bunch of loans which should never have been made), and a part of the rise in oil is due to this.
Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war
with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left
there long enough.
I'll give you this much -- the US will be blamed whether it remains there or not.
I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling
out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by
staying.
Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much guaranteed to be the greater disaster.
The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected
government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil
companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not
kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up
governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil
resources in more stable parts of the world.
They use oil resources everywhere. Unfortunately, an enormous amount, proportionally of oil is in unstable parts of the world. That includes Mexico and Venezula as well as the Middle East.
And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental movements precluding the use of oil resources there. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto 28 March 2008 02:03:48 [ permanent link ]
In article <xoadnUwFw8iOmXHanZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com>, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <mvydnVI8ycHQnHHanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <GtednXPcSJ2hfnbanZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <85ednc0fO-Uwf3banZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same
as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
following the money?
In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
money to the families of suicide bombers.
Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
as I understand it... go figure.
Non sequitur again.
Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the
result of over half a century of US federal government interference and
meddling in the region.
You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been peace in the Middle East since, well, forever. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
In article <utKdncbJvN9ZhHHanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <xoadnUwFw8iOmXHanZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <mvydnVI8ycHQnHHanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <GtednXPcSJ2hfnbanZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <85ednc0fO-Uwf3banZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same
as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
following the money?
In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
money to the families of suicide bombers.
Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
as I understand it... go figure.
Non sequitur again.
Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the
result of over half a century of US federal government interference and
meddling in the region.
You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that
the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both
local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been
peace in the Middle East since, well, forever.
Let's see... the CIA worked to overthrow Iran's government and did. It trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq. It gives the governments of other nations the means to surpress the people in them and prevent change to more representive systems. US and UK intelligence esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use against the soviets and others. It's amazing what well placed small imputs can do. However, like jamming a relief valve closed the pressure inside keeps building until there is a terrible explosion.
The region should have been left to it's own devices a century ago. By now it would be all sorted out. But because there was oil, not just worthless sand this game began. Now the US government is jamming on the brakes after a tire blew out.
In article <BNadnWfxbf7l33HanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot
of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? That's a little too
cynical even for me.
In large part. I think General Butler was correct, War is a Racket.
Might even have been make-work for Halliburton; it's not like anyone high up in the administration has connections there.
At *BEST* it was a misguided, naive attempt to implement the policies of the PNAC, and anyone that reads their statement of principles without getting at least a little frisson needs their head adjusted.
Matthew T. Russotto 29 March 2008 00:33:52 [ permanent link ]
In article <9audnadsV5TFxXHanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com>, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <BNadnWfxbf7l33HanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are
too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The
federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement
programs and wars. (guns and butter)
The relative lack of domestic inflation argues against this theory.
Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid?
The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50%
Fruit has been way up. the list goes on and on. Fuel is way up. Sure a TV
made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically
everything the government doesn't count has.
This is cherry picking. The goverment stats include both a core rate and a rate which includes both food and energy. Neither are at historical highs, though energy itself is.
The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages
to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To
culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a
long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are
people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a
thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh.
Then there is no solution short of nuking the entire area to glass. They will remember and seek revenge for the USs actions whether or not the US remains in the area. That's the problem with vendetta, there's no ending it until everyone involved (on at least one side) and all their descendants and relatives are dead.
Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves.
If history is any guide, they most certainly will.
So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each
other. Better than dragging the US down with them.
Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto 29 March 2008 00:42:19 [ permanent link ]
In article <97497248-0774-41a5-8d2c-17cf8cc239a9@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 27, 5:57=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
In article <EY2dnQNgiPv5unHanZ2dnUVZ_rign...@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The idea to really get rich from war is to finance both
sides. Anyway, a deal with saddam wouldn't even be one tenth what
this war is costing. =A0
So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot
of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? =A0That's a little too
cynical even for me.
And, as everyone should know, anyone less cynical than you have their
heads in the sand, while people more cynical than you are "too"
cynical.
Well, if I thought some other level of cynicism was appropriate, I'd adopt it myself. But not everyone less cynical than I am has their heads in the sand.
You'll call someone a tinfoil-hatter for claiming some absurd thing is happening. Then, when they demonstrate via cites that the absurd thing actually is happening... you'll call them a tinfoil hatter again. THAT is having your head in the sand. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
In article <woidnW40n8yty3DanZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article <9audnadsV5TFxXHanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <BNadnWfxbf7l33HanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are
too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The
federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement
programs and wars. (guns and butter)
The relative lack of domestic inflation argues against this theory.
Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid?
The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50%
Fruit has been way up. the list goes on and on. Fuel is way up. Sure a TV
made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically
everything the government doesn't count has.
This is cherry picking. The goverment stats include both a core rate
and a rate which includes both food and energy. Neither are at
historical highs, though energy itself is.
So you go from there isn't any to not at historical highs. Anyone who shops for himself should know there is inflation. Material costs are way up too and its getting to the point that consumer goods will not be able to hold the line on prices.
The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages
to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To
culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a
long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are
people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a
thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh.
Then there is no solution short of nuking the entire area to glass.
They will remember and seek revenge for the USs actions whether or not
the US remains in the area. That's the problem with vendetta, there's
no ending it until everyone involved (on at least one side) and all
their descendants and relatives are dead.
There is nothing supporting that belief but fear. However they do seem rather interested in killing each other. If the US was not inserting itself, that would take all their effort. It will take a number of years before they finish killing each other. Meanwhile US blood and treasure can be spared and there will be far less of them should they want to take on the US at that point.
Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves.
If history is any guide, they most certainly will.
So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each
other. Better than dragging the US down with them.
Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them.
Only if the US federal government keeps playing the game.
Latest rumor is shrub will attack Iran on the 4th or 6th. Probably as false as all the previous ones, but who knows.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:23:27 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them.
Only if the US federal government keeps playing the game.
Whatever game the US federal government decides to play - they should determine the winning conditions, the rules, and decide what to do when the game is won (or lost).
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
