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

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

> 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.

So after Leningrad, you would have argued to the Russians what's done
is done. Merely because Germany should not have invaded, bombed, and
starved a million humans to death does not mean Germany should stay
out of Russian affairs. Nor does it mean the Russians were justified
in the wholesale terrorizing of German civilians towards the end of
WWII as they marched toward Berlin. Indeed it does not. But imagine
discussing any of the USSR's human rights abuses of the time in a
void, without mentioning Hitler, genocide, Leningrad. That's what we
do in the USA - the United States of Amnesia. We discuss current
events of the Middle East in a vaccuum: There was no overthrow of
Mossadegh and the burgeoning Iranian democracy by the US and the
installation of a brutal dictator in 1953, there was no support of
Saddam during all of his major atrocities - the invasion of Iran in
the 80s (a war that killed a million people), his gassing of the
Kurds, the slaughter of the Shiites after Gulf War 1 after we betrayed
them. We're not in the region for oil but for democracy, never mind
our early support of the Taliban, our constant support of the Wahhabi
dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, not to mention the torture state of
Egypt. Americans generally don't hear anything about this sick stuff -
and there's a reason for that, which I don't need to spell out for
you.

> >>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.

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

>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.

In large part. I think General Butler was correct, War is a Racket.


>>>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".

How was the internal situation changed in Lybia? It wasn't. Only their
external actions were changed.

>>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.

Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid?
The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50%
Fruit has been way up. the list goes on and on. Fuel is way up. Sure a TV
made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically
everything the government doesn't count has.

>>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.

The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages
to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To
culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a
long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are
people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a
thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh.

>>>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.

So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each
other. Better than dragging the US down with them.

>>>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.

The same oil companies that executed a plan to reduce refining capacity to
drive up prices. (cited many times before) Why should I expect anything
different?

Brent P wrote:
> In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> In large part. I think General Butler was correct, War is a Racket.
>

Might even have been make-work for Halliburton; it's not like anyone
high up in the administration has connections there.

At *BEST* it was a misguided, naive attempt to implement the policies of
the PNAC, and anyone that reads their statement of principles without
getting at least a little frisson needs their head adjusted.

nate

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

In article >, The World Wide Wade wrote:
>In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:

>> It
>> trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq.
>
>False. The US supported Saddam after he came to power.

True. Guess I have to cite this.... again... googling....
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2849.htm
"While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S.
intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war,
his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part
of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi
Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."

There are other sources I've cited in the past, but this is what google
found for me first this time.


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

It was done to put down the socialist leaning secular movements and to
counter the soviets.

On Mar 27, 5:57*pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>
> >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, as everyone should know, anyone less cynical than you have their
heads in the sand, while people more cynical than you are "too"
cynical.

LOL.

E.P.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid?
>The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50%
>Fruit has been way up. the list goes on and on. Fuel is way up. Sure a TV
>made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically
>everything the government doesn't count has.

This is cherry picking. The goverment stats include both a core rate
and a rate which includes both food and energy. Neither are at
historical highs, though energy itself is.

>The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages
>to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To
>culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a
>long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are
>people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a
>thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh.

Then there is no solution short of nuking the entire area to glass.
They will remember and seek revenge for the USs actions whether or not
the US remains in the area. That's the problem with vendetta, there's
no ending it until everyone involved (on at least one side) and all
their descendants and relatives are dead.

>>>Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves.
>
>>If history is any guide, they most certainly will.
>
>So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each
>other. Better than dragging the US down with them.

Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>On Mar 27, 5:57=A0pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>
>> >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. =A0
>>
>> So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot
>> of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? =A0That's a little too
>> cynical even for me.
>
>And, as everyone should know, anyone less cynical than you have their
>heads in the sand, while people more cynical than you are "too"
>cynical.

Well, if I thought some other level of cynicism was
appropriate, I'd adopt it myself. But not everyone less cynical than
I am has their heads in the sand.

You'll call someone a tinfoil-hatter for claiming some absurd thing is
happening. Then, when they demonstrate via cites that the absurd
thing actually is happening... you'll call them a tinfoil hatter
again. THAT is having your head in the sand.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Mar 28, 1:42*pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 27, 5:57=A0pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Brent P > wrote:
>
> >> >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. =A0
>
> >> So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot
> >> of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? =A0That's a little too
> >> cynical even for me.
>
> >And, as everyone should know, anyone less cynical than you have their
> >heads in the sand, while people more cynical than you are "too"
> >cynical.
>
> Well, if I thought some other level of cynicism was
> appropriate, I'd adopt it myself. *But not everyone less cynical than
> I am has their heads in the sand.
>
> You'll call someone a tinfoil-hatter for claiming some absurd thing is
> happening.

Liar.

I call people tinfoil hatters for claiming things which cannot be
proven, or leaping to conclusions not supported by evidence.

But your judgement of what level of cynicism is appropriate is LOL-
funny.

E.P.

In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>In article >,
>Brent P > wrote:
>>In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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.

>>Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid?
>>The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50%
>>Fruit has been way up. the list goes on and on. Fuel is way up. Sure a TV
>>made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically
>>everything the government doesn't count has.
>
>This is cherry picking. The goverment stats include both a core rate
>and a rate which includes both food and energy. Neither are at
>historical highs, though energy itself is.

So you go from there isn't any to not at historical highs. Anyone who
shops for himself should know there is inflation. Material costs are way
up too and its getting to the point that consumer goods will not be able
to hold the line on prices.

>>The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages
>>to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To
>>culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a
>>long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are
>>people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a
>>thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh.

>Then there is no solution short of nuking the entire area to glass.
>They will remember and seek revenge for the USs actions whether or not
>the US remains in the area. That's the problem with vendetta, there's
>no ending it until everyone involved (on at least one side) and all
>their descendants and relatives are dead.

There is nothing supporting that belief but fear. However they do seem
rather interested in killing each other. If the US was not inserting
itself, that would take all their effort. It will take a number
of years before they finish killing each other. Meanwhile US blood and
treasure can be spared and there will be far less of them should they
want to take on the US at that point.

>>>>Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves.
>>
>>>If history is any guide, they most certainly will.
>>
>>So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each
>>other. Better than dragging the US down with them.

>Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them.

Only if the US federal government keeps playing the game.

Latest rumor is shrub will attack Iran on the 4th or 6th. Probably as
false as all the previous ones, but who knows.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:23:27 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>>Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them.
>
>Only if the US federal government keeps playing the game.

Whatever game the US federal government decides to play - they should
determine the winning conditions, the rules, and decide what to do
when the game is won (or lost).