Cheney Rushed to Hospital

[rogue yam]

so your claims that everything the your government does is for the benefit of the world is total bullshit.

I did not make this claim.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

French hell, that's where all the cooks are British & all the lovers are American..

and the beer is french.

 

[nino_savatte]

and the beer is french.

That would be hell!!!!

 

[oi2002]

Perhaps in isolated, small instances, but not in the present case. Is it impossible for you to admit that the U.S. ever does anything that is of general benefit to the world, or that in doing so it is sometimes the best course to make temporary alliances with actors so unsavory that we later find ourselves as adversaries to them?

Most of the time DC acts as other modern States. It acts to advance its power and the interests of its buisness community. Dropping the corporate ball is not going secure the Presidency, media control and vast donations in return for government largese will. Finally its about making a buck and I'm surprised a devoutly Capitalist nation like America feels a jot of shame about that.

There are isolated instances of genuine altruism in US policy. DC got bugger all out of intervening in the Balkans for example. I'd note the current occupent of the Oval Office squealed like a roughly rogered pig at the waste of resources on such nation building.

There are probably too many well intentioned folk in DC, but recently not much honor, group competence, stamina or guts. Makes it real hard to suggest doing the right thing let alone carrying through to success.

The delusions of sainthood are a big part of the problem. Yanks simply don't know why they invaded Iraq and that denial goes to the top of the food chain. The fairytale world of this years cause: WMD, Terrorism, Human Rights and Freedoms march. As a result they'll retreat in angry confusion and be back to secure US energy security needs before 2010 on some similarly transparent pretext.

 

[vimto]

Well, 30,000 Iraqis (say) minus all the ones Saddam would have killed, of course. You lefties always leave that term out of the equation, for some reason.

D'ya think I'm a 'leftie' rogue yam?

Being nice here mate...

 

[vimto]

I don't know where you are coming from yam.

But if you were in a Western country and a coallition of Middle Eastern groups led by Iraqi troops decided to take over your oilfields and systematically kick in the doors of your families' domain at each and every turn...

how would you feel?

 

[vimto]

This is real simple stuff for fuck's sake

 

[nino_savatte]

Where's Taterheid?

 

[DarthSydodyas]

Is Cheney dead yet?

 

[nino_savatte]

In this case they were just reaping the reward for giving Israel the bomb. DC was right to be furious about that, inevitably lead to AQ Khan's Islamic bomb.

Tricky blighter Johnny Frog. There is a long list of things France should not have done: Algeria in 62 or 92, the rainbow warrior, nouvelle cuisine, Rwanda etc. They proudly punch way above their weight in the scape grace area. Les Rostbifs used to offer some stiff competition but do seem to have lost their edge since they've been trailing behind DC`s blundering boy scouts.

Oops, wrong post. I thought I was replying to rogue spam.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is Cheney dead yet?

I wish he was (I rarely wish death on anyone...Thatcher and Cheney being exceptions) and I would expect that he'd be lying in state at the Capitol building once he's croaked. I wonder how many genuine mourners will attend his funeral. I know rogue spam will be there - won't you?

 

[nino_savatte]

Perhaps in isolated, small instances, but not in the present case. Is it impossible for you to admit that the U.S. ever does anything that is of general benefit to the world, or that in doing so it is sometimes the best course to make temporary alliances with actors so unsavory that we later find ourselves as adversaries to them?

So what is your solution? To live in a perpetual state of fear? I take it you are familiar with the phrase "permanent war economy"? No, I don't expect you to actually take that one on board as it sounds too "leftist". Isn't that right, taterheid?

 

[Streathamite]

The issue is potential foreign investors; why ignore the obvious candidates?

ummm...surely 'allies' and 'patrons' as much as 'investors'?
...errrr because I never disputed that russia would have still invested - except they never really got into iraq bigtime, because the whole ba'ath belief system (it was NOT an ideology, least not in my book) centred on modernising/secularising in a western stylee; the ba'ath was geared towards the west 100%, notwithstanding the socialist trimmings.
that's why, f'rinstance, it is alleged they sent the young Saddam to sandhurst way before the '68 revolution, and why they went out of their way to woo the west.

 

[nino_savatte]

ummm...surely 'allies' and 'patrons' as much as 'investors'?
...errrr because I never disputed that russia would have still invested - except they never really got into iraq bigtime, because the whole ba'ath belief system (it was NOT an ideology, least not in my book) centred on modernising/secularising in a western stylee; the ba'ath was geared towards the west 100%, notwithstanding the socialist trimmings.
that's why, f'rinstance, it is alleged they sent the young Saddam to sandhurst way before the '68 revolution, and why they went out of their way to woo the west.

Exactly, and Ba'ath means "renaissance" or "rebirth"...something that is lost on turkeys like rogue spam and JC2, who both think that it is questionable to tell the truth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

ummm...surely 'allies' and 'patrons' as much as 'investors'?
...errrr because I never disputed that russia would have still invested - except they never really got into iraq bigtime, because the whole ba'ath belief system (it was NOT an ideology, least not in my book) centred on modernising/secularising in a western stylee; the ba'ath was geared towards the west 100%, notwithstanding the socialist trimmings.
that's why, f'rinstance, it is alleged they sent the young Saddam to sandhurst way before the '68 revolution, and why they went out of their way to woo the west.

http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n14d01.htm

 

[Streathamite]

yes, johnny.
<deep weary sigh at such obtuseness>
I NEVER said they did NO business.
OF COURSE THEY DID.
just like mwestern europe traded with russia during the cold war.
I said it wasn't MAJOR.
which it wasn't.
The russians may possibly have liked to do more - something that link neither proves nor disproves, and which is hard to tell.
However - the point remains. saddam's major priority was to maximise trade with the rest.