The US, UN & Iraq III

Ggeorge, how uncanny ...... I wonder what Freud would say?

0 Replies

mysteryman's quote: "Even if you are correct about the guy making a million,what business is it of yours what he chooses to do with his money?" None what-so-ever. I'm just responding to this administrations claim that this tax cut will create jobs. That's a bunch of balogne, and I'm responding to that claim. I don't give a sh$t how anybody spends their money - FYI. c.i.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti,

I don't see any connection between Freud and Robinson's poetry.

Moreover, few serious scientists give much credence to Freud's theories anymore.

0 Replies

Does this rhetoric sound somewhat familiar? It is similar to that which came out of the White House prior to the attack on Iraq. Has the next target been determined?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/international/middleeast/28IRAN.html?th

0 Replies

au - I think it possible that we might find ourselves attacking Iran, but not probable. I think the messages we are sending right now are precisely designed to make that threat appear plausible and thereby "encourage" those in Iran to clean their own house, removing the need for us to do so.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

. . . Iran to clean their own house, removing the need for us to do so.

The need for us to do so? I see, not only does the Shrub have a fait accompli in the matter of his pre-emptive war in Iraq, but we are now to assume that attacks on anyone, on the basis of any tenuous pretext, are justified, just because the Shurb says so. So now, we're not just the World's cop, but the judge and jury as well. How very convenient, no mess, no fuss--not here at home anyway, not yet, so far . . .

0 Replies

Scrat

Quote:

au - I think it possible that we might find ourselves attacking Iran, but not probable

I think it would be insanity to attack Iran. But than again Dr. Strangeglove is presently installed in the White House.

0 Replies

"Strangeglove?" LOL He certainly has his mits in many pots. c.i.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Scrat wrote:
. . . Iran to clean their own house, removing the need for us to do so.

...we are now to assume that attacks on anyone, on the basis of any tenuous pretext, are justified, just because the Shurb says so.

Whether we are "to assume" this or are not, I need to point out that I have not written anything to suggest that we should. (As you seem to imply.)

0 Replies

Quote:

removing the need for us to do so.

Quote:

I need to point ouf that i have not written anything to suggest that we should. (As you seem to imply.)

I may not be the brightest penny in the bank, but i know the English language pretty damned well. The phrase "the need for us to do so" certainly is a statement that an attack can be construed as necessary, and therefore justified. Don't be disingenuous on this one, Boss, these are direct quotes of yours.

0 Replies

George, full marks for comparing Welch with EAR's Miniver Cheevy. Laughing

0 Replies

Iran criticizes Bush administration
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 4:29pm EDT

The Bush administration is not serious about combating terrorism, senior leaders in Iran claimed, accusing it instead of trying to tempt dissidents there to reject Islamic government. The Foreign Ministry also said the US had shown "indecision" in dealing with a group on its list of terrorist organizations, the People's Mujahideen in neighboring Iraq. In another development related to the growing battle of words between the US and Iran, Russia's Foreign Ministry said it won't tolerate criticism for helping to build a nuclear power plant for the oil-rich Islamic nation.
Add Russia to the Bush $hit list.

0 Replies

au, We're already on everybody's $hit list; adding Russia to ours has very little meaning. c.i.

0 Replies

When I vote in 2004, I won't be voting to save America (which is probably more than halfway down the drain anyway) but to save the rest of the world from the worst of America.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Is there really an entity called al-Qaida (sic) ? Was it in Afghanistan? Does it exist now? Osama bin Laden cannot talk on the phone or use the Internet, but he can direct communications to the four corners of the world? This is illogical."

--Syrian President Bashar Assad, who claims Washington has manufactured the threat posed by al-Qaeda in order to paint Muslims as dangerous

Careful, Bashar. That kind of talk could get you 'liberated.'

Besides, that simply can't be.

For that to be true, it would mean evil men would be willing to kill innocent people for no other reason than they wanted to take over the world's oil supply.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

When I vote in 2004, I won't be voting to save America (which is probably more than halfway down the drain anyway) but to save the rest of the world from the worst of America.

Tartarin has begun to reveal herself.

0 Replies

I still don't see anybody nikkid. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

When the journalists who supported the war begin waking up, you'll see more editorials like this one:

Quote:

I supported this war because I believed Bush and Blair when they said Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that shared Hussein's hostile designs made such a threat a defense priority -- or so the argument went...

They may yet be found, but it is beginning to look as though the skeptics in this case were right. If so, I was taken in by this administration, and America and Great Britain were led to war under false pretenses...

I trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on the weapons front in Iraq soon, it appears as though I was fooled by him. Perhaps he himself was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers. If so, he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.

It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate. It isn't. More than 100 fine Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many thousands of Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill maneuvers over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments. War is a special case. It is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.

When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country.

We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.

0 Replies

What a fine mess we are in.

0 Replies

Most of them journalists will just turn a blind eye - after all, this emporer has never worn clothes!

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know