THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how many people I have been friends with over a lifetime have something questionable about them? ...
And no doubt my enemies would make a very big deal out of all it.

Your post inspires me to propound a new theory which I shall endeavor to research. Laughing

The neo-libs perceive themselves to have experienced "a lifetime of something questionable about them." Because of that perception, the neo-libs are desperately coping with that self-perception by attemptiong to discover that the same is true for neo-cons as well.

While my evidence to support this theory is meager at the moment, it is not zero. It appears that in this forum when a neo-lib accuses a neo-con of something questionable, the neo-lib is him or herself actually admitting to that exact same questionable something.

0 Replies

Bush is adequately articulate

Bush is less articulate than Kerry.
Kerry is more articulate than Bush.

Bush is less confused than Kerry.
Kerry is more confused than Bush.

Bush is more dangerous than Kerry
Kerry is less dangerous than Bush

Kerry has more money than Bush
Bush has less money than Kerry

Bush is shorter than Kerry
Kerry is taller than Bush

OK class, which one is the complete ***hole?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Piffka wrote:
I thought it ironic that ican referred to a less-adequate, truth-telling guy... was that also supposed to be Bush?

You apparently have difficulty reading and understanding the written word. Read this again with more care.

I have no difficulty reading you... I just like to twist your words around for fun. I learned it from the Bush camp.

Just how inadequate do you think he is???

Quote:

I prefer the less articulate and less confused to the more articulate and more confused.

I recommend that you adopt the same preference.

I don't need your recommendations. You've shown what you think and I am not surprised that you prefer the less articulate... but you are confused if you think Bush isn't. Bush doesn't even know what words he is saying. He is too busy trying to sound them out.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Bush is adequately articulate

Bush is less articulate than Kerry.
Kerry is more articulate than Bush.

Bush is less confused than Kerry.
Kerry is more confused than Bush.

Bush is more dangerous than Kerry
Kerry is less dangerous than Bush

Kerry has more money than Bush
Bush has less money than Kerry

Bush is shorter than Kerry
Kerry is taller than Bush

OK class, which one is the complete ***hole?

Clearly it is the one who wrote:

Quote:

Bush is more dangerous than Kerry
Kerry is less dangerous than Bush

Now all this can be made rational as follows:

Quote:

Bush is adequately articulate

Bush is less articulate than Kerry.
Kerry is more articulate than Bush.

Bush is less confused than Kerry.
Kerry is more confused than Bush.

Kerry has more money than Bush
Bush has less money than Kerry

Bush is shorter than Kerry
Kerry is taller than Bush

OK class, which one, Bush or Kerry is the least worse candidate?

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

... I don't need your recommendations. ...

Clearly, you do need my recommendations!

Here's another recommendation:

Recognize your need for my recommendations!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

McTag wrote:
This is a good story of an amazing coincidence; enjoyable by all, even Ican. Please look it up and read it, I found it most curious ...

I found it "most curious" too. First, I found it most curious that you found it most curious. Second, I found it most curious that Mr. Gammell wasn't asked by Bush 43 to check out the alleged oil rich 7000 acre section of the 19 million acre Alaskan Wild Life Preserve.

When the cost of energy rises so does the cost of almost everything else, including but not limited to the indirect cost of jobs. When the cost of oil rises so does the cost of energy. When the supply of oil is plentiful, the cost of oil is less. When the supply of oil is not plentiful, the cost of oil is more.

So I expect part of the neo-lib doggerel will now become: Bush and Blair conspired with Gammell to reduce the current supply of the world's oil in order to help enrich their friend Gammell and themselves. They accomplished this brilliantly by invading Iraq and shutting down the flow of oil from Iraq, the 2nd largest supplier of the world's oil. The value of Gammell's India oil discovery was thereby inflated by the expectation that future revenues would switch from Iraq to Gammell. Wow! What genius! Whoops! But the neo-libs allege Bush is dumber than dumb. No problem! Gammell thought this scheme up, articulate Blair bought it and easily manipulated dummy Bush to aid and abet it. Kerry on the otherhand would have shutdown both the Iraqi and Gammell oil fields to reduce earth warming caused by the sun (before Kerry decided not to do that).

Just a simple "Thank you" would have been sufficient.

0 Replies

nothing is ever simple in the mysterious world that Ican inhabits

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

nothing is ever simple in the mysterious world that Ican inhabits

To know it is to love it.

Mysterious to some; real to others.

Actually, it's the same world you, I and everyone else inhabit but you repeatedly deny.

0 Replies

In what way?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

In what way?

The list is long.

This one should suffice.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Bush is more dangerous than Kerry
Kerry is less dangerous than Bush

[b]real [/b]world wrote:

Bush is less dangerous than Kerry
Kerry is more dangerous than Bush

0 Replies

And if I wasn't being serious?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

And if I wasn't being serious?

A claim by you that you weren't being serious would then serve as another example of your denial of reality.

Here's still another example (an especially flagrant example) of your denial of reality:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:04 pm Post: 833718 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
The US claimed the right of its own self-defense.

Which was interesting as no one, not least the US military, thought Iraq posed any threat to the US.

What the US was doing in fact was setting the precedent in International law not just of pre emptive war but preventative war.

The principle is now establised that the most powerful nation on earth reserves the right to attack and change the govt. of any other nation on the basis that that nation might conceivably become a threat to US or US interests at some indeterminate time in the future, this assessment being the sole prerogative of the United States govt. and does not imply any reciprocity in favour of less powerful countries.

To which I say "'twas ever thus". Except now the policy is open and explicit for all too see.

0 Replies

Ok, class, it's time for a question:

Which country, in your opinion, has gained more* than any other from the recent Iraq invasion?

A. The United States of America
B. Iran
C. Iraq
D. Saudi Arabia
E. None of the above because Al-Queda isn't a country.

* Militarily, politically, religiously, socially, world-power wise, you name it.

By the way, I'm of the opinion that the answer is B with E being a very close second.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

...Which country, in your opinion, has gained more* than any other from the recent Iraq invasion?

A. The United States of America
"you name it:" postponement for at least three years
of a 2nd 9/11-magnitude terrorist attack on the US.

0 Replies

Iran
Simply, this is the worst case scenario.
With the US stuck in Iraq, Iran is now able to research nuclear weapons without worrying about a potential invasion.
Hopefully the Israelis will do to Iran what they did to Iraq when it was developing its nuclear technology, and hopefully that'll be good enough.

0 Replies

dazedandconfused wrote:

Iran
Simply, this is the worst case scenario. ...

Suppose the US invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq and not Iran.

Would Iran have proceeded to develop nuclear weapons?

Iran was doing that before US invaded Afghanistan.

Would al Qaeda not have already attacked the US a 2nd time since 9/11?

While many here claim that al Qaeda could have been destroyed if we had concentrated on Afghanistan, I think most of al Qaeda would have fled Afghanistan for sanctuary in neighboring countries (e.g., Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan) even if Iraq were not invaded 18 months later. Al Qaeda then would have proceeded as quickly as they could to attack the US again, instead of flocking to terrorize Iraq as they have done.

0 Replies

I am not sure who gained the most. However, I know with certainty who lost the most.
The United States of America and it's people.

0 Replies

Its perfectly clear (to most people anyway) when I am being flippant and when I'm making a serious point. But thank you Ican for re posting what I said above. I think I managed to illuminate the reality of power-politics pretty well.

And just for my own entertainment and for the edification those coming late to the argument, I'll repeat what I said.

The principle (of preventative war) is now establised that the most powerful nation on earth reserves the right to attack and change the govt. of any other nation on the basis that that nation might conceivably become a threat to US or US interests at some indeterminate time in the future, this assessment being the sole prerogative of the United States govt. and does not imply any reciprocity in favour of less powerful countries.

Here, just to ram home the point, I was being serious. It was not a joke or an attempt at irony.

But when I said Kerry was better than Bush because he is richer or taller or some other ridiculous comparative attribute, I was not being entirely serious. I was in fact parodying your style of argument.

0 Replies

Thats a good question Joe. I don't think there are any country winners..just a few individuals perhaps.

If we think of Iraq and the reasons we were told we had to invade and the outcomes now

Iraq has

no peace
no security
no investment
no wmd found
no increase in oil production (this must be particularly galling)

no secure borders
no democracy
no legitimate govt.
no free press (Al Jazeera banned)
no freedom from oppression (Abu Ghraib)

plenty of

unemployment
terrorism
lawlessness
bloodshed
despair
poverty
resentment
anger
religious fervour

In doing so we have destroyed the authority of the UN
Split NATO
Split Europe
Destroyed the credibility of Presidents and Prime Ministers.
and a lot else, none of it positive.

Even the very last defence of the war the so called 'Saddam defence' is getting threadbare. Tony Blair says now "it is very difficult to look at Iraq under Saddam and say we would be better off, the world would be a safer, we would be more secure, if Saddam was still in charge of Iraq".

Yes We might be better off Tony, but what about the Iraqis? Can we honestly say the Iraqis themselves are better off now in their current condition than they were just before the invasion?

0 Replies

The most conservative estimates of pre-invasion Iraq was 300,000 Iraqis executed, many by the most slow, horrible means imaginable. Many thousands more were branded and mutilated including chopping off of hands without benefit of anesthesia. The Saddam boys' rape rooms were infamous. Except for Baghdad where images had to be kept up, Saddam was diverting the oil for food money to his own enrichment and was paying off his crony friends while the Iraqi infrastructure crumbled and people went hungry.

Iraq now has a chance to be rid of the sanctions, threats of invasion, a brutal dictator and join other free and prosperous people as a good citizen of the world.

Tell me again how Iraq is worse off?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know