The Good News in Iraq (finally!)

[BlackSnake]

1) If I were an Iraqi without electricity, water, safe access to food, or a home for my children, no amount of propaganda is going to make me think differently about the forces occupying my country and their 'success'

2) American taxpayers are getting ripped off again by contractors - what do you bet the Lincoln Group employee who claimed he paid $1200 to plant the story when the paper said they only received $900 pocketed the difference?

3) We ARE getting desperate, aren't we?

1) Would you want the old leader back while you lived there with electricity he could use to electricute you with, water to drown you with, access to your last supper?

2) American taxpayers get ripped off by all politicans, what's new about contractors getting their share of the loot?

3) Yes, desperate to turn the country over to its people.

BTW, some people were paid as little as $50 to run stories. Don't forget people are dying. It's not a popularity contest. The stories are to give the people of the country more confidence in the efforts by the US and their new government.

I'm sure if you have the solution to this problem, the US government would pay you more than $1200 for it.

Bashing the current US administration is not going to help the success of the efforts in that country.

 

[BlackSnake]

.... It paves the way for the eventual acquisition of Iraqi assets by foreigners or multinational corporations.

Gee, guess what the motivation is behind that? Freedom? Or Bush & Co. self-interest?

This is a baseless statement. You made it up. It sounded good in your head, so you decided that it was correct enough, since every is against the leader of the most power nation on earth, am I correct?

 

[BlackSnake]

The point, which you have failed to acknowledge as you so often do, is that we did not go into Iraq to become 'involved in one of the most honorable pursuits in human history' nor to spread freedom, liberty, or democracy. We went in there to protect our oil interests. If you ignore those motivations, then of course you cannot understand why those who do see that's why Bush & Co. invaded and now occupy that country feel the need to unmask the lies and deception perpetuated by our administration.

I have no hatred for Bush; I pity Bush for his selfish and misguided beliefs, and I am disgusted by his corrupt administration and their abuse of power. Bush is a tool of his political party and the religious right who thrust him into power and his family's and friends' financial interests. I am certain he will be much happier when he is no longer in the public arena - being President is clearly very hard work for him.

Disagreeing with the administration's policies is not tantamount to hating America. On the contrary, I feel Americans are being abused by this administration's policies and I am appalled that the administration does so with impugnity. This administration has given America a bad name - imperialist.

I value democracy which is why I continue to make my views known and make them known to my elected representatives so that they may represent me when voting.

As for capitalism, it has its good points. And bad. So does every other economic system.

I would hardly apply the word hatred to any of those views.

It would be lovely if the Arab world, and the Christian, Judaic, agnostic, Wiccan, and atheist worlds all lived a free life. However, do not confuse what America is doing in Iraq with bringing a free life to the Arab world. You will be sadly disappointed if that is your illusion.

Clearly, you have no idea why US forces and its interests are in that country.

 

[BlackSnake]

An impassioned appeal to Congress to absorb the Phillipines into an American empire

Small article on American Samoa and Guam, both of which are American territories in the Pacific. Note must be made to the reference of the 1899 treaty between Germany, USA and Britain that allowed America sovereignty over American Samoa as part of her empire

Let's not forget Hawaii, Alaska, California and other states that were bought, invaded, colonised or coerced into the USA as well.

I'm not really making any kind of a point here. Apart from pointing out the truck-sized holes in your rhetoric, but that's by the by.

The Earl

This from an Englishman? The Brits wanted the Phillipines too, didn't they? Not just Hong Kong, right?

America has always been the leader for human rights and freedoms.

 

[BlackSnake]

I'm more concerned about our current activities as occupiers of a sovereign nation under specious grounds, and my responsibility as an American citizen to protest same.

FYI, calling me liberal and my views far left doesn't faze me in the least, regardless of the insult you intend it to be.

I sware, sometimes I think that the wrong people were in NY and on planes that awful day...

 

[BlackSnake]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Blooms with democracy? What are you smoking?

I wasn't in the least opposed to war in Afghanistan - 9/11, al Quaeda, Osama bin Laden (remember him?), Taliban, sure.

But Iraq? A web of lies and deceit took us there, and a web of lies and deceit continues to keep us there.

I am not anti war. I am anti this particular war. And the lies of this administration that sent our military there. And the motivations of this administration that lied to us about why we invaded and then changed their story when their lies were uncovered.

For goodness sakes! You are acting like Iraq was some peaceful country. Desert Strom ring a bell? If you can not understand the danger in which Iraq raise to the world and its own people, then maybe you should pay more attention. Call it what
you will.

The only error I keep hearing is "Win". Nobody ever wins a fight.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I sware, sometimes I think that the wrong people were in NY and on planes that awful day...

I sure pushed your buttons, didn't I?

 

[BlackSnake]

How many millions of people around the world do you think would die horrible dealths be it not for the US? The US government is not a band of angles, but they are clearly the guardians of human rights and freedoms.

"For the good of the many, blood is shed on these lands."

 

[BlackSnake]

I sure pushed your buttons, didn't I?

Squeezed my nuts, HARD!

 

[yui]

This from an Englishman? The Brits wanted the Phillipines too, didn't they? Not just Hong Kong, right?

Oh! And do you know the lengths and the underhandedness that the Brits resorted to in their quest for Hong Kong? Very interesting history there …

 

[BlackSnake]

Oh! And do you know the lengths and the underhandedness that the Brits resorted to in their quest for Hong Kong? Very interesting history there …

I have no doubts about that.

I do like my current Presendent. I was watching one of the many bash Bush panels on TV, and they were force to admit that Bush is a respectful man. One of the most admirable qualities of a man is that he keeps his word. Bush Sr. didn't keep his word. Remember "Read my lips. No new taxes." Bush still hold plausable deniability.

I am still proud to be an American.

 

[Pure]

Colonies; note to Black Snake

While the US has not generally set up 'colonies,', it does set up dependencies, pawn governments, and areas of economic domination (an political domination as required).

That way you get the benefits of colony without so much military presence.

Taiwan is a pawn government, and has been likened to an aircraft carrier off the coast of China (guess whose?).

The Phillippines was conquered more or less as a colony, then set up as a dependent government, host of large US naval base etc.

In a larger sense, the Monroe doctrine set the stage for de facto US economic domination of Latin America, and a right to intervene as required: to topple unfriendly governments like Allende in Chile. In many cases the domination and control is political and military, though often indirectly, as in the numerous military dictatorships of Latin America: Pinochet in Chile, and the Chilean military, were supported by the CIA and the US military.

----
What the US wants is the access of its large companies to a nation's resources; in Chile, the large US companies control the copper and other resources.

Presumably the same pattern will apply in Iraq: The US would rather have an Iraqi 'client' military to do the suppression and governing, just so long as the companies have their 'freedom' (control of the resources). Sometimes of course, 'client' military forces aren't that good, as in Vietnam; then the larger US forces are directly required for a time; the hope being to withdraw when things simmer down ('Vietnamization').

This restructuring of economic and political control has been going on for 50-100 years, and naturally one does not expect Amicus to be 'up' on it; he's back with the British Empire, which finally sunk 50 years ago, and he's sure that the area of US domination is not like the British Empire.

===
Note to Black S:

One of the most admirable qualities of a man [GWB] is that he keeps his word.

As the old joke goes, "Richard Nixon is honest, but not in the usual sense of the term."

In the creative sense, Bush will keep his word: The US will not leave until 'victory' in Iraq, and establishment of 'democracy.' At some point in under 10 years (an impossibly short period), democracy will be declared to exist there. The US 'victory' will be declared, and 60% of the military will leave. In that creative sense, Bush will have 'kept his word.'

Lately Bush said, "We do not torture." Creatively speaking that is true, since torture has been defined, by Gonzales, as life threatening harm. Tying a person to a board and, by maneuvering the board, holding his head under water repeatedly, to stimulate the terror of drowning is thus not torture.

It is likewise true that Bush has preserved our freedoms. "Freedom" however is not defined by the Bill of Rights. Thus the holding of a US citizen for 3 years without charges is a commander's prerogative, according to the Constitution, not infringing on freedom, creatively defined.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Squeezed my nuts, HARD!

Hot Nuts

 

[rgraham666]

I sware, sometimes I think that the wrong people were in NY and on planes that awful day...

BlackSnake? That was really fucking low.

 

[BlackSnake]

BlackSnake? That was really fucking low.

Yeah, I know. I get the feeling that some people have forgotten, or just don't care enough to want to go after people with the kind of mind set to cause that type of tragedy where ever they may be.

...

 

[BlackSnake]

Hot Nuts

You got me...I apologize.

 

[cloudy]

How many millions of people around the world do you think would die horrible dealths be it not for the US? The US government is not a band of angles, but they are clearly the guardians of human rights and freedoms.

"For the good of the many, blood is shed on these lands."

Blacksnake, how many people HERE died horrible deaths BECAUSE of the US?

Guardians of human rights and freedoms?

BAHAHAHAHA!

Leonard Peltier, Guantanamo....shall I go on?

 

[BlackSnake]

While the US has not generally set up 'colonies,', it does set up dependencies, pawn governments, and areas of economic domination (an political domination as required).

That way you get the benefits of colony without so much military presence.

Taiwan is a pawn government, and has been likened to an aircraft carrier off the coast of China (guess whose?).

The Phillippines was conquered more or less as a colony, then set up as a dependent government, host of large US naval base etc.

In a larger sense, the Monroe doctrine set the stage for de facto US economic domination of Latin America, and a right to intervene as required: to topple unfriendly governments like Allende in Chile. In many cases the domination and control is political and military, though often indirectly, as in the numerous military dictatorships of Latin America: Pinochet in Chile, and the Chilean military, were supported by the CIA and the US military.

----
What the US wants is the access of its large companies to a nation's resources; in Chile, the large US companies control the copper and other resources.

Presumably the same pattern will apply in Iraq: The US would rather have an Iraqi 'client' military to do the suppression and governing, just so long as the companies have their 'freedom' (control of the resources). Sometimes of course, 'client' military forces aren't that good, as in Vietnam; then the larger US forces are directly required for a time; the hope being to withdraw when things simmer down ('Vietnamization').

This restructuring of economic and political control has been going on for 50-100 years, and naturally one does not expect Amicus to be 'up' on it; he's back with the British Empire, which finally sunk 50 years ago, and he's sure that the area of US domination is not like the British Empire.

===
Note to Black S:

One of the most admirable qualities of a man [GWB] is that he keeps his word.

As the old joke goes, "Richard Nixon is honest, but not in the usual sense of the term."

In the creative sense, Bush will keep his word: The US will not leave until 'victory' in Iraq, and establishment of 'democracy.' At some point in under 10 years (an impossibly short period), democracy will be declared to exist there. The US 'victory' will be declared, and 60% of the military will leave. In that creative sense, Bush will have 'kept his word.'

Lately Bush said, "We do not torture." Creatively speaking that is true, since torture has been defined, by Gonzales, as life threatening harm. Tying a person to a board and, by maneuvering the board, holding his head under water repeatedly, to stimulate the terror of drowning is thus not torture.

It is likewise true that Bush has preserved our freedoms. "Freedom" however is not defined by the Bill of Rights. Thus the holding of a US citizen for 3 years without charges is a commander's prerogative, according to the Constitution, not infringing on freedom, creatively defined.

Tit for Tat.

Like I eluded to, "we" are not angles. "We" won't allow hostels near our borders, if we can help it. Why? Reduced threat to our citizens. "We" can't prevent everything. "We" act for the benefit of our citizens and our interests.

Now we are engaged in urban combat with terrorists. Some people are stupid enough to think that if "we" leave Iraq, then the terrorists would stop killing the people of that country and other countries.

Some would like to continue to debate why "we" are there. An Iraq government is no longer a threat to "our" interests.

 

[BlackSnake]

Blacksnake, how many people HERE died horrible deaths BECAUSE of the US?

Guardians of human rights and freedoms?

BAHAHAHAHA!

Leonard Peltier, Guantanamo....shall I go on?

In the last 35 years? None.

 

[cloudy]

In the last 35 years? None.

35 years does not an honorable history make, I'm sorry.

And, I think you're mistaken. How many AIM members died at Pine Ridge, either at the hands of the FBI, or the GOONs that had been supplied with weapons BY the FBI for just that purpose?

Don't know?

I'll tell you - over 70 in a three year period. Over half of those have never even been investigated.

Don't you love this country?

 

[BlackSnake]

35 years does not an honorable history make, I'm sorry.

And, I think you're mistaken. How many AIM members died at Pine Ridge, either at the hands of the FBI, or the GOONs that had been supplied with weapons BY the FBI for just that purpose?

Don't know?

I'll tell you - over 70 in a three year period. Over half of those have never even been investigated.

Don't you love this country?

I'm guessing that you are talking about the events where 2 FBI agents were shot in the head at close range by protestors? Ooops! Things got out of hand doesn't cover it. "We" act for the freedom, protection, and interests of our citizens.

I do love my country. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

 

[cloudy]

I'm guessing that you are talking about the events where 2 FBI agents were shot in the head at close range by protestors? Ooops! Things got out of hand doesn't cover it. "We" act for the freedom, protection, and interests of our citizens.

I do love my country. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Hmmm, lets see....

70.....2

Explain to me why it's fine and dandy to put someone in prison for two life terms for those two deaths, even though even the FBI admits that the only proof they have is that he was there, but the deaths of 70 Indians isn't even worth investigating.

 

[BlackSnake]

Hmmm, lets see....

70.....2

Explain to me why it's fine and dandy to put someone in prison for two life terms for those two deaths, even though even the FBI admits that the only proof they have is that he was there, but the deaths of 70 Indians isn't even worth investigating.

Sorry, I can't defend "our" FBI for that, or other actions such as Waco, TX approx. 86 dead. I'm still glad that we have the FBI and the CIA.

2752 last toll from 911. I think 1 is worth going to war over, because 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1...

 

[cloudy]

Sorry, I can't defend "our" FBI for that, or other actions such as Waco, TX approx. 86 dead. I'm still glad that we have the FBI and the CIA.

2752 last toll from 911. I think 1 is worth going to war over, because 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1...

But we're not at war over 9/11!!!!

Don't preach to me about 9/11 - I had a family member die in that attack.

Jeez.

We went to war over WMD's that don't exist! That they KNEW didn't exist! All of it is based on lies.

 

[BlackSnake]

But we're not at war over 9/11!!!!

Don't preach to me about 9/11 - I had a family member die in that attack.

Jeez.

We went to war over WMD's that don't exist!

Many families lost love ones. The former government of that country presented itself as a threat to "our" interests. What I've seen is that the country is a breeding ground for terrorists. Car bombs, etc...

I disagree, the war in Iraq is a part of the war against terrorists.

I find it hard to believe that you think that "our" government knew there would be no WMD. All indications point to that.