| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"% surfs@uniserve" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2004 12:26:33 PM |
| Object: |
WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
gets elected again in a few months will you be glad
.
|
|
| User: "yellow river" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
19 Sep 2004 01:05:35 PM |
|
|
% wrote:
gets elected again in a few months will you be glad
no, because that means four more years of war in iraq and who knows how
many other places, four more years of increased risk of terrorist
attacks, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=^.^=" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 12:46:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:05:35 GMT, yellow river
<huangmYR@earthYRlink.YRnet> wrote:
% wrote:
gets elected again in a few months will you be glad
=20
=20
no, because that means four more years of war in iraq and who knows how=20
many other places, four more years of increased risk of terrorist=20
attacks, etc.
well, the rents won't go up. nobody will have any money...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
19 Sep 2004 01:57:04 PM |
|
|
% wrote:
gets elected again in a few months will you be glad
I'll come to Canada and pitch a tent in your yard.
--
MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from
the true accounts which it invents later.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
19 Sep 2004 02:09:40 PM |
|
|
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomTHIS.com> wrote in message news:4Ek3d.6689$n16.6364@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
% wrote:
gets elected again in a few months will you be glad
I'll come to Canada and pitch a tent in your yard.
--
MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from
the true accounts which it invents later.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
ewwww , much too cold for that now
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 10:44:43 AM |
|
|
"%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote in message
news:10krgbdd3udhrc5@corp.supernews.com...
gets elected again in a few months will you be glad
eyup.
Afghanistan x
Libya x
Iraq x
Sudan
Syria
Iran
North Korea
Cuba
3 down 5 to go.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 03:52:37 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
<wet dreams deleted>
3 down 5 to go.
Good! Now everyone can see you as the *beep* fascist you really are.
Someone give this Johnny-Boy a rifle and send him to Iraq, please.
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 04:42:13 PM |
|
|
"neoholistic" <ekqbwpo@terra.es> wrote in message
news:2r8tquF179n3cU1@uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
<wet dreams deleted>
3 down 5 to go.
Good! Now everyone can see you as the *beep* fascist you really are.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system
of government.
2.Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I favor none of these things. Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
Socioeconomic controls are the worst in North Korea and Cuba.
I favor the demise of regimes that murder people because of their ethnic
backgrounds-- Sudan,Syria, Iran.
I think that makes me anti-fascist.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
21 Sep 2004 02:26:50 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net> wrote:
Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
Yes, but wait a few more years on Iraq. The US removed
*one* dictator from Iraq, but there will soon be another one.
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
The US removed the government (for the 4th time in 15
years), but not the terror. About 1000 terror deaths
in Afghanistan thus far in 2004. The Taliban and the Warlords
control most of the country. Opium production is at an
all-time high. Or, to word it differently: Kabul, where most
of the international forces reside, currently is a safer place
than a few years ago. But not much has changed in Afghanistan
overall.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
21 Sep 2004 01:05:18 PM |
|
|
In message <2ra3g9F17l353U3@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net> wrote:
Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
Yes, but wait a few more years on Iraq. The US removed
*one* dictator from Iraq, but there will soon be another one.
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
The US removed the government (for the 4th time in 15
years), but not the terror. About 1000 terror deaths
in Afghanistan thus far in 2004. The Taliban and the Warlords
control most of the country. Opium production is at an
all-time high. Or, to word it differently: Kabul, where most
of the international forces reside, currently is a safer place
than a few years ago. But not much has changed in Afghanistan
overall.
I understand that, though Kabul may be 'safer', women still find it
unsafe not to wear chador when outside their homes. Who is it safer for,
people selling bootleg videos?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
21 Sep 2004 03:35:52 PM |
|
|
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2ra3g9F17l353U3@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net> wrote:
Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
Yes, but wait a few more years on Iraq. The US removed
*one* dictator from Iraq, but there will soon be another one.
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
The US removed the government (for the 4th time in 15
years), but not the terror. About 1000 terror deaths
in Afghanistan thus far in 2004. The Taliban and the Warlords
control most of the country. Opium production is at an
all-time high. Or, to word it differently: Kabul, where most
of the international forces reside, currently is a safer place
than a few years ago. But not much has changed in Afghanistan
overall.
I understand that, though Kabul may be 'safer', women still find it
unsafe not to wear chador when outside their homes.
I do not know what women in Kabul are wearing these days.
I only read that they are no longer running around half-naked.
Assuming you are correct and they are wearing the chador,
that would be a small improvement for the women, compared
to the 'burka'.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 01:10:26 AM |
|
|
In message <2rbhkoF18tl2vU3@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2ra3g9F17l353U3@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net> wrote:
Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
Yes, but wait a few more years on Iraq. The US removed
*one* dictator from Iraq, but there will soon be another one.
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
The US removed the government (for the 4th time in 15
years), but not the terror. About 1000 terror deaths
in Afghanistan thus far in 2004. The Taliban and the Warlords
control most of the country. Opium production is at an
all-time high. Or, to word it differently: Kabul, where most
of the international forces reside, currently is a safer place
than a few years ago. But not much has changed in Afghanistan
overall.
I understand that, though Kabul may be 'safer', women still find it
unsafe not to wear chador when outside their homes.
I do not know what women in Kabul are wearing these days.
I only read that they are no longer running around half-naked.
Assuming you are correct and they are wearing the chador,
that would be a small improvement for the women, compared
to the 'burka'.
I understand that a lot of them still do, and that those who don't, fear
rape. I don't know how justified of their fears are, but it's mentioned
in every report I see or hear. And, of course, we're only talking about
the one 'liberated' place in the whole country. Still, girls are going
to school again, and women working, in the public sector at least.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 07:38:06 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
"neoholistic" <ekqbwpo@terra.es> wrote in message
news:2r8tquF179n3cU1@uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
<wet dreams deleted>
3 down 5 to go.
Good! Now everyone can see you as the *beep* fascist you really are.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system
of government.
2.Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I favor none of these things. Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
That's what the USA is best for: regime change. Supporting them while
they are useful, removing them when they are no more.
The USA didn't care a ***** ***** the people Saddam murdered,
not any more than those that the USA sanctions murdered (mostly
children). The USA supported Saddam for many years. SUPPORTED BY YOU.
You have killed millions of innocents during the 20th century, you
have condemned millions to poverty and suffering, you have taken down
democratically elected goverments to be substituted by puppets under
your control.
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
No. The warlords are rampant, the drug fields are as productive as ever.
Only the area where the oleoducts are being built are under
"protection".
Socioeconomic controls are the worst in North Korea and Cuba.
Sure, thanks to your sanctions. Try something else. Not this, please.
I favor the demise of regimes that murder people because of their ethnic
backgrounds-- Sudan,Syria, Iran.
I think that makes me anti-fascist.
No. You favour the regime of George W. Bush: "either with me or against
me". That is as fascist a statement as it gets.
"Pax Americana". My *****.
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 08:03:59 PM |
|
|
"neoholistic" <ekqbwpo@terra.es> wrote in message
news:2r9b1jF184st3U1@uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
"Pax Americana". My *****.
Who said 'pax'?
Puck Feace.... Liberty Liberty Liberty
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 04:47:22 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
"neoholistic" <ekqbwpo@terra.es> wrote in message
news:2r8tquF179n3cU1@uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
<wet dreams deleted>
3 down 5 to go.
Good! Now everyone can see you as the *beep* fascist you really are.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system
of government.
2.Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I favor none of these things. Did the US not remove the dictator from Iraq?
Did the US not remove centralised terror and censorship from Afghanistan?
Socioeconomic controls are the worst in North Korea and Cuba.
I favor the demise of regimes that murder people because of their ethnic
backgrounds-- Sudan,Syria, Iran.
I think that makes me anti-fascist.
No, you're a fascist because you're using Dead White Male Logic.
(The irony that he called you a fascist in light of the regimes you
listed, it would be so funny if it wasn't so scary.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 07:53:59 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
snip
No, you're a fascist because you're using Dead White Male Logic.
Again the word "white". Curious. Even though I don't have the slightest
idea what "Dead While Male Logic" is supposed to mean.
(The irony that he called you a fascist in light of the regimes you
listed, it would be so funny if it wasn't so scary.)
"You're either with US or against US". 'Nuff said.
(THAT is scary. Oh, and the fact that you and your protegče Israel have
the largest WMD arsenals /in the entire planet/, and have the cheek to
tell others to disassemble theirs. What a nerve).
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 08:11:25 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
(THAT is scary. Oh, and the fact that you and your proteg=E8e Israel ha=
ve
the largest WMD arsenals /in the entire planet/, and have the cheek to
tell others to disassemble theirs. What a nerve).
In other words, fascist militant theocracies spreading Islamic terror,=20
*targetting* civilians and children, in an attempt to create a=20
world-wide Islamic theocracy, are morally equivalent to a secular,=20
democratic US, which is attempting to give the people of Iraq and=20
Afghanistan stable democratic systems, eliminating the tyrants who=20
terrorized the population before we were there?
What do you think would happen if the insurgency in Iraq stopped, Neo?=20
What do you think we are trying to do there right now? Be fucking real. =
Oh wait, we're going to put in a puppet regime that we control, so we=20
can physically pump the oil out of Iraq and ship it to the US without=20
paying the Iraqis. I forgot.
What do you think the throat-cutters are trying to do? What happens if=20
we leave right now? The throat-cutters will lay down their arms, the UN =
steps in, and peace and democracy flourish and Iraq becomes Nirvana?=20
What the hell do you think the throat-cutters, women-killers, and=20
child-killers are trying to accomplish? You think, oh, I don't know,=20
maybe they're trying to set up some sort of Islamic theocratic=20
dictatorship that continues to oppress and murder its own people? But=20
it's OK if they do it to each other, right?
Why aren't you outraged at what's going on Dafur right now? Why no=20
posts from you about Dafur right now? Answer: because you don't give a=20
damn, that's why. How many people have been killed and maimed in Dafur, =
Neo? Why no mass protests against THIS war around the world, Neo? Gee, =
I wonder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 09:05:02 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
(THAT is scary. Oh, and the fact that you and your protegče Israel have
the largest WMD arsenals /in the entire planet/, and have the cheek to
tell others to disassemble theirs. What a nerve).
In other words, fascist militant theocracies spreading Islamic terror,
*targetting* civilians and children, in an attempt to create a
world-wide Islamic theocracy, are morally equivalent to a secular,
democratic US, which is attempting to give the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan stable democratic systems, eliminating the tyrants who
terrorized the population before we were there?
Two points here: one, to tell you the truth, I don't think the islamic
theocracies are trying to create a "world-wide islamic theocracy". The
fact that the USA-govt. propaganda you're being fed says that's the case
doesn't mean that it's true. Even in the case of Al-Qaida, I suspect
it's just a facade. It's like ETA, with their propaganda of "liberating
the Basque country". All such organisations are simply criminals, and
their "public intentions" are just a means to attract both the support
of a certain sector of the population, and new militants from among
their supporters. Now, whether those supporters actually believe it,
that's a different thing (obviously most do). And the second is, no
matter how contrary to your beliefs this may be, what the USA is doing
in Iraq (I'll leave Afghanistan out) is not precisely for the benefit
of the population. After all you were perfectly happy with that dictator
while he was useful.
What do you think would happen if the insurgency in Iraq stopped, Neo?
What do you think we are trying to do there right now? Be fucking real.
Oh wait, we're going to put in a puppet regime that we control, so we
can physically pump the oil out of Iraq and ship it to the US without
paying the Iraqis. I forgot.
It won't be so evident, but yes, more or less.
What do you think the throat-cutters are trying to do? What happens if
we leave right now? The throat-cutters will lay down their arms, the UN
steps in, and peace and democracy flourish and Iraq becomes Nirvana?
What the hell do you think the throat-cutters, women-killers, and
child-killers are trying to accomplish? You think, oh, I don't know,
maybe they're trying to set up some sort of Islamic theocratic
dictatorship that continues to oppress and murder its own people? But
it's OK if they do it to each other, right?
It's never OK, but a civil war in the area seems inevitable, no matter
what you do.
Why aren't you outraged at what's going on Dafur right now? Why no
posts from you about Dafur right now? Answer: because you don't give a
damn, that's why. How many people have been killed and maimed in Dafur,
Neo? Why no mass protests against THIS war around the world, Neo? Gee,
I wonder.
Africa is always on the verge of civil war. And the European
decolonisation - or rather, the way it was carried out - has a
lot to do with it. But who says there are no protests agaisnt
this war? Maybe you haven't been paying attention? I'm as horrified
by this as I was during the carnages in Rwanda.
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 08:01:21 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
=20
Janithor wrote:
=20
snip
=20
No, you're a fascist because you're using Dead White Male Logic.
=20
Again the word "white". Curious. Even though I don't have the slightest=
idea what "Dead While Male Logic" is supposed to mean.
It's a phrase that was drilled into me by the lefties. Supposedly logic =
is the domain of white men. The wacko feminists actually started=20
calling into question the basic sciences, saying they were polluted by a =
male-dominated framework (and "male" was almost always prefaced by the=20
word "white". Again, I listened and learned from the lefties.)
(The irony that he called you a fascist in light of the regimes you=20
listed, it would be so funny if it wasn't so scary.)
=20
"You're either with US or against US". 'Nuff said.
=20
(THAT is scary. Oh, and the fact that you and your proteg=E8e Israel ha=
ve
the largest WMD arsenals /in the entire planet/, and have the cheek to
tell others to disassemble theirs. What a nerve).
Equivocation.
Question: which country treats its women citizens better? (or better=20
yet, which country treats its women like citizens at all?) If you had=20
no choice but these countries, which would you choose to live in:=20
secular democratic Israel, or fascist theocratic Iran? Oh wait, US bad, =
poor 3rd world good. I forgot, sorry.
Check the list he gave you: these are model gov'ts?! I'm sorry, but=20
you're sounding a little wacky. Unless you consider Sharia simply=20
another valid form of law, I dont' know, maybe you do. Hey, whatever.=20
So they stone women for the capital crime of adultery, so they kill=20
female family members for being seen in public with strange men, to=20
preserve the family honor. Who's to say they're not right and I'm not=20
wrong? It's all relative, Einstein taught us that, right?
Yes, you guys are scary Neo. Don't equivocate. Unless you're on their=20
side, which seems to be the case. Are you are Muslim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 08:42:19 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
snip
No, you're a fascist because you're using Dead White Male Logic.
Again the word "white". Curious. Even though I don't have the slightest
idea what "Dead While Male Logic" is supposed to mean.
It's a phrase that was drilled into me by the lefties. Supposedly logic
is the domain of white men. The wacko feminists actually started
calling into question the basic sciences, saying they were polluted by a
male-dominated framework (and "male" was almost always prefaced by the
word "white". Again, I listened and learned from the lefties.)
Well, methinks you've been reading some quite, er... "peculiar"
opinions. You don't HAVE to turn to the most extremist forms of
"militance" if all you want is to "listen and learn from the lefties".
FWIW, I have never in my life heard anything like that.
(The irony that he called you a fascist in light of the regimes you
listed, it would be so funny if it wasn't so scary.)
"You're either with US or against US". 'Nuff said.
(THAT is scary. Oh, and the fact that you and your protegče Israel have
the largest WMD arsenals /in the entire planet/, and have the cheek to
tell others to disassemble theirs. What a nerve).
Equivocation.
Question: which country treats its women citizens better? (or better
yet, which country treats its women like citizens at all?) If you had
no choice but these countries, which would you choose to live in:
secular democratic Israel, or fascist theocratic Iran? Oh wait, US bad,
poor 3rd world good. I forgot, sorry.
Check the list he gave you: these are model gov'ts?! I'm sorry, but
you're sounding a little wacky. Unless you consider Sharia simply
another valid form of law, I dont' know, maybe you do. Hey, whatever.
So they stone women for the capital crime of adultery, so they kill
female family members for being seen in public with strange men, to
preserve the family honor. Who's to say they're not right and I'm not
wrong? It's all relative, Einstein taught us that, right?
OK. What are we talking about? If the point is whether I prefer a
theocratic government over a democratic one, the answer is obviously
no. But the fact is, "you", like "us", have had no problem at all
with that - indeed, "we" have been supporting those governments like
allies whenever we saw fit. Saudi Arabia, for example, a regime much
more cruel than that of Saddam. And there you are: they are the big USA
ally.
Be realistic, Janithor: this isn't about liberating the poor, oppresed
folks. This is about dominion. It has always been. If it wasn't "you",
it would be someone else.
Yes, you guys are scary Neo. Don't equivocate. Unless you're on their
side, which seems to be the case. Are you are Muslim?
I have said here before that I respect religions, but don't want any of
them near me. All the ones I've met so far are inimical to free
thinking, one way or another.
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
20 Sep 2004 08:44:20 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
Well, methinks you've been reading some quite, er... "peculiar"
opinions. You don't HAVE to turn to the most extremist forms of
"militance" if all you want is to "listen and learn from the lefties".
FWIW, I have never in my life heard anything like that.
Maybe it's different in Spain, esp. since you tend to be a bit more
olive skinned over there compared to El Nortenos. As much as I hate
doing it, if you'd like, I'll find some websites to show you what I'm
talking about.
OK. What are we talking about? If the point is whether I prefer a
theocratic government over a democratic one, the answer is obviously
no. But the fact is, "you", like "us", have had no problem at all
with that - indeed, "we" have been supporting those governments like
allies whenever we saw fit. Saudi Arabia, for example, a regime much
more cruel than that of Saddam. And there you are: they are the big USA
ally.
I agree. Which is why I have as much a problem with the "Bush
good/Kerry bad" folk as I do the opposite. Which is why I say Bush is
at best a mediocre president. Which is why I say Iraq was a mistake.
Be realistic, Janithor: this isn't about liberating the poor, oppresed
folks. This is about dominion. It has always been. If it wasn't "you",
it would be someone else.
I disagree. Do you think we're trying to physically take the oil out of
Iraq and ship it to the US, and not pay the Iraqis? Is that what it's
about? What does "dominion" mean, in real terms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
21 Sep 2004 04:39:33 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
Well, methinks you've been reading some quite, er... "peculiar"
opinions. You don't HAVE to turn to the most extremist forms of
"militance" if all you want is to "listen and learn from the lefties".
FWIW, I have never in my life heard anything like that.
Maybe it's different in Spain, esp. since you tend to be a bit more
olive skinned over there compared to El Nortenos.
(I assume you mean "nordics"). Yes, that might be.
As much as I hate
doing it, if you'd like, I'll find some websites to show you what I'm
talking about.
I would lie if I said I'm not a bit curious, but I can do some googling.
OK. What are we talking about? If the point is whether I prefer a
theocratic government over a democratic one, the answer is obviously
no. But the fact is, "you", like "us", have had no problem at all
with that - indeed, "we" have been supporting those governments like
allies whenever we saw fit. Saudi Arabia, for example, a regime much
more cruel than that of Saddam. And there you are: they are the big USA
ally.
I agree. Which is why I have as much a problem with the "Bush
good/Kerry bad" folk as I do the opposite. Which is why I say Bush is
at best a mediocre president. Which is why I say Iraq was a mistake.
Be realistic, Janithor: this isn't about liberating the poor, oppresed
folks. This is about dominion. It has always been. If it wasn't "you",
it would be someone else.
I disagree. Do you think we're trying to physically take the oil out of
Iraq and ship it to the US, and not pay the Iraqis? Is that what it's
about? What does "dominion" mean, in real terms?
Not exactly pumping it out, more like controlling it. You get to be
physically
present in the area - thus it is under your "protection" and
"supervision".
Which means it is under your control. Which means, among other things,
that
you get to have a very important say things like the price it is sold
at, who
gets to buy it, and how much of it is reserved for your own use.
Not to mention the favour you do to Israel by having troops right in the
middle
of the Arab territories. The tactical and strategical importance of this
area
is enourmous (sp?).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
21 Sep 2004 02:52:49 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
I disagree. Do you think we're trying to physically take the oil out of
Iraq and ship it to the US, and not pay the Iraqis? Is that what it's
about? What does "dominion" mean, in real terms?
Not exactly pumping it out, more like controlling it. You get to be
physically
present in the area - thus it is under your "protection" and
"supervision".
Which means it is under your control. Which means, among other things,
that
you get to have a very important say things like the price it is sold
at, who
gets to buy it, and how much of it is reserved for your own use.
Not to mention the favour you do to Israel by having troops right in the
middle
of the Arab territories. The tactical and strategical importance of this
area
is enourmous (sp?).
The only argument that makes sense to me is that we are "protecting" the
various states in the area to prevent them from uniting into one
pan-Arabic state, thus creating more supplier nations in the world oil
market, which makes it harder for supply to be restricted and thus helps
keep the price lower. I'm not sure I buy it, but that at least makes
economic sense.
The problem is the same people who make this argument, when the price of
oil goes up, then say we are there to help prop up the oil price to help
the Texas producers. If Bush is a friend of Big Oil, then you'd think
he'd want supply to dry up, which would raise the price of oil and
really out his oil buddies. The Texas economy boomed in the 70's, and
crashed when oil levelled in the 80's.
The argument you give here is quite vague. What does this mean in real
terms - "supervision"? What happens under "supervision" that doesn't
happen under "supervision" - in the real world, in terms of oil
production, distribution, ownership, and market pricing? How does the
US benefit, or the Bush friends benefit, from this arrangement vs.
without US "protection"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 08:00:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:52:49 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
<(((*> The only argument that makes sense to me is that we are "protecting" the
<(((*> various states in the area to prevent them from uniting into one
<(((*> pan-Arabic state, thus creating more supplier nations in the world oil
<(((*> market, which makes it harder for supply to be restricted and thus helps
<(((*> keep the price lower. I'm not sure I buy it, but that at least makes
<(((*> economic sense.
You appear to me, in this paragraph, to be confusing "Arab" with
"Muslim".
There are a lot of cultural, linguistic, and racial divisions in
the area. It's very unlikely that you will see one "pan-Arab"
state any time soon.
Just as one example, the Afghans (when I was in Afghanistan)
often referred to Arabs as "tarzis", which was a kind of dog.
They did not mean it in any flattering sense.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 08:34:02 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:52:49 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
<(((*> The only argument that makes sense to me is that we are "protecting" the
<(((*> various states in the area to prevent them from uniting into one
<(((*> pan-Arabic state, thus creating more supplier nations in the world oil
<(((*> market, which makes it harder for supply to be restricted and thus helps
<(((*> keep the price lower. I'm not sure I buy it, but that at least makes
<(((*> economic sense.
You appear to me, in this paragraph, to be confusing "Arab" with
"Muslim".
There are a lot of cultural, linguistic, and racial divisions in
the area. It's very unlikely that you will see one "pan-Arab"
state any time soon.
Just as one example, the Afghans (when I was in Afghanistan)
often referred to Arabs as "tarzis", which was a kind of dog.
They did not mean it in any flattering sense.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
No, we're talking specifically about Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are
Arabs, and there was a historical effort in the Middle East to create a
unified Arab state.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0850056.html
The Baath Party actually started in Syria, IIRC. Saddam invaded Kuwait,
and would more than likely have overrun Saudi Arabia had the UN not
stopped him. All Arab states.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 08:43:12 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
I disagree. Do you think we're trying to physically take the oil out of
Iraq and ship it to the US, and not pay the Iraqis? Is that what it's
about? What does "dominion" mean, in real terms?
Not exactly pumping it out, more like controlling it. You get to be
physically
present in the area - thus it is under your "protection" and
"supervision".
Which means it is under your control. Which means, among other things,
that
you get to have a very important say things like the price it is sold
at, who
gets to buy it, and how much of it is reserved for your own use.
Not to mention the favour you do to Israel by having troops right in the
middle
of the Arab territories. The tactical and strategical importance of this
area
is enourmous (sp?).
The only argument that makes sense to me is that we are "protecting" the
various states in the area to prevent them from uniting into one
pan-Arabic state, thus creating more supplier nations in the world oil
market, which makes it harder for supply to be restricted and thus helps
keep the price lower. I'm not sure I buy it, but that at least makes
economic sense.
The problem is the same people who make this argument, when the price of
oil goes up, then say we are there to help prop up the oil price to help
the Texas producers. If Bush is a friend of Big Oil, then you'd think
he'd want supply to dry up, which would raise the price of oil and
really out his oil buddies. The Texas economy boomed in the 70's, and
crashed when oil levelled in the 80's.
This makes much more sense than what you said before. Why would "you"
want the price of oil to lower if you're taking benefit of it being more
expensive (assuming that's the case)?
The argument you give here is quite vague. What does this mean in real
terms - "supervision"? What happens under "supervision" that doesn't
happen under "supervision" - in the real world, in terms of oil
production, distribution, ownership, and market pricing? How does the
US benefit, or the Bush friends benefit, from this arrangement vs.
without US "protection"?
It's verrry vague... just as it should: it's not the point of view of an
analist, but that of what you could call "the informed citizen", that
is, a layman which keeps informed through the media. Information which
provides a point of view which is always somewhat slanted ("unbiased"
has a more relaxed meaning in journalism, unfortunately), and thus must
be contrasted, but which has a high level of credibility (it does come
from experts). What I wrote above is more a mishmash of some of the
reasons alleged by knowledgable (sp?) people to have provided the
motivations for the invasion of Iraq, but it is in no way exhaustive,
nor ordered (mostly because I cannot remember them all).
However it only takes some common sense to see that being an invading
force in a country whose means of oil production you are controlling
and protecting gives you a lot of influence in deciding how things are
done "in terms of oil production, distribution, ownership and market
pricing"...
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 08:45:32 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
However it only takes some common sense to see that being an invading
force in a country whose means of oil production you are controlling
and protecting gives you a lot of influence in deciding how things are
done "in terms of oil production, distribution, ownership and market
pricing"...
Common sense, OK, I can buy that.
Problem is, you're still not telling me how this actually happens in the
concrete world. Does Exxon get title to the oil fields? Does Bush call
up the Iraqi oil minister and tell him how much oil to pump each day?
If not, then what?
There are a lot of concrete elements to this argument that I never see
actually spelled out by its proponents. The only thing I ever is, Iraq
has a lot of oil, Bush is beholden to American oil interests, therefore,
Bush invaded Iraq to control the oil.
But what does this mean in the real world? Does Bush have a secret
controlling interest in Aramco? Are Bush cronies secretly colluding
with OPEC to set world oil prices? I mean, who is calling whom, what is
physically happening to whom, what pieces of paper are being typed, what
titles of ownership are being drawn up, which are profits being
deposited into which bank accounts, who is setting daily production
schedules in which oil fields under which companies? And so on.
And how would this entire scheme differ under a no invasion scenario?
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 08:56:46 PM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message news:41522ABB.2020209@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
However it only takes some common sense to see that being an invading
force in a country whose means of oil production you are controlling
and protecting gives you a lot of influence in deciding how things are
done "in terms of oil production, distribution, ownership and market
pricing"...
Common sense, OK, I can buy that.
Problem is, you're still not telling me how this actually happens in the
concrete world. Does Exxon get title to the oil fields? Does Bush call
up the Iraqi oil minister and tell him how much oil to pump each day?
If not, then what?
There are a lot of concrete elements to this argument that I never see
actually spelled out by its proponents. The only thing I ever is, Iraq
has a lot of oil, Bush is beholden to American oil interests, therefore,
Bush invaded Iraq to control the oil.
But what does this mean in the real world? Does Bush have a secret
controlling interest in Aramco? Are Bush cronies secretly colluding
with OPEC to set world oil prices? I mean, who is calling whom, what is
physically happening to whom, what pieces of paper are being typed, what
titles of ownership are being drawn up, which are profits being
deposited into which bank accounts, who is setting daily production
schedules in which oil fields under which companies? And so on.
And how would this entire scheme differ under a no invasion scenario?
paranoia strikes deep
into your life it will creep
starts when you're always afraid
step out of line the man comes
and takes you away
we better stop people what's that sound
everybody look what's goin down
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "neoholistic" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 09:20:04 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
However it only takes some common sense to see that being an invading
force in a country whose means of oil production you are controlling
and protecting gives you a lot of influence in deciding how things are
done "in terms of oil production, distribution, ownership and market
pricing"...
Common sense, OK, I can buy that.
Problem is, you're still not telling me how this actually happens in the
concrete world. Does Exxon get title to the oil fields? Does Bush call
up the Iraqi oil minister and tell him how much oil to pump each day? If
not, then what?
There are a lot of concrete elements to this argument that I never see
actually spelled out by its proponents. The only thing I ever is, Iraq
has a lot of oil, Bush is beholden to American oil interests, therefore,
Bush invaded Iraq to control the oil.
But what does this mean in the real world? Does Bush have a secret
controlling interest in Aramco? Are Bush cronies secretly colluding
with OPEC to set world oil prices? I mean, who is calling whom, what is
physically happening to whom, what pieces of paper are being typed, what
titles of ownership are being drawn up, which are profits being
deposited into which bank accounts, who is setting daily production
schedules in which oil fields under which companies? And so on.
And how would this entire scheme differ under a no invasion scenario?
Why are you asking /me/ the concrete details? Ask your president!
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 09:20:17 PM |
|
|
"neoholistic" <ekqbwpo@terra.es> wrote in message news:2repogF18mi7pU1@uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
However it only takes some common sense to see that being an invading
force in a country whose means of oil production you are controlling
and protecting gives you a lot of influence in deciding how things are
done "in terms of oil production, distribution, ownership and market
pricing"...
Common sense, OK, I can buy that.
Problem is, you're still not telling me how this actually happens in the
concrete world. Does Exxon get title to the oil fields? Does Bush call
up the Iraqi oil minister and tell him how much oil to pump each day? If
not, then what?
There are a lot of concrete elements to this argument that I never see
actually spelled out by its proponents. The only thing I ever is, Iraq
has a lot of oil, Bush is beholden to American oil interests, therefore,
Bush invaded Iraq to control the oil.
But what does this mean in the real world? Does Bush have a secret
controlling interest in Aramco? Are Bush cronies secretly colluding
with OPEC to set world oil prices? I mean, who is calling whom, what is
physically happening to whom, what pieces of paper are being typed, what
titles of ownership are being drawn up, which are profits being
deposited into which bank accounts, who is setting daily production
schedules in which oil fields under which companies? And so on.
And how would this entire scheme differ under a no invasion scenario?
Why are you asking /me/ the concrete details? Ask your president!
--
Please keep the 'x-no-archive: yes' header.
To reach me by email: transform my account name like IBM -> HAL.
sorry , the president is in the washroom right now having a contious contact with his god
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: WHEN GEORGE BUSH |
22 Sep 2004 09:18:14 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
neoholistic wrote:
However it only takes some common sense to see that being an invading
force in a country whose means of oil production you are controlling
and protecting gives you a lot of influence in deciding how things are
done "in terms of oil production, distribution, ownership and market
pricing"...
Common sense, OK, I can buy that.
Problem is, you're still not telling me how this actually happens in
the concrete world. Does Exxon get title to the oil fields? Does
Bush call up the Iraqi oil minister and tell him how much oil to pump
each day? If not, then what?
There are a lot of concrete elements to this argument that I never see
actually spelled out by its proponents. The only thing I ever is,
Iraq has a lot of oil, Bush is beholden to American oil interests,
therefore, Bush invaded Iraq to control the oil.
But what does this mean in the real world? Does Bush have a secret
controlling interest in Aramco? Are Bush cronies secretly colluding
with OPEC to set world oil prices? I mean, who is calling whom, what
is physically happening to whom, what pieces of paper are being typed,
what titles of ownership are being drawn up, which are profits being
deposited into which bank accounts, who is setting daily production
schedules in which oil fields under which companies? And so on.
And how would this entire scheme differ under a no invasion scenario?
Why are you asking /me/ the concrete details? Ask your president!
Because you're the one making the argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|