There is no fog in London. But there are a lot of people getting killed for oil in Iraq.
The reason the U.S.A. is in Iraq today goes back to the European wars that England was embroiled in (in the 18th century), and therefore England made the decision to allow the colonies to become a separate nation (rather than stop the rebellious colonists). What goes around, comes around.
My point is, anyone from the U.K. shouldn't criticize the U.S.A., since their nation had hegemoney over a portion of North America (that became the U.S.A.), and gave it up. Don't waltz in and out of one's ex-colonies.
Foofie wrote:The reason the U.S.A. is in Iraq today goes back to the European wars that England was embroiled in (in the 18th century), and therefore England made the decision to allow the colonies to become a separate nation (rather than stop the rebellious colonists). What goes around, comes around.
My point is, anyone from the U.K. shouldn't criticize the U.S.A., since their nation had hegemoney over a portion of North America (that became the U.S.A.), and gave it up. Don't waltz in and out of one's ex-colonies.
?
I dont believe i did criticise the US. I criticised
you for blithley saying you had no problem with US mission in Iraq from the comfort of your armchair. Or so it appeared.
Quote:My point is, anyone from the U.K. shouldn't criticize the U.S.A...
right, so it's out of the question for a foreign nation to
criticize the usa, but if the usa
occupies iraq, that's fair game. that sounds reasonable!
"blithley saying you had no problem with US mission in Iraq from the comfort of your armchair. Or so it appeared."
I don't think I've ever done/said anything blithley. Henry Higgens said things blithley, I believe.
I have no problem with the US mission in Iraq, since whatever the reason is, someone in a position of authority in the US government thinks it has a purpose. It is not my nature to question people who get paid for such decisions. Nor, does it reflect on my character, other than I accept that we wouldn't be there if it didn't have a purpose.
Plus, if there were British, once upon a time, that said with hubris that the "sun doesn't set on the British Empire," I now rather like the global reach of the U.S. As a student of history, I'd like to think the US won't fade into the sunset. I also suspect there are more than one or two Brits that like to have a militarily strong US as a close ally. It came in handy in the 20th century, as Brits know and remember. Perhaps Iraq also has the benefit of helping to prevent the US military from atrophying (sort of like the way Israel needs to prevent its forces from growing soft).
The world is really not a friendly place; I believe the US needs to maintain its military for all that the future may hold.
foofie wrote:It is not my nature to question people who get paid for such decisions.
Sound like you have a problem. It's called ring in the nose. Tie a rope to your ring and you can be led about in any direction by "people who get paid for such decisions."
Let us hope this nation will never have a majority populated by such people.
foofie wrote:The world is really not a friendly place; I believe the US needs to maintain its military for all that the future may hold.
There is a big difference between maintaining our military and using it in the stupid and unnecessary manner as we did in Iraq. Unfortunatly people who do not "question people who get paid for such decisions" will never understand this.
xingu wrote:foofie wrote:It is not my nature to question people who get paid for such decisions.
Sound like you have a problem. It's called ring in the nose. Tie a rope to your ring and you can be led about in any direction by "people who get paid for such decisions."
Let us hope this nation will never have a majority populated by such people.
foofie wrote:The world is really not a friendly place; I believe the US needs to maintain its military for all that the future may hold.
There is a big difference between maintaining our military and using it in the stupid and unnecessary manner as we did in Iraq. Unfortunatly people who do not "question people who get paid for such decisions" will never understand this.
Why don't you just give me your opinion, rather than ad hominem comments about me? Whether or not I will ever understand your opinions is really none of your business. Personalizing a debate is of no interest to me. I don't care who you are, or what you believe. I just want to offer my opinion. Please do not make my intellect, or lack of it, your concern. Like the old tv detective show Dragnet, Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts, Ma'am!"
You did. You got my opinion about your remark about yourself and about the use of the military.
Foofie wrote:I have no problem with the US mission in Iraq, since whatever the reason is, someone in a position of authority in the US government thinks it has a purpose. It is not my nature to question people who get paid for such decisions.
ok fine. I hope we hear no more from you.
xingu wrote:You did. You got my opinion about your remark about yourself and about the use of the military.
Your "ring in the nose" metaphor was not a compliment.
"Unfortunatly people who do not "question people who get paid for such decisions" will never understand this." This referencing of my opinion also was not a compliment.
My point, stated again, is could you not leave me out of your posted opinion? So, let's not continue this.
Steve 41oo wrote:Foofie wrote:I have no problem with the US mission in Iraq, since whatever the reason is, someone in a position of authority in the US government thinks it has a purpose. It is not my nature to question people who get paid for such decisions.
ok fine. I hope we hear no more from you.
I don't think anyone cares what you hope for. I do not.
Foofie wrote:xingu wrote:You did. You got my opinion about your remark about yourself and about the use of the military.
Your "ring in the nose" metaphor was not a compliment.
"Unfortunatly people who do not "question people who get paid for such decisions" will never understand this." This referencing of my opinion also was not a compliment.
My point, stated again, is could you not leave me out of your posted opinion? So, let's not continue this.
If you keep comments about yourself out of the discussion I will not give you my opinion. If you want to enter comments about yourself than your fair game, like it or not.
Quit whining.
The U.S. has been the guarantor of the free flow of petrol from the region (where it is most plentiful and cheapest to extract) since the close of World War Two. If any attack were to occur, the U.S. ultra-right wings would do so to preserve this role; additionally, to contain a rather aggressive regime in Iran. Of course, geo-economists (correctly) argue that such a move on Iran for the sake of petrol is not entailed by the decreasing stockpiles- it would not be necessary. Perhaps the move- if any- would be to short-circuit the expansion of the Iranian sphere of influence. If anything, it would run as a series of black-bag ops; or else, covert destabilization programmes, the modus operandi of our beloved CIA.
