These recent moves of ours are not about liberating anyone. Our moves are about flexing muscle. And these cowards -- who never were willing to put their own muscles on the line -- are doing what cowards have always done when they get power into their hands. They become bullies.
These recent moves of ours are not about liberating anyone -- they are about being bullies.
With Dubya, of course, appointed to stand behind the "bully" pulpit to cajole, rather than to lead.[/i]
Quote:Clear this up for me....who exactly is it that's been liberated?
I'd be happy to...
Afghanis - liberated from oppressive dictatorial regime that supported terrorism.
Iraqis - liberated from oppressive dictatorial regime that supported terrorism and thwarted the rule of international law.
The USA - liberated from a measure of the threat to our nation from terrorists and rogue states.
The World
* - liberated from a measure of the threat to our nation from terrorists and rogue states.
(*Including a number of nations who were happy to live with a greater threat to peace so long as it meant greater profits for them.)
Scrat, you are entitled to your opiniion .
Mine is that you are wrong on every count.
I think Scrat watches American media. Don't think the Afghanis, the Iraqis, or 51% of the American people would agree. And The World is making the gesture that means "I feel like pukin'!"
That Scrat watches American media is not an unwarranted inference.
Scrat wrote:
Quote:The USA - liberated from a measure of the threat to our nation from terrorists and rogue states.
I'm trying to figure out if you are an American or not, Scrat. The wording here seems to indicate that you are -- but other things you've said indicate you are from outside the US.
Care to share with us which it is?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Scrat, you are entitled to your opiniion .
Mine is that you are wrong on every count.
Well, you did ask.
(And I likewise respect your right to your opinion!)
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: "For years, many governments played down the threats of Islamic revolution, turned a blind eye to international terrorism and accepted the development of weaponry of mass destruction. Indeed, some politicians were happy to go further, collaborating with the self-proclaimed enemies of the West for their own short-term gain - but enough about the French. So deep had the rot set in that the UN security council itself was paralysed... Our own Prime Minister was staunch and our forces were superb. But, above, all, it is President Bush who deserves the credit for victory...There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it." - Margaret Thatcher, in New York yesterday. God I miss her.
Yes, you gotta miss the presence of any one of the too, too few who thought Pinochet a 'great friend of democracy'.
and Saddam Hussain was an example of Arab moderation.
au1929<
I recall that during his presidency, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had a mutual admiration society. In front of TV cameras, they reminded me of silly teenagers who have discovered the wonders of romance.
So, it is not surprising to me that Mrs. Thatcher still butters her bread on the GOP side. Maybe she fondly recalls her flirtation with Reagan when writing about Dubya.
henrygreen<
Welcome to A2k! Hope you're glad to be here
reply
thanks william...I'm still getting my sea wings...
hello henry
Cordial greetings. Have fun with the bells and whistles (though, as you can see, green text is difficult to read) and continue to jump right in on these discussions. Nice to have you aboard.
henrygreen, WELCOME to A2K. You're gonna have a ball once you take flight.
c.i.
henryg - 1) Assuming the US is 100% culpable in creating these messes, I would argue that it would only make them even more responsible to clean them up. You (as do many others) seem to want to set a rule that says that if you make a mistake you must leave it to others to fix it.
2) Being blissfully unconcerned about a threat is not the same thing as there being no threat. Some people believe that any problem you ignore for long enough will eventually go away. History has proved them wrong time and time again.
scrat
You do have it backwards again, I'm afraid. The US didn't really want anyone else to have any significant say regarding US plans for Iraq, but they'd love to have others do cleanup - given that they retain control of all post war decisions. Control is why they went there.
Re problems unfaced...if the US does ANYTHING AT ALL SIGNIFICANT regarding the Congo, it would go a fair ways to disproving my thesis that the US gets involved ONLY where its corporate interests apply (and where white people live, of course).
I'm not aware of any major business interests in Somalia, yet we were there, were we not? (Or was that about business in some way that I don't know?)
