4000 americans killed in iraq in 5 years. 4000 Americans killed on highways every 5 weeks!!!!!!

On Mar 27, 1:20*pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 27, 11:08=A0am, (Matthew T.
> >Russotto) wrote:
> >> In article >,
>
> >> Bo Raxo > wrote:
>
> >> >"Dave Head" > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500,
> >> >> (Brent
> >> >> P) wrote:
>
> >> >>>In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> >> >>>>Dave Head wrote:
> >> >>>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military=
>
> >> >>>action in the middle east.
>
> >> >> The attacks are motivated by the desires of the enemy to get control of=
>
> >> >> the
> >> >> entire middle east and all its oil. =A0If you think anything else, you'=
> >ve
> >> >> never
> >> >> learned about "following the money."
>
> >> >The attacks have myriad motives. =A0You think what motivates Osama is the=
> > same
> >> >as what motivates a suicide bomber? =A0You think the suicide bomber is
> >> >following the money?
>
> >> In some cases, they are. =A0
>
> >Suicide bombers do it for the money?!?
>
> Nice snip.
>
> Did you know that sometimes people kill themselves for the life
> insurance money? *In fact, it's common enough that life insurance
> companies won't pay out for suicides within the first 2 years of the policy.
>
> It's the same idea with some suicide bombers.

LOL. One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen you express.

E.P.

In article > ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article >,
> Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Brent P > wrote:
> >
> >>> Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
> >>> action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
> >>> very likely end the attacks.
> >
> >> Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
> >>
> >> OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
> >> Iraq (including the 9th province),
> >
> >What stopped them from doing that before 2003 (or 1990 for that matter)?
>
> Saddam Hussein (who was sometimes supported by the US)

Who in fact was supported by the US all through the 80s - during the
worst (by far) of his atrocities.

> > It sounds like Bush didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.
> >
> >> Afghanistan, and anywhere else they don't already hold.
> >
> >Why didn't those radical Islamists attack us before 1993? They
> >certainly had the country to themselves after the mid '80s.
>
> Afghanistan was actually still involved in civil war for much of that
> time, so your characterization is false.
>
> >> Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
> >
> >At least that money can go to repairing our transportation infrastructure.
> >
> >> Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
> >> whole ****load of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
> >> Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
> >> the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
> >> resume, this time with open state backing.
> >
> >But if there are so few Arabs left, how will they do it?
>
> Who says there will be few Arabs? A lot of them will be killed
> (mostly NOT those directing things), but there will be plenty left.
> It doesn't take many to pull off a suicide attack.
>
> >And why bother once their main grievance has been eliminated?
>
> For the same reason Hitler continued his aggression after being
> granted the Rhineland and the Sudetenland.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>In article >,
>>Brent P > wrote:
>>>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Brent P > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military
>>>>>action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would
>>>>>very likely end the attacks.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
>>>
>>>I didn't expect this sort of neo-con asshattery from you.
>>>
>>>>OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over
>>>>Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they
>>>>don't already hold.
>>>
>>>And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies
>>>like dominos!
>>
>>Cambodia and Laos (and of course South Vietnam) did.
>
>So what? Oh that's right, 50,000 americans died for nothing and the
>nation was put into ever spiraling debt for nothing.
>
>>>> Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?).
>>>> Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their asses, a
>>>>whole ****load of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm
>>>>Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is
>>>>the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US
>>>>resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea?
>
>>>Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke.
>
>>That's a non sequitur.
>
>No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when
>there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to
>invade and take over the US. The US will go broke.

No. Money makes no sense as a motive for the US for the Iraq war. Even
if the object was to enrich Haliburton, a deal with Saddam would have
done that better.

>> The state of the budget (or the dollar)
>>doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle
>>East is a good idea.
>
>Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and
>bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic.

And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems.
The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major
player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance.

>> In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle
>>East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would
>>likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars,
>>and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of
>>oil from the Middle East than the US does.
>
>And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof?

You ain't seen nothing. A regional war in the middle east involving
not only Iran and Iraq but Saudi Arabia will make $110 look cheap.
Now if we could get Iran and Iraq involved in a low-intensity border
dispute, that might work a little better....

>Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar?

Which is cause and which is effect? The way I see it, the drop in the
US dollar is largely caused by domestic issues (in particular a whole
bunch of loans which should never have been made), and a part of the
rise in oil is due to this.

>Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war
>with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left
>there long enough.

I'll give you this much -- the US will be blamed whether it remains
there or not.

>I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling
>out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by
>staying.

Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between
Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear
weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much
guaranteed to be the greater disaster.

>The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected
>government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil
>companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not
>kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up
>governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil
>resources in more stable parts of the world.

They use oil resources everywhere. Unfortunately, an enormous
amount, proportionally of oil is in unstable parts of the world. That
includes Mexico and Venezula as well as the Middle East.

And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental
movements precluding the use of oil resources there.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>In article >,
>>Brent P > wrote:
>>>In article >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same
>>>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
>>>>>following the money?
>>>
>>>>In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
>>>>money to the families of suicide bombers.
>>>
>>>Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
>>>as I understand it... go figure.
>>
>>Non sequitur again.
>
>Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the
>result of over half a century of US federal government interference and
>meddling in the region.

You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that
the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both
local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been
peace in the Middle East since, well, forever.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

>>No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when
>>there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to
>>invade and take over the US. The US will go broke.

>No. Money makes no sense as a motive for the US for the Iraq war. Even
>if the object was to enrich Haliburton, a deal with Saddam would have
>done that better.

Every war is about the money ultimately. The idea to really get rich from
war is to finance both sides. Anyway, a deal with saddam wouldn't
even be one tenth what this war is costing.

>>> The state of the budget (or the dollar)
>>>doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle
>>>East is a good idea.

>>Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and
>>bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic.

>And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems.
>The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major
>player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance.

An attack is an attack. Last I heard the same guy is still in charge in
Lybia. The US has not effectively done anything in their internal affairs,
it just scared them from meddling internationally.

>>> In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle
>>>East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would
>>>likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars,
>>>and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of
>>>oil from the Middle East than the US does.

>>And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof?

>You ain't seen nothing.

The great inflation is yet to come. But that is the doing of overspending
and the central bank.

> A regional war in the middle east involving
>not only Iran and Iraq but Saudi Arabia will make $110 look cheap.
>Now if we could get Iran and Iraq involved in a low-intensity border
>dispute, that might work a little better....

You're going to see one unless the US gets out. It is US government
meddling that has brought things to this condition. It cannot be solved
with further US involvement.

>>Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar?

>Which is cause and which is effect? The way I see it, the drop in the
>US dollar is largely caused by domestic issues (in particular a whole
>bunch of loans which should never have been made), and a part of the
>rise in oil is due to this.

The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are
too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The
federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement
programs and wars. (guns and butter)

>>Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war
>>with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left
>>there long enough.

>I'll give you this much -- the US will be blamed whether it remains
>there or not.

I'm sure many will say that nuking Iran 'had to be done'. Of course there
wouldn't have been a 1979 revolution in Iran if the US government hadn't
overthrown it's government in the 50s and installed a tyrant favorable to
the oil companies.

>>I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling
>>out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by
>>staying.

>Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between
>Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear
>weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much
>guaranteed to be the greater disaster.

Do you really believe that bull**** our government feeds us? Come on. This
is the same government you know to lie about just about everything.
Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves. The US does make an
attack on Israel more likely by being there and by funding these so called
enemies of israel to more total dollars than it funds israel with. (all
borrowed from China these days I'll wager)

>>The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected
>>government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil
>>companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not
>>kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up
>>governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil
>>resources in more stable parts of the world.

>They use oil resources everywhere. Unfortunately, an enormous
>amount, proportionally of oil is in unstable parts of the world. That
>includes Mexico and Venezula as well as the Middle East.

Far more stable in the americas.

>And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental
>movements precluding the use of oil resources there.

Guess who prefers that oil is walled off ? hint: it's the people with the
contracts for the oil that isn't.

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>In article >,
>Brent P > wrote:
>>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>In article >,
>>>Brent P > wrote:
>>>>In article >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same
>>>>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
>>>>>>following the money?
>>>>
>>>>>In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
>>>>>money to the families of suicide bombers.
>>>>
>>>>Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
>>>>as I understand it... go figure.
>>>
>>>Non sequitur again.
>>
>>Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the
>>result of over half a century of US federal government interference and
>>meddling in the region.
>
>You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that
>the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both
>local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been
>peace in the Middle East since, well, forever.

Let's see... the CIA worked to overthrow Iran's government and did. It
trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq. It gives the
governments of other nations the means to surpress the people in them and
prevent change to more representive systems. US and UK intelligence
esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use
against the soviets and others. It's amazing what well placed
small imputs can do. However, like jamming a relief valve closed the
pressure inside keeps building until there is a terrible explosion.

The region should have been left to it's own devices a century ago. By now
it would be all sorted out. But because there was oil, not just worthless
sand this game began. Now the US government is jamming on the brakes after
a tire blew out.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>>>No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when
>>>there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to
>>>invade and take over the US. The US will go broke.
>
>>No. Money makes no sense as a motive for the US for the Iraq war. Even
>>if the object was to enrich Haliburton, a deal with Saddam would have
>>done that better.
>
>Every war is about the money ultimately.

I don't agree.

>The idea to really get rich from war is to finance both
>sides. Anyway, a deal with saddam wouldn't even be one tenth what
>this war is costing.

So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot
of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? That's a little too
cynical even for me.

>>And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems.
>>The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major
>>player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance.
>
>An attack is an attack. Last I heard the same guy is still in charge in
>Lybia. The US has not effectively done anything in their internal affairs,
>it just scared them from meddling internationally.

It is not necessary to remove the head of government to constitute
interference in another nation's affairs. The US attacks and the
standoff over Libya's territorial waters certainly constitute
"interference".

>The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are
>too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The
>federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement
>programs and wars. (guns and butter)

The relative lack of domestic inflation argues against this theory.

>I'm sure many will say that nuking Iran 'had to be done'. Of course there
>wouldn't have been a 1979 revolution in Iran if the US government hadn't
>overthrown it's government in the 50s and installed a tyrant favorable to
>the oil companies.

What's done is done; merely because the US should not have backed the
Shah doesn't mean that the United States should therefore take a
hands-off policy in the future. Nor does it mean Khomenei was
justified in seizing the embassy.

>>Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between
>>Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear
>>weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much
>>guaranteed to be the greater disaster.
>
>Do you really believe that bull**** our government feeds us? Come on. This
>is the same government you know to lie about just about everything.
>Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves.

If history is any guide, they most certainly will.

>>And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental
>>movements precluding the use of oil resources there.
>
>Guess who prefers that oil is walled off ? hint: it's the people with the
>contracts for the oil that isn't.

With Bush in charge, the same people would get any new US oil as well,
so that's not really a credible suggestion.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article > , Matthew T.
> Russotto wrote:
> >In article >,
> >Brent P > wrote:
> >>In article > , Matthew T.
> >>Russotto wrote:
> >>>In article >,
> >>>Brent P > wrote:
> >>>>In article >, Matthew T.
> >>>>Russotto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the
> >>>>>>same
> >>>>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
> >>>>>>following the money?
> >>>>
> >>>>>In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
> >>>>>money to the families of suicide bombers.
> >>>>
> >>>>Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
> >>>>as I understand it... go figure.
> >>>
> >>>Non sequitur again.
> >>
> >>Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the
> >>result of over half a century of US federal government interference and
> >>meddling in the region.
> >
> >You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that
> >the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both
> >local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been
> >peace in the Middle East since, well, forever.
>
> Let's see... the CIA worked to overthrow Iran's government and did.

True.

> It
> trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq.

False. The US supported Saddam after he came to power.

> US and UK intelligence
> esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use
> against the soviets and others.

Just bizarre.

> It's amazing what well placed
> small imputs can do. However, like jamming a relief valve closed the
> pressure inside keeps building until there is a terrible explosion.
>
> The region should have been left to it's own devices a century ago. By now
> it would be all sorted out. But because there was oil, not just worthless
> sand this game began. Now the US government is jamming on the brakes after
> a tire blew out.

The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article > , Matthew T.
>>Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Brent P > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article > , Matthew T.
>>>>Russotto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Brent P > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >, Matthew T.
>>>>>>Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the
>>>>>>>>same
>>>>>>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is
>>>>>>>>following the money?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of
>>>>>>>money to the families of suicide bombers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government
>>>>>>as I understand it... go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Non sequitur again.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the
>>>>result of over half a century of US federal government interference and
>>>>meddling in the region.
>>>
>>>You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that
>>>the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both
>>>local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been
>>>peace in the Middle East since, well, forever.
>>
>>Let's see... the CIA worked to overthrow Iran's government and did.
>
>
> True.
>
>
>>It
>>trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq.
>
>
> False. The US supported Saddam after he came to power.
>
>
>>US and UK intelligence
>>esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use
>>against the soviets and others.
>
>
> Just bizarre.

Not completely; who do you think was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan
back in the day?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

-stuff snipped-

This was posted to...

rec.autos.driving,rec.sport.golf,soc.culture.usa,a lt.true-crime,us.military.army

....and I am posting from us.military.army.

So why not all you auto drivers, golfers, cultured people, and crime mavens
keep to your own hobbies?