KlutzDio I Wrote:We tolerated Saddam. We propped his regime up, influenced him to attack Iran for us. Sold him weapons and ignored his atrocities until he invaded Kuwait.

And he's just one example of a dictator we've dealth with, aided.

Enter GW Bush's statements about states dealing with terrorists.

It's all inconsistent foreign policy on the part of the U.S.

Hindsight is 20/20 KD. We were also friends with Noriega(Sp?) and Stalin. I cannot speak for what happened in the early 80's and neither can GW Bush.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Contestant #1
"you would fit in there JBR.  You hate america, have nothing good to say about it....EVER.  Shall I make a contribution to your ticket?"

Let's just get one thing straight, Marine. I do not hate America. I think this is the greatest country in the world. The freedoms we have I would never think about leaving behind for another country. Besides, it's my freakin' country, too. Every progressive stride we have made has been because of PROGRESSIVES, not because of people who were so stuck in their ways that they couldn't think of any other way to be.

those progressives that you speak of, that broke away from the UK (colonists, just to be clear), believe in the same things that we cons believe in. so don't put those men in your group, who want no goverment joe.e

[quote="USMC"] [quote="joebordenrebel"]

Contestant #1
"you would fit in there JBR.

RebelKev Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:We tolerated Saddam. We propped his regime up, influenced him to attack Iran for us. Sold him weapons and ignored his atrocities until he invaded Kuwait.

And he's just one example of a dictator we've dealth with, aided.

Enter GW Bush's statements about states dealing with terrorists.

It's all inconsistent foreign policy on the part of the U.S.

Hindsight is 20/20 KD. We were also friends with Noriega(Sp?) and Stalin. I cannot speak for what happened in the early 80's and neither can GW Bush.

Kev, you asked if we put Saddam in power, and then I answered your question.

And I know hindsight is 20/20. I never suggested otherwise.

KlutzDio I Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:We tolerated Saddam. We propped his regime up, influenced him to attack Iran for us. Sold him weapons and ignored his atrocities until he invaded Kuwait.

And he's just one example of a dictator we've dealth with, aided.

Enter GW Bush's statements about states dealing with terrorists.

It's all inconsistent foreign policy on the part of the U.S.

Hindsight is 20/20 KD. We were also friends with Noriega(Sp?) and Stalin. I cannot speak for what happened in the early 80's and neither can GW Bush.

Kev, you asked if we put Saddam in power, and then I answered your question.

And I know hindsight is 20/20. I never suggested otherwise.

He has been in power 30 years. We may have boosted him up, but we didn't put him in power. At the time, Iran was the major threat.

Perhaps Saddam's rule would not have lasted 30 years without our aid?

Nonetheless, the whole reason we had to go to war to get rid of him is a result of bad policies on part of the United States. Since we admittedly have had bad past policies, that is all the more reason why we should question and criticize our current policies. We may just be dooming our future by our actions today! We could very possibly be creating large problems for us down the road and I don't know what that might entail.

Without really pondering it much though, Iraq as it is now, is another dependent nation. They are dependent on us for a variety of things which will cost the United States' taxpayers in the long run.
By attacking and occupying them, we are only creating a whole new generation of Arabs that will hate us because we might have arrested and jailed some poor Arab's father because he worked in one of Saddam's bureaucracies.

Think of it like this, Kev: What if one day some stronger force took over our nation and anyone involved in our governmental networks (even by just having friends who are bureaucrats) was arrested and jailed without trial and without them giving a chance to explain themselves. In such a scenario, don't you think hundreds, thousands of Americans would resist this kind of treatment? If you do think we would, then we cannot blame Iraqis for resisting us because they are doing the same thing we'd do given the situation. The Iraqis know no-better. They react to what they see and occupation is a nasty, nasty business. They, currently, are seeing U.S. and British hegemony and they are reacting to it. Given this, we should turn over rule and security to Iraqis as quickly as possible then those wronged in some way would hate other Iraqis in the long-term.

We spend money willy-nilly to do things to help (or hurt) others around the world, but we won't do anything to help our own people, i.e. offering better opportunities to get a good college education so people can better themselves. That is just wrong.

joebordenrebel Wrote:(pssst. . .they have computers in France too, Kev. . .just think. i'd be happy, have free health insurance, plenty of vacation, stimulating work directly related to my degrees. . .and twice as much time to get on the board and make you show your arse again and again)

Did you want to make a point about the main topic, Kev? Or did you just come here to say I piss you off, again?

And I hope, JBR, you will make enough money to pay their extremely high rates of taxation. You will need to, if you want to be able to enjoy the time allowed for holiday and all those pomme frites.

There is no free ride, my boy. When ever will you Bolsheviks get that.

We got chummy with Sodom back in the early 80's because we had "issues" with Eye-ran. Remember all that, and Jimmy Carter's failure of nerve? Anyhow, there is nothing unusual about dealing with a SOB in order to deal with a more pressing problem. As it was said in Britain, when that country was an admirable power, a country has no friends, only interests. Dancing with Sodom meant nothing more than that he was useful at the time. As soon as Sodom was no longer important to us, then it was no longer important to put up with him. But he would still be in his mob-style decorated palaces had he not threatened our free access to oil in the Middle East. I don't see any reason to try dress the matter up: He screwed with us, we screwed him. Problem?

Wryword2 Wrote:We got chummy with Sodom back in the early 80's because we had "issues" with Eye-ran. Remember all that, and Jimmy Carter's failure of nerve? Anyhow, there is nothing unusual about dealing with a SOB in order to deal with a more pressing problem. As it was said in Britain, when that country was an admirable power, a country has no friends, only interests. Dancing with Sodom meant nothing more than that he was useful at the time. As soon as Sodom was no longer important to us, then it was no longer important to put up with him. But he would still be in his mob-style decorated palaces had he not threatened our free access to oil in the Middle East. I don't see any reason to try dress the matter up: He screwed with us, we screwed him. Problem?

No problem, just the kind of inconsistent foreign policy that I was speaking of.

In light of this, I must say then that our policies create the mulititudes of those who hate us. Our policies, past and current, sew the seeds of enemies.

I am afraid it is not possible to be a great power and be much loved. What really makes me afraid, though, is that so many in this country are so callow and so ignorant as to really be concerned about whether "they" love us. Love is not what we are after; economic and military security is.

The policy was not inconsistent. In fact it was quite consistent. We were and are seeing after our very important interests in that part of the world. We necessarily use those measures and people that will get the task done.

Wryword2 Wrote:The policy was not inconsistent. In fact it was quite consistent. We were and are seeing after our very important interests in that part of the world. We necessarily use those measures and people that will get the task done.

Our policies are inconsistent with our "values" (whatever that maybe). Our "interests" often conflict with our "values." I'm sorry I was not clear on this.

I agree with your other post, that we are not loved and our citizenry are so callow.


What is the difference between you (Wryword 2) and the original Wryword? Are you extra crispy or something?

I'm the same Wryword,Dio. I am almost always on the Coast on the weekends and in Jackson during the week. Since I use a different computer down here, I had to "re-up" on the board.

Wryword2 Wrote:1. And I hope, JBR, you will make enough money to pay their extremely high rates of taxation.

2. There is no free ride, my boy. When ever will you Bolsheviks get that.

Re: #1

The taxes there are higher than the ones here? Are you kidding me?

I pay money for a social security system I will never see. I pay money to corporations in the form of corporate welfare. I pay money to high tech research which is well-subsidized by yours truly.

And still I have no universal health care, no free education and I live in a country that is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

If you're talking about the difference between our taxes and theirs, I think I'd be pretty happy with all that I just mentioned thrown in.

Re: #2

And where, exactly, is that axiom inscribed in stone, Moses?