it is really funy to watch how people like you - I guess you would describe yourselves as conservative/republicnas - almost immediately go ballistic when someone has a differing view. But what is the point here? Nuke Iraq (on a global scale, yes globalisation!Arabs are just one minority!) in order to safeguard American oil interests and "dubyah's" re-election? So all those kids in Bagdad have to provide the zillions that it takes to have an illiterate in the White House? If we keep on dwelling on the past, we end up hearing the same old stories such as "Give us our money back + interest", "the French have defaulted" , "Europe was not our war, but Japan was" and similar rubbish! Let us get to the point of money: the Pentagon says the war will cost some US$ 95 billion, yes with a B and the number looks like this: 95,000,000,000: and that's not ye olde Italian Lira! And guess who is going to pay for it: Not Santa Klaus and also not Uncle Sam, to be sure! You want to kill a few people: try it at home first and see what happens.
Roe, you said : "it is really funy to watch how people like you - I guess you would describe yourselves as conservative/republicnas - almost immediately go ballistic when someone has a differing view." It isn't that a few, very few, people on this site may have a view which is different from mine it is their way of trying to win a point by unfair means. I am happy (as would most people) to participate in a discussion but not at the expenses of facts being twisted. What would be the point ? freealways
Forget for a moment your oh-so-familiar rantings about this all being about America's oil interests and Bush's re-election. Since you seem to care so much about the dollar cost, what price tag do you put on the lives of your fellow citizens that could be victims of Saddam's WMD? Oh yes, I forgot, Saddam's not the bad guy here, Bush is. You're lucky you're an American - you'll always be saved in the end by fellow countrymen with realistic, common sensical views of the dangers that face us and the steps necessary to combat them.
You mean going ballistic like... protesting naked, chaining oneselves to military bases, blocking ships from leaving ports, ruining property, calling people and countries facists, murderers, colonialists. Is it what you are talking about when you talk about going balistic What kind of argument is that? Arabs are a majority in Iraq, on a global scale everybody is a minority, even christians (which is not a nationality), even more then 1 bln of chinese. Goes a long way to show that your logic is beyond repair. How come your buddy Toby calls you a red neck. Is he going ballistic, or does he know something about you we don't?
`American hegemony/imperialism´ = leftist crap ? http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?7@106.a8yyabJPw0g.0@.4a90cff3/4 June 3, 1997 American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership --- Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: ⢠we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; ⢠we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; ⢠we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; ⢠we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please? Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda. Terry Jones Sunday March 2, 2003 It's heart-warming to hear Tony Blair's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have. Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN. But I'm a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I'm sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC - "The Project For The New American Century" - but has he looked at their website? (www.newamericancentury.org) As everybody knows, the PNAC is a think-tank founded in 1997 by the people who are now closest to President Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and so on. It's a pretty safe bet that what PNAC think is what George W. Bush thinks. PNAC represents the thinking of the men now in power in the United States. PNAC's stated aims are to: "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests", to achieve "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad", "to increase defence spending significantly", and to pursue "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." They don't split hairs at the PNAC. George W. Bush and his advisers' stated aim is to ensure that America and American interests dominate the entire world for the foreseeable future. And what's more they make no bones of the fact that they intend to achieve this without diplomacy - that's old hat. What PNAC intend to do is enforce the Pax Americana through military might. Does Tony Blair know that? Has Tony Blair read the PNAC Report called "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000"? It refers to the new technologies of warfare and goes on: "Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." So when George Bush and his colleagues talk about Saddam Hussein posing a "threat" to America - they don't mean he's going to drop bombs on Washington (how on earth could he without committing national suicide?) - what they mean is that he poses a threat to American military dominance in the Middle East. Does Tony Blair know that's what they mean? In fact, does Tony Blair know that President Bush's advisers regard Saddam Hussein as merely an excuse for military action in the area? The PNAC Report of 2000 states: "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." So Iraq is merely "the immediate justification" and Saddam's regime is not so important as establishing American military might in the Gulf. Does Tony Blair know that? If he has read PNAC's Report he knows that he is simply aiding US right-wing militarism and extremist Republican plans for world domination. Surely in such a cause he would not be prepared to expose the British people to the nightmare of permanent terrorist threats and attacks. Surely for such a cause he would not be prepared to set fire to the Middle East, to destabilize the entire world for the foreseeable future and - most important perhaps - to risk his own political neck by pursuing an evil and almost universally despised policy. On the other hand, if Tony Blair, has not read "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" or gone to the PNAC website to learn exactly what motivates Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, and so on then why the hell hasn't he? Go to your computer now, Mr. Blair. Look at the reality behind all this sanctimonious wringing of hands over the plight of the Iraqi people. Read what your American Republican friends are really intending. Please. http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,905992,00.html
I wonder whose payroll you are on Msfe ? If not Saddam then it must be the Jesuits. Your il-logic is impeccable, refusing to address any issues concerning either yourself or your country of origin whilst keeping yourself extremely busy knocking the US. Judging from the threads you have participated in it is clear you aren't a trader. For a change why not own up and confirm that you are part of a politically motivated worldwide concerted effort to knock the US ? I am unable to accept that you are able to come up, all by yourself, with the statements you are making. freealways
freealways:`Judging from the threads you have participated in it is clear you aren't a trader. For a change why not own up and confirm that you are part of a politically motivated worldwide concerted effort to knock the US ? I am unable to accept that you are able to come up, all by yourself, with the statements you are making.´ 1. is it ? 2. yes, i am the master of disaster - evildoer #1 3. i know - don´t tell me your other inabilities, please in contrast to you, I am able to accept that you are able to come up, all by yourself, with the statements you are making. msfe
>> master of disaster<< It looks to me more that you are a diligent slave rather than a master. Would not be at all surprised if you are a diligent brother in an Jesuit order with the ability to speak english, obediently following orders. If not, prove it to us. freealways
Turk: No Plan for Vote on U.S. Troops Sunday March 2, 2003 2:40 PM ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's ruling party has no plans in the ``foreseeable future'' to seek another parliament vote for the deployment of U.S. troops on Turkish soil for a war with Iraq, a party leader said Sunday. The announcement by Eyup Fatsa, deputy head of the Justice and Development party, came a day after the legislature dealt a serious blow to U.S. war planning by failing to approve a motion to deploy 62,000 U.S. soldiers, weapons and equipment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2446930,00.html - U.S. Jesuit Conference Leadership rests with a national board made up of the ten U.S. provincial superiors and the Jesuit Conference president, who is appointed by the Superior General in Rome. Assisting the president are an executive secretary and national secretaries for Jesuit communications, financial resources, formation/ secondary education, refugee ministries, pastoral/spiritual ministries, and social & international ministries. 1616 P Street, NW ⢠Suite 300 ⢠Washington, DC 20036-1420 Tel. (202) 462-0400 ⢠FAX (202) 328-9212 http://www.jesuit.org/sections/default.asp?SECTION_ID=197