| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Joe Mannix" |
| Date: |
21 May 2004 01:37:09 AM |
| Object: |
OT: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
www.costofwar.com
I guess G. Bush is going to win the war on terror by bankrupting America.
That'll show those nasty terrorists! We'll just spend America into
oblivion.
GWB: Hosting a war that not even Bill Gates could pay for! Well done,
George! Why is it that suddenly I realize that it's not just the Iraqis
who are getting pissed on?
.
|
|
| User: "Pain Devine" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 02:34:51 AM |
|
|
Lol, the more extreme the view, the less the extremist knows. How much do
you think it cost us to topple the soviet union? $100 billion aint *****. The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway. Why? Because it was the right thing to do.
People like you said the same thing about the Civil war... we freed the
slaves anyway.
People like you said the same thing about World War II... we freed the Jews
anyway.
People like you said the same thing about Iraq... we free'd the Muslims
anyway.
and through all this, we still allow you... our detractors to be free as
well.
Everyone deserves freedom, wether you want to pay for it or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisa" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 05:43:56 AM |
|
|
People like you said the same thing about the Civil war... we freed the
slaves anyway.
That was IN our own country. I have no problem righting wrongs at home.
People like you said the same thing about World War II... we freed the
Jews anyway.
With help from several other countries. We also nuked Japan, don't forget!
People like you said the same thing about Iraq... we free'd the Muslims
anyway.
This is a war of American aggression. Our culture is very different from
theirs, and we're trying to force our style of government and our values on
a foreign populace. Freeing the Muslims from the Muslims? C'mon. You don't
seriously beleive that tripe.
and through all this, we still allow you... our detractors to be free as
well.
Gee, thanks! And I thought it was our garunteed right from our forefathers
who wrote the Constitution!
Everyone deserves freedom, wether you want to pay for it or not.
No, you mean whether THEY want to fight for it themselves or not.
Also, you forgot many other wars fought by the US... War of 1812, US-Mexican
War, World War I, Korean War, Vietnam "Conflict", Panama Invasion, Gulf
War..... did these not count, or did they just not suit you needs for your
argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 10:21:05 AM |
|
|
"Lisa" <none@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:SVkrc.21358$UH.3182@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
People like you said the same thing about the Civil war... we freed the
slaves anyway.
That was IN our own country. I have no problem righting wrongs at home.
People like you said the same thing about World War II... we freed the
Jews anyway.
With help from several other countries. We also nuked Japan, don't forget!
People like you said the same thing about Iraq... we free'd the Muslims
anyway.
This is a war of American aggression. Our culture is very different from
theirs, and we're trying to force our style of government and our values
on
a foreign populace. Freeing the Muslims from the Muslims? C'mon. You don't
seriously beleive that tripe.
and through all this, we still allow you... our detractors to be free as
well.
Gee, thanks! And I thought it was our garunteed right from our forefathers
who wrote the Constitution!
Everyone deserves freedom, wether you want to pay for it or not.
No, you mean whether THEY want to fight for it themselves or not.
Also, you forgot many other wars fought by the US... War of 1812,
US-Mexican
War, World War I, Korean War, Vietnam "Conflict", Panama Invasion, Gulf
War..... did these not count, or did they just not suit you needs for your
argument?
The War of 1812 was fought by the US for the right of US citizens to refuse
to serve in the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom. "Freedom and Sailors
Rights" was the flag on every USN warship.
The US-Mexican War was fought because the Mexicans were providing a haven
for armed bands that were killing Texans. Texas before it was part of the
USA was an independent republic that supported freedom of religion. Texas
had fought a war with Mexico in part over slavery. Santa Ana forced Austin
to allow colonists who owned slaves to settle in Texas. Unfortunately for
the US by the time Santa Ana was forced out, there were enough slave owners
in Texas to make Texas a slave state.
World War I was believed to be a good idea. WWI was fought to prevent the
enslavement of Europe by German aggression. Now it seems that may have been
more British propaganda than reality, but you can't fairly criticize people
for not being all-knowing.
Korea was not only sanctioned by the UN (or is that only important when they
don't vote for the US?), but was fought to protect the freedom of the South.
As you can see, if the UN hadn't fought that war millions more would be
starving by design.
Vietnam was a bad idea. The goal was still freedom.
Panama-- not for freedom directly.
Gulf War I- definitly for freedom. Has the rape of Kuwait already passed
out of memory? Saddam's party officials were rounding up people for
execution. Some have never been found. Many were only found when the US
invaded Iraq last year. Kuwait would have been one big slave compound
without the US.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 06:06:06 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Lisa wrote:
People like you said the same thing about the Civil war... we freed the
slaves anyway.
That was IN our own country. I have no problem righting wrongs at home.
People like you said the same thing about World War II... we freed the
Jews anyway.
With help from several other countries. We also nuked Japan, don't forget!
Hap, how many people died from conventional bombs in Japan vs. the
A-bombs? I find it odd that people always bring this up but give us a
pass on bombing the snot out of Japan using conventional munitions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:09:31 PM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
Hap, how many people died from conventional bombs in Japan vs. the
A-bombs? I find it odd that people always bring this up but give us a
pass on bombing the snot out of Japan using conventional munitions.
It's because NBCW is special warfare, non-conventional.
Incendiary bombing may have killed up to half a million on Japan and
represents use of many thousands of bombs and dozens of attacks over a
year. The 2 atomic bombs used in 2 attacks produced over two hundred
thousand fatal casualties by December of 1945.
Around 170,000 German civilians were also killed by targeted incendiary
attacks in WWII in the Dresden and Hamburg firebombings.
The Germans also killed 22 million Russians, but you don't hear much about
that either.
Also, being the nation most belligerent in the development and deployment of
nuclear devices while also the most destructive to international treaties,
leads people to use it as a reminder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,898550,00.html
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 07:54:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 10:22:26 AM |
|
|
"judith" <j_stillwater@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lsura0588d0sogn89l70cukbbs8osh47it@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but
we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
The might of the US Army and Air Forces in Germany allowed the Berliners to
do it.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 10:43:56 PM |
|
|
Hap Arnold wrote:
"judith" <j_stillwater@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lsura0588d0sogn89l70cukbbs8osh47it@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take
down but we fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
The might of the US Army and Air Forces in Germany allowed the Berliners
to do it.
No, it was the influence of Russia following glasnost and perestroika.
They'd been trying to do it since the early fifties. The US was the nation
that stalled it. Germans constantly worked for reunification. In the
eighties, Hungary made the border moot, East Germans had mass
demonstrations, and the direct borders were opened. Then, one night, an old
man, an old German man, went all by himself and started banging on the wall
with a rockpick, a tv news crew stopped and taped him and the wall came
down. The German people did it, no thanks to the Americans. The USA had
been stalling the reunification since 1952.
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 12:18:27 AM |
|
|
"Bev Thornton" <bevthornton@email.com> wrote in message
news:2h80juF9n6ntU1@uni-berlin.de...
Hap Arnold wrote:
"judith" <j_stillwater@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lsura0588d0sogn89l70cukbbs8osh47it@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take
down but we fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
The might of the US Army and Air Forces in Germany allowed the Berliners
to do it.
No, it was the influence of Russia following glasnost and perestroika.
They'd been trying to do it since the early fifties. The US was the nation
that stalled it. Germans constantly worked for reunification. In the
eighties, Hungary made the border moot, East Germans had mass
demonstrations, and the direct borders were opened. Then, one night, an
old
man, an old German man, went all by himself and started banging on the
wall
with a rockpick, a tv news crew stopped and taped him and the wall came
down. The German people did it, no thanks to the Americans. The USA had
been stalling the reunification since 1952.
Re-unification was not the goal. Westernization was the goal. It wouldn't
have helped anyone to let the GDR enslave the BDR, without the US the Red
Army would have rolled in again just like Euro45, Hungary 56, and Czecho
68, if they thought the united country was going western. Glasnost and
perestroika are symptoms of collapse thanks to American endurance in
forestalling the enslavement of the industrialized world.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 03:39:49 AM |
|
|
Hap Arnold wrote:
Re-unification was not the goal.
For the Germans it was.
Westernization was the goal.
They think in terms of Europe, not America.
wouldn't have helped anyone to let the GDR enslave the BDR, without the US
the Red Army would have rolled in again just like Euro45, Hungary 56, and
Czecho 68, if they thought the united country was going western.
No, that's not true. In '52 they were willing to leave as long as the US did
too. And the US only had to move to France, Belgium and Holland, they could
have kept everything they wanted right on the continent. That was even
before the Warsaw Pact.
Glasnost and perestroika are symptoms of collapse thanks to American
endurance in forestalling the enslavement of the industrialized world.
You can believe that if you want, but it had more to do with Canadian
diplomacy and exchange than anything else, Open Government and Government
Restructuring (in caps) were the very buzzwords of the day here when
Gorbachev came to see the Trudeau government, less than two years later he
introduced glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in the
Soviet Union.
And that's a fact, Jack.
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 09:49:02 AM |
|
|
"Bev Thornton" <bevthornton@email.com> wrote in message
news:2h8humFa6quiU1@uni-berlin.de...
You can believe that if you want, but it had more to do with Canadian
diplomacy and exchange than anything else, Open Government and Government
Restructuring (in caps) were the very buzzwords of the day here when
Gorbachev came to see the Trudeau government, less than two years later he
introduced glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in the
Soviet Union.
Canada doesn't get enough credit in the US for its part in containment and
diplomacy.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 03:08:56 PM |
|
|
Hap Arnold wrote:
Canada doesn't get enough credit in the US for its part in containment and
diplomacy.
That's because we don't follow the US foreign policy line.
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 10:44:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:22:26 -0400, "Hap Arnold"
<CinCUSAAF@ghq.army.mil> wrote:
"judith" <j_stillwater@excite.com> wrote in message
news:lsura0588d0sogn89l70cukbbs8osh47it@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but
we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
The might of the US Army and Air Forces in Germany allowed the Berliners to
do it.
Arguably.
judith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 06:10:34 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
.
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 10:46:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:04:47 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 12:21:03 AM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40AED15D.2020601@comcast.net...
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
So you admit the US is responsible for the Berlin Wall and all the deaths of
workers killed in its vicinity?
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 12:27:49 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40AED15D.2020601@comcast.net...
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
So you admit the US is responsible for the Berlin Wall and all the deaths of
workers killed in its vicinity?
If anything is bad, the US is responsible, yes. You should know this by
now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:15:46 PM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40AED15D.2020601@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down
but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
in your opinion
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:13:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:04:47 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
Thor, you can bring up other years and other events, you can talk
about what might have happened if things had been different, but it
will not change the fact that the US did not take down the Berlin
Wall.
judith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:18:17 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:04:47 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
Thor, you can bring up other years and other events, you can talk
about what might have happened if things had been different, but it
will not change the fact that the US did not take down the Berlin
Wall.
judith
Well, logically, if it had never been constructed, it couldn't have been
taken down. So, by contributing to the conditions of its construction,
in a way, we therefore contributed to its subsequent demise. You can't
tear down that which never was. In my opinion. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:23:41 PM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40AED484.6070401@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:04:47 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take
down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
Thor, you can bring up other years and other events, you can talk
about what might have happened if things had been different, but it
will not change the fact that the US did not take down the Berlin
Wall.
judith
Well, logically, if it had never been constructed, it couldn't have been
taken down. So, by contributing to the conditions of its construction,
in a way, we therefore contributed to its subsequent demise. You can't
tear down that which never was. In my opinion. ;-)
a true zen saying , nothing can tear down nothing
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 11:27:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:18:17 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:04:47 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:10:34 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 02:34:51 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
The
Berlin wall probably cost us a billion dollars per brick to take down but we
fucking did it anyway.
"We" (the US) did not take down the Berlin Wall.
judith
We kept West Berlin alive and free in '48-'49.
That doesn't contradict what I said: The US did not take down the
Berlin Wall.
judith
Well, if the Soviets had crashed West Berlin in '48, there wouldn't have
been a wall in the first place.
Thor, you can bring up other years and other events, you can talk
about what might have happened if things had been different, but it
will not change the fact that the US did not take down the Berlin
Wall.
judith
Well, logically, if it had never been constructed, it couldn't have been
taken down. So, by contributing to the conditions of its construction,
in a way, we therefore contributed to its subsequent demise. You can't
tear down that which never was. In my opinion. ;-)
If you can't dazzle 'em with diamonds....
judith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 03:49:14 AM |
|
|
Pain Devine wrote:
and through all this, we still allow you... our detractors to be free as
well.
You "allow?" Are you, some kind of fascist or what?
Everyone deserves freedom, wether you want to pay for it or not.
You have freedom confused with cheap oil.
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pain Devine" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 04:42:23 AM |
|
|
You "allow?" Are you, some kind of fascist or what?
You're making my point for me. I was pointing out that we don't stop those
apposed to us from speaking their minds. Freedom belongs to everyone.
You have freedom confused with cheap oil.
Our Freedom is guaranteed by some very large Tanks, Humvees, Jets, and
aicraftcarriers that are all Gas guzzlers. If you think freedom has nothing
to do with oil, imagine trying to fly a Jet that burns 6 gallons of gas per
mile when gas is $15 per gallon. 1/3 of your taxes goes towards the military
already...
This country was built on oil. Without it, this forum would not exist. Most
of the parts your computer is made from are oil derivatives. Our medicine,
our schools, everything... it all depends on oil. Without oil, the entire US
agricultural industry would grind to a halt in less than 5 days. Grocery
stores would be out of food in less than 6 more days. Millions would die in
a few weeks.
Society is based on the work of machines... the machines are the only thing
that allows our unnaturally large population to survive. The only reliable
energy source we have is oil. Without oil... cheep oil, society would fail.
We will have better energy sources in the future... probably fusion. But
until then, oil will remain the most important substance on earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 05:05:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2004 04:42:23 -0500, "Pain Devine" <noway@jose.com> wrote:
You "allow?" Are you, some kind of fascist or what?
You're making my point for me. I was pointing out that we don't stop those
apposed to us from speaking their minds. Freedom belongs to everyone.
You have freedom confused with cheap oil.
Our Freedom is guaranteed by some very large Tanks, Humvees, Jets, and
aicraftcarriers that are all Gas guzzlers. If you think freedom has
nothing to do with oil, imagine trying to fly a Jet that burns 6 gallons
of gas per mile when gas is $15 per gallon. 1/3 of your taxes goes towards
the military already...
1/3rd of /your/ taxes perhaps. So, you need oil to run all your WMDs to
"defend" yourselves from the people who hate you because of the way you
screw up their countries to get the oil you need ... round and round and
round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows ...
This country was built on oil.
I rather thought it was muscle-power (fueled by grain) and steam (fired by
wood and coal). Oh, and guns, lots and lots of guns.
Without it, this forum would not exist. Most of the parts your computer
is made from are oil derivatives.
The essential bits are made of sand and metal; the rest could be made from
natural fibres, wood, rubber, ceramics. There /is/ a lot of energy used
in making the bits, and moving them about all over the planet, and
'disposing' of them when next year's must-have program won't run on them.
Our medicine, our schools,
everything... it all depends on oil. Without oil, the entire US
agricultural industry would grind to a halt in less than 5 days. Grocery
stores would be out of food in less than 6 more days. Millions would die
in a few weeks.
Perhaps people should be moving back to where the food is now, before the
oil runs dry, then. They could even help to grow it!
Society is based on the work of machines... the machines are the only
thing that allows our unnaturally large population to survive. The only
reliable energy source we have is oil. Without oil... cheep oil, society
would fail. We will have better energy sources in the future... probably
fusion. But until then, oil will remain the most important substance on
earth.
/Your/ society perhaps. That's the problem, in large part: your cheap oil
is killing people in the places where it comes from, one way or another.
The facts are unpalatatable for most of "The West", and rather
heavy-going, but if anyone's interested these sites are a bit easier than
pages of numbers from the OECD:
<http://energy.careenergy.com/energy/energy-facts-statistics.asp>
<http://www.npg.org/forum_series/tightening_conflict.htm>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 10:25:41 PM |
|
|
Pain Devine wrote:
You "allow?" Are you, some kind of fascist or what?
You're making my point for me. I was pointing out that we don't stop those
apposed to us from speaking their minds. Freedom belongs to everyone.
The USA damn well does stop people from speaking their minds all over the
world. They do it through the CIA by shutting down presses, breaking radio
transmitters and towers, and more jamming than all the rest of the world
put together.
I'm not making your point for you. Freedom is not something that gets
allowed, it is something that gets taken away.
You have freedom confused with cheap oil.
Our Freedom is guaranteed by some very large Tanks, Humvees, Jets, and
aicraftcarriers that are all Gas guzzlers. If you think freedom has
nothing to do with oil, imagine trying to fly a Jet that burns 6 gallons
of gas per mile when gas is $15 per gallon. 1/3 of your taxes goes towards
the military already...
Your freedom has nothing to do with your military.
You are a victim of doublethink. Military might does not equal freedom.
Freedom is not something granted. Those are fascist ideals of citizenship.
This country was built on oil. Without it, this forum would not exist.
Most of the parts your computer is made from are oil derivatives. Our
medicine, our schools, everything... it all depends on oil. Without oil,
the entire US agricultural industry would grind to a halt in less than 5
days. Grocery stores would be out of food in less than 6 more days.
Millions would die in a few weeks.
Oil is not going to go away. But it is not something to be killing people
over.
Society is based on the work of machines... the machines are the only
thing that allows our unnaturally large population to survive. The only
reliable energy source we have is oil. Without oil... cheep oil, society
would fail. We will have better energy sources in the future... probably
fusion. But until then, oil will remain the most important substance on
earth.
Big deal. That doesn't explain why a country like Canada, more dependent on
oil than any other, doesn't have to occupy a foreign nation for it or why
the USA thinks it does.
It doesn't have to do with cheap oil for you. It has to do with cheap oil
for people like George Bush and his business buddies, the Saudis, European
royals, the PRC. People like you are just going to pay more for everything.
And it's for that, for their profits, not for freedom in Iraq or security
in America or any of the propaganda calls they'll ever slug out.
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 12:09:57 AM |
|
|
"Bev Thornton" <bevthornton@email.com> wrote in message
news:2h7vhmFa1pk6U1@uni-berlin.de...
Big deal. That doesn't explain why a country like Canada, more dependent
on
oil than any other, doesn't have to occupy a foreign nation for it
Because the US does it for them.
Not that Canada has sent a letter requesting the US to do that or anything,
but no one in Canada's government is offering to boycott oil that American
lives have provided either.
Canada is not only dependent on the US for arab oil, but dependent on the US
for border control. Canada as a nation couldn't survive a border with
Mexico-- unless the job situation in Canada is as bad as the PC's say it is.
(Are there any PC's left in public life?)
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
22 May 2004 03:11:49 AM |
|
|
Hap Arnold wrote:
Because the US does it for them.
Hardly. Canada buys from the countries the US won't allow its citizens and
corporations to do business with. Canada also sells more oil to the US than
does Saudi Arabia, two-thirds the volume of the entire Middle East. It
doesn't need force of arms to do the work of diplomats and businessmen.
Not that Canada has sent a letter requesting the US to do that or
anything, but no one in Canada's government is offering to boycott oil
that American lives have provided either.
We don't burn it. The US won't let us buy it, they won't let us do business
in Iraq.
Canada is not only dependent on the US for arab oil, but dependent on the
US for border control.
Canada is an oil exporting nation with the second largest known reserves and
the largest unprospected landmass in the world. We import less oil than we
export. We're the most oil-dependent nation on Earth, but it's our oil.
We're not dependent on the US for anything but sales to it. And if they
don't buy it, some other country will.
We're not dependent on the US for border control either. We have our own
customs, police, coast guard, military, all the modern things. We have a
200 mile ocean limit and it is the best enforced in the world.
Canada as a nation couldn't survive a border with
Mexico-- unless the job situation in Canada is as bad as the PC's say it
is. (Are there any PC's left in public life?)
What are PC's? Progressive Conservatives? They're called something else now.
Policies so bad, they had to change their name. And since they've been out
of office, we've gotten balanced budgets.
The Mexican border wouldn't be any big deal. There might be more people
trying to cross illegally, but they wouldn't be able to work the way they
can in the US, industry can't get away with anything on that scale here,
there's inspections and audits just for that sort of thing.
As for jobs:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/040507/economy_canada_jobs_2.html
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org/><http://gadenrelief.org/><http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://www.icrc.org><http://icbl.org/><http://www.msf.org><http://rawa.org>
<http://greatapeproject.org><http://www.whalewatch.org><http://ecohimal.org>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: The cost of war in Iraq (sp: large numbers) |
21 May 2004 03:33:51 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive; yes
Pain Devine wrote:
You "allow?" Are you, some kind of fascist or what?
You're making my point for me. I was pointing out that we don't stop those
apposed to us from speaking their minds. Freedom belongs to everyone.
You have freedom confused with cheap oil.
Our Freedom is guaranteed by some very large Tanks, Humvees, Jets, and
aicraftcarriers that are all Gas guzzlers. If you think freedom has nothing
to do with oil, imagine trying to fly a Jet that burns 6 gallons of gas per
mile when gas is $15 per gallon. 1/3 of your taxes goes towards the military
already...
This country was built on oil. Without it, this forum would not exist. Most
of the parts your computer is made from are oil derivatives. Our medicine,
our schools, everything... it all depends on oil. Without oil, the entire US
agricultural industry would grind to a halt in less than 5 days. Grocery
stores would be out of food in less than 6 more days. Millions would die in
a few weeks.
Society is based on the work of machines... the machines are the only thing
that allows our unnaturally large population to survive. The only reliable
energy source we have is oil. Without oil... cheep oil, society would fail.
We will have better energy sources in the future... probably fusion. But
until then, oil will remain the most important substance on earth.
And that is why you're stealing it.
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
