Obama '08?

rabel22 wrote:

Real Life
What is your point about Germany. They certainly have the moral high ground over us. Russia has responded to what can be regarded as an ally. I don't think they are right but this bull about attacking a sovran nation is something the U.S. cant put forward without looking like a fool. What was what we did to Iraq?

This war began in 1989 with Saddam's attack on Kuwait and our response in 1990.

Any discussion which leaves out that context and pretends that 2003 started the clock is a gross distortion of what the US has done and why.

real life wrote:

rabel22 wrote:

Real Life
What is your point about Germany. They certainly have the moral high ground over us. Russia has responded to what can be regarded as an ally. I don't think they are right but this bull about attacking a sovran nation is something the U.S. cant put forward without looking like a fool. What was what we did to Iraq?

This war began in 1989 with Saddam's attack on Kuwait and our response in 1990.

Any discussion which leaves out that context and pretends that 2003 started the clock is a gross distortion of what the US has done and why.

Why not in 1979, when Saddam came into power? Why not in 1980, when the United States backed Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war?

Because it wouldn't support your argument?

The last few sentenses from a noteworthy article which reflects my views.

"Lakoff acknowledges that both academic and political cultures are slow to change. But he is optimistic, pointing to the way in which the growth of cognitive psychology has undermined the rational-actor model that long dominated economics. In his own field, Lakoff predicts that "brain-based linguistics" will soon become the new standard - indeed, eclipsing Chomsky.

.............................
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i49/49b00601.htm

Another intellectual blow was delivered by Steven Pinker, an evolutionary and cognitive psychologist at Harvard University. Writing in The New Republic in 2006, Pinker chastised Lakoff for his "cartoonish depiction of progressives as saintly sophisticates and conservatives as evil morons" and declared his political efforts "a train wreck" and "jejune nonsense."

Owen Flanagan, a professor of neurobiology at Duke University, is even more skeptical than Pinker, declaring Lakoff a member of the "neuroenthusiasta," his term for cognitive scientists who overstate the implications of their research, and the journalists who breathlessly hype their findings.

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

rabel22 wrote:

Real Life
What is your point about Germany. They certainly have the moral high ground over us. Russia has responded to what can be regarded as an ally. I don't think they are right but this bull about attacking a sovran nation is something the U.S. cant put forward without looking like a fool. What was what we did to Iraq?

This war began in 1989 with Saddam's attack on Kuwait and our response in 1990.

Any discussion which leaves out that context and pretends that 2003 started the clock is a gross distortion of what the US has done and why.

Why not in 1979, when Saddam came into power? Why not in 1980, when the United States backed Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war?

Because it wouldn't support your argument?

Because we weren't at war in Iraq in 1979. We went to Iraq in 1990 after Saddam overran Kuwait.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
America has backed Saddam. America had an interest in a fierce opposition to Iran. This ultimately led to the Iran-Iraq war, and resulted in 1,000,000 million dead on the Iranian side alone.....

old europe wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
America has backed Saddam. America had an interest in a fierce opposition to Iran. This ultimately led to the Iran-Iraq war, and resulted in 1,000,000 million dead on the Iranian side alone.....

Perfectly true, so far, but incomplete. The missing info is that "Old Europe" collectively sold war materiel to both parties - as did "New" Europe, and Russia, and China. Only the American manufacturers were left out of this party, which lasted 7 whole years!

Only the American manufacturers were left out of this party, which lasted 7 whole years!

Ha, I missed this bit. I certainly disagree with this:

High Seas wrote:

Only the American manufacturers were left out of this party, which lasted 7 whole years!

America certainly was heavily involved in supporting both Iran and Iraq in this conflict. Ridiculous to claim otherwise. I'm sure "Iran-Contra affair" rings a bell.

old europe wrote:

Ha, I missed this bit. I certainly disagree with this:

High Seas wrote:

Only the American manufacturers were left out of this party, which lasted 7 whole years!

America certainly was heavily involved in supporting both Iran and Iraq in this conflict. Ridiculous to claim otherwise. I'm sure "Iran-Contra affair" rings a bell.

Not at all like your usual intelligence, Old Europe - isn't it a bit early to have started drinking?! Neither Iran nor Iraq were buying weapons from American manufacturers in that Iran-Contra "affair"... Try again when you're sober

old europe wrote:

Ha, I missed this bit. I certainly disagree with this:

High Seas wrote:

Only the American manufacturers were left out of this party, which lasted 7 whole years!

America certainly was heavily involved in supporting both Iran and Iraq in this conflict. Ridiculous to claim otherwise. I'm sure "Iran-Contra affair" rings a bell.

Not at all like your usual intelligence, Old Europe - isn't it a bit early to have started drinking?! Neither Iran nor Iraq were buying weapons from American manufacturers in that Iran-Contra "affair"... Try again when you're sober

Try and follow here, Cycl - the issue is selling to either combatant DURING the 7-year IRAN-IRAQ war. Saddam only used such weapons AFTER the end of that war, on the "marsh Arabs" (Shia) and the Kurds.

Try and follow here, Cycl - the issue is selling to either combatant DURING the 7-year IRAN-IRAQ war. Saddam only used such weapons AFTER the end of that war, on the "marsh Arabs" (Shia) and the Kurds.

Please focus on the MAIN POINT, Old Europe and Cycl...... not ONE of our manufacturers saw a 200% PROFIT MARGIN, unlike everybody ELSE.

That was my main complaint on this subject

High Seas wrote:

Try and follow here, Cycl - the issue is selling to either combatant DURING the 7-year IRAN-IRAQ war. Saddam only used such weapons AFTER the end of that war, on the "marsh Arabs" (Shia) and the Kurds.

In 1982, the US Department of State removed Iraq from the list of countries that supported terrorism, which made it possible to transfer dual-use technology to Iraq. I'm fairly sure that took place during the time of the Iran-Iraq war.

........
The Conservative mind is a lovely thing to watch work.

Cycloptichorn

The Atlantic had run an article by Marc Cooper, a lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. Titled "Thinking of Jackasses," the essay dismissed Lakoff's work as "psychobabble as electoral strategy."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

........
The Conservative mind is a lovely thing to watch work.

Cycloptichorn

So true, Cycl - and may I refer you to an article originally posted here by Rama, of all people:

Quote:

The Atlantic had run an article by Marc Cooper, a lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. Titled "Thinking of Jackasses," the essay dismissed Lakoff's work as "psychobabble as electoral strategy."

http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i49/49b00601.htm

......

Your main complaint was that American manufacturers didn't profit enough from the transfers to the Iraqis and Iranians?

You've got to be kidding.

old europe wrote:

......

Your main complaint was that American manufacturers didn't profit enough from the transfers to the Iraqis and Iranians?

You've got to be kidding.

Not I, OE!

Cycl, who understands the conservative mind, figured it out right away.