Bicylist shot and killed for thrill



Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
> claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
> isn't a third choice.


What an astounding example of a false dichotomy! That's the deception
technique the right wing has patented, isn't it?

"There isn't a third choice" IF your policy makers have no more
creativity than a baboon. But if you've got even a minimal amount of
intelligence, diplomacy, persuasiveness and political savvy, you should
be able to come up with alternatives.

But let me make it clear: I think the Bush administration had
alternatives and knew it. They simply chose to invade, because they
had been planning it long before the fact, and merely looking for an
opportunity.

They certainly could have kept doing what they were doing to contain
Saddam, preventing him from harming neighbor states. (You may say
"He'd still oppress the Iraqi people," but we seem perfectly willing to
accept that for dozens of other dictators - like the Saudis, for
example.)

We might have worked more effectively through diplomatic channels to
convince other UN members to make him more uncomfortable. I know
you're rabidly anti-French, but we could have _bribed_ the French to do
what we wanted for far less than the cost of this invasion and
conquest.

We might have marshaled a major diplomatic effort by the world's
religious leaders. If you had the leaders of, say, the top five world
religions (including, of course, promiment Islamic clerics)
simultaneously visiting Saddam and shaming him into exile, he'd have
had a hard time resisting the pressure to reform or step down.

We might have bribed Saddam out of office. That is, we could have
arranged for another country to provide sanction and exile in luxury
for himself and his immediate cohorts. It wouldn't be the first time
that trick was played.

There are other measures, both "carrots" and "sticks" we might have
tried. We might have tried many similar tactics simultaneously. And
if we had, even if they had failed, and if invasion had been _really_
necessary, we'd have had world concensus behind us.

As it happened, the Bush administration acted like a man whose only
tool was a hammer, to whom everything needing fixed gets pounded.
Hard.

Of course, you'll say none of the diplomatic alternatives would have
worked. Um... which is, I assume, why we're presently invading dozens
of other countries under the control of despicable leaders, right?

Basically, Mark, when you pretend there was no other choice, you're
playing dumb. In a sense, it's charming that you're willing to do that
to defend your heroes, but it still makes you look either deceitful or
dumb.

- Frank Krygowski
 
di wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Water boarding (partial suffocation by drowning) and beating the legs
> > and feet of bound prisoners has been ackowledged to be torture for
> > centuries. They were both pouplar among the torturers of the Spanish
> > Inquisition. Your murdering ******* buddies over there have *killed*
> > prisoners by *beating their legs*, Mark. They have killed prisoners
> > whose bodies were found hanging from the ceiling.

>
> Man. you are nuts, please seek some help before it's to late


Who's nuts?

Here's mention of some of the torture-killings the US authorities
haven't managed to keep secret, at the prisons they haven't managed to
keep secret:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3103702.html

And here are references to their methods:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-20-afghanistan-deaths_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Ask a Chilean who lived under Pinochet or a Salvadoran who lived under
Duarte what percentage of government torture-killings are admitted to.


Chalo Colina
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:

>>
>>>> Not that you'll bother, but read Joe Lieberman's editorial in
>>>> today's WSJ:
>>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
>>>> (It first asked for registration but then the article appeared
>>>> without it.)
>>>
>>> Wow. What a clumsy change of subject!

>>
>> Your last sentence was, "They marched us into a travesty, and now
>> that people complain, they say 'We can't pull out now!'" (You also
>> tacked on a "Disgusting.")
>>
>> Did you READ the editorial, Frank?!? That WAS the subject!

>
> Personally, I was pointing out that this invasion and conquest
> violates the moral principles that define a Just War. IOW, this
> military action was morally bankrupt.
>
> And I pointed out that such a concept - using unbiased principles to
> evaluate the morality of an action - seems beyond the Bush
> administration and beyond you.
>
> In response, you changed the subject. IOW, you showed it truly is
> beyond you.


Typical. Someone addresses something you wrote and you bash them for not
first addressing something /else/ you wrote. Control freak much?

>>> The idea of "just war" (and it's opposite, this Iraq invasion) is,
>>> apparently, totally incomprehensible to you, Bill!

>>
>> I didn't comment on that, so how would you know, Frank?

>
> :) If you understood the concept _and_ had a defensible position,
> you would have responded to the point and defended your position.
> Instead, you changed the subject. That's how I know.
>
> Bring it back to that subject, if you dare. List the commonly
> accepted principles defining a "Just War" and tell us how the Bush
> conquest of Iraq satisfies those principles.
>
> Of course, you won't. Even if you understand the philosophy, this war
> can't be justified that way.


This time go back and read my ENTIRE reply -- including the large part you
snipped.

Whatever.
 
Roger Houston wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I thought that Viet Nam taught more of us that we can be patriotic,
> > respect the troops in combat, and still oppose the administration and a
> > particular conflict. Why is that so hard for some to understand?

>
> When we cut and ran from RVN, the gooks didn't follow us home and kill us.
>
> When the **** does hit CONUS, as a very cynical old man who's been to a
> couple wars, well, I pray that I'm at Ground Zero.
>
> And I pray with equal fervency that you and everyone who is splitting hairs
> as you are in the service of a lukewarm neutrality, as well as everyone you
> love and care for, is under the plume of fallout -- with all that that
> entails.



Roger, thanks for your best wishes. I'd much rather split hairs than to
needlessly split heads.
Do you have good count of how many Iraqi's came over here and killed
"us."? If you mean 911 the link to Iraq is pretty slim. If I recall
most of those guys came from our great friend and ally Saudi Arabia.
Your use of the term "gooks" explains the high discount many of us will
give to your thoughts. Moral lectures from a racist aren't worth much.
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Briefly, they ignored any such dispassionate thinking. They marched
>>> us into a travesty, and now that people complain, they say "We can't
>>> pull out now!"
>>>
>>> Disgusting.

>>
>>
>>
>> Not that you'll bother, but read Joe Lieberman's editorial in today's
>> WSJ: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

>
>
> All he's saying is "We can't pull out now", just as Frank said.
>
> I was vehemently opposed to the start of this war, but now I don't see
> any way out of this horrific quagmire (one of the reasons I was opposed
> to it). It's a botched execution of a bad idea. Now we're in a damned if
> we do/don't situation. Thanks to our neocon visionaries -- they have
> managed to exploit fear (WMD) and wounded pride (9/11) to promote their
> own fanatical agenda, and get us into this mess -- they're worse than
> the cold war loonies of earlier administrations. I certainly don't know
> how to extricate our troops without risking complete carnage in Iraq,
> but dumping the idiots responsible for this would seem a logical first
> step.


Jean Cretean, Canadian Prime Minister at the time, and I agreed on very
little, however staying out of The Iraq War Part Deux, was one of Jeans
better decisions. It's turning into another unwinnable war, the United
States loses, Iraq loses, the terrorists lose, the only ones that win
are the arms dealers, most of which are probably supplying both sides.

W
 
The Wogster wrote:
It's turning into another unwinnable war, the United
> States loses, Iraq loses, the terrorists lose, the only ones that win
> are the arms dealers, most of which are probably supplying both sides.
>


I didn't know Halliburton had contracts with Al Quaeda too!!

Well, perhaps we'll cheat 'em to death. That must be the Cheney
strategy.
 

> >
> > If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
> > claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
> > isn't a third choice.


Yes, in fact I do and for all the reasons George Bush #41 gave in his book.
You must not be a Republican. I remember #41 giving a press conference
because the Democrats were crucifying him for not going after Saddam after
the first Gulf War. He spelled out the reasons. Two of them were that the
mandate for war was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. The second reason for not
getting him was that although virtually every country on the planet
supported that war not one could come up with a solution for the destructive
vacuum that would be created if Saddam was taken out of power. Of course,
now we do know first hand what would happen. It's happening and we and other
Iraqis have taken Saddam's place killing and torturing Iraqi people. It's
the only way to fill the vacuum given the ethnic divisions there. Just like
#41 said. So yeah, I would prefer Saddam was still in charge so we wouldn't
have sunk to his level. I can't believe republican idiots didn't remember
#41 and I can't believe democrat idiots want to pull out and leave the
region more dangerous to us than ever. All us suckers get to do is pay with
blood and money.

jb
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> max wrote:
>
>>
>> Another position which i've very rarely see argued in public, is that
>> in fact yes, this is a war for control of the oil fields. And as
>> such, it's in our best interests to have control over this important
>> resource in light of the industrialization of the rest of the world,
>> esp. with a longer multi-decade year view. Obviously this is a fairly
>> imperialist argument, but if we remove the canards of Saddam/terror
>> from the table, we can have a genuine discussion as to the merits of
>> this course. And, in so discussing, we should be mindful that the
>> vast, overwhelming majority of Americans have voted clearly and
>> solidly that they want us to be in control of these oil fields, voting
>> with their SUVs and commute patterns.

>
>
> There are a couple of dimensions to this issue. The first is the control
> of supply (pricing) in a shortage scenario. The second is the control of
> wealth. I think the latter is the more important.
>
> The US currently consumes 7-8bbl (billions of barrels) of oil annually.
> We have probably 22bbl of proven reserves -- so a 3 year supply, which
> alarms people. On the other issue, oil being an extractive industry with
> relatively low costs, that (US) consumption translates into $500B or so
> annually of pure profit, or exchange of wealth (larger than our current
> defense budget, which is larger than the combined budgets of the rest of
> the world). The real problem is who gets all that dough, and what they
> do with it. Whoever controls the future of Saudi oil, for instance,
> controls perhaps >$15T in future assets. That could buy a lot of trouble.
>
> Maybe a more effective long-term solution to the transfer of wealth
> problem is to control the market price of oil, rather than its supply or
> the regime that owns it.


The only effective long term solution to the transfer of wealth problem,
is to reduce dependance on oil. It's all supply and demand, when the
supply is effectively a constant, as demand increases, prices go up, if
the demand decreases, prices go down. As long as Americans keep buying
large SUV's with big engines that are considered fuel efficient at
12MPG, then the Saudi's are in the drivers seat (pun intended).

If American's as a people, said, that's it, we are replacing the 12MPG
SUV with a bike and a transit pass, and we are encouraging our transit
companies to replace diesel buses, with electric trains and trolleys,
and we as a country are replacing oil fired generating stations with
other forms, that do not use oil, like for example bio-mass, we are
replacing oil fired furnaces and heating plants with geo-thermal, solar
and bio-mass ones, then....

All of a sudden you find, over say a 10 year period you go from 8
Billion barrels, to say 500bbl (bbl is actually short for one blue oil
barrel, which contains 42 US Gallons). The Saudis are going to be using
the Arabic equivalent of "Oh ****", as their market drops like a rock.
Even the United States could likely meet domestic requirements if the
requirement was 500 barrels a year! Not only would it save Billions of
dollars a year, you would cut pollution, and make cities more livable
again.

W
 
W
While I agree with your conservation sentiment. Don't you think that
proposing a reduction in oil use of 99.99999375% is a bit of a stretch
for a goal? Even over 10 years.

Gary
 
gds wrote:
> W
> While I agree with your conservation sentiment. Don't you think that
> proposing a reduction in oil use of 99.99999375% is a bit of a stretch
> for a goal? Even over 10 years.
>


Well, America needs to either cut back strategially and swiftly, or
needs to realise, the next oil war, will be with another buyer, most
likely China. If you lose that one, your cutting back 100%.

W
 
The Wogster wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe a more effective long-term solution to the transfer of wealth
>> problem is to control the market price of oil, rather than its supply
>> or the regime that owns it.

>
>
> The only effective long term solution to the transfer of wealth problem,
> is to reduce dependance on oil. It's all supply and demand, when the
> supply is effectively a constant, as demand increases, prices go up, if
> the demand decreases, prices go down.


Perhaps, but the supply is pretty much regulated by OPEC to keep the
prices where they want. While we could lower our consumption, maybe even
significantly, but we don't control the other consumers.

Arab oil supposedly costs $3-5 a barrel to produce, so everything over
that goes into somebody's bank account. If the consumers could form a
buyer's cartel perhaps the price could be negotiated closer to the cost
of production. Our government could control consumption with taxes, the
extra money would stay in our pocket.

The fly in the ointment is that oil has an intrinsic value, and keeping
the price far below that would mean a very artificial market, never mind
a lot of very unhappy producers.

The real problem is that Allah has blessed the Arab world with at least
$50T in known reserves. What could they do with all that money?
 
"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Your use of the term "gooks" explains the high discount many of us will
> give to your thoughts. Moral lectures from a racist aren't worth much.


Oops. Sorry. That was a typo. I obviously meant "infidels".
 
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:56:02 -0500, The Wogster wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
> Jean Cretean, Canadian Prime Minister at the time, and I agreed on very
> little, however staying out of The Iraq War Part Deux, was one of Jeans
> better decisions. It's turning into another unwinnable war, the United
> States loses, Iraq loses, the terrorists lose, the only ones that win
> are the arms dealers, most of which are probably supplying both sides.


Ummm, I think we've already won. The media and the democrats may hate
how this is going to effect them in '06 and '07; but there is very little
they can do to stop the elections on Dec 15th, which will create an
elected government. The elected government will at that point already
control enough military force to guarantee that it can not be removed by
trivial car bombs. At some point in '07-'08 all the US will need to do
is keep some troops based in Iraq out of harms way, and maintain a combat
air patrol that guarantees no outside country like Iran or Syria will be
able to mount any type of invasion.

The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that approximately 80
percent of the Iraqis desire to run their own country, and once they vote
in December '05; it will be theirs to run. There doesn't exist a strong
enough insuragent force in Iraq to undo that result, though I am sure the
thugs will be blowing themselves up along with children and peaceful
commuters for decades to come, in the end, they have no capability to
reach victory.

The simple fact is that the US will never allow the thugs to raise a real
army in Iraq, and without a real army, they can not control the country.

The worst part for the media and the democrats is how this is going to
look in '08, just in time for another presidential election in the US.
Bush and Rove are in office because they are the indisputable masters of
timing; and their handling of Iraq is an absolute masterpiece of political
timing.
 
"gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Robert Uhl wrote:
>>
>> That's begging the question: is it a failed strategy if it's in the
>> process of succeeding?

>
> That is where at least part of the debate is. Many of us see no signs
>of success, it seems you do.


It's funny (in a perverse way, of course).

The US polls reflect that Americans are getting less hopeful about
success in Iraq (who can blame 'em with the non-stop negative
reporting).

The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.

Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Iraqis
don't know what's going on in Iraq.

My guess? ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
rwwff wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:56:02 -0500, The Wogster wrote:
>
>>Jean Cretean, Canadian Prime Minister at the time, and I agreed on very
>>little, however staying out of The Iraq War Part Deux, was one of Jeans
>>better decisions. It's turning into another unwinnable war, the United
>>States loses, Iraq loses, the terrorists lose, the only ones that win
>>are the arms dealers, most of which are probably supplying both sides.

>
> Ummm, I think we've already won. The media and the democrats may hate
> how this is going to effect them in '06 and '07; but there is very little
> they can do to stop the elections on Dec 15th, which will create an
> elected government. The elected government will at that point already
> control enough military force to guarantee that it can not be removed by
> trivial car bombs. At some point in '07-'08 all the US will need to do
> is keep some troops based in Iraq out of harms way, and maintain a combat
> air patrol that guarantees no outside country like Iran or Syria will be
> able to mount any type of invasion.


Who knows what will happen after the Iraq elections, the question is,
who is going to win, and will they have a clue how to run things. What
is the setup there anyway, a Parlimentary Republic ( which has a
Parliment and a President) makes the most sense, and is to a large
extent the safest system. If the US had been smart, they would have
arranged for and independant third party to monitor the elections.
Normally Canada would be a good choice, it's something we have
experience with, but we have our own election to worry about.

W
 
Mark Hickey writes:

>>> That's begging the question: is it a failed strategy if it's in
>>> the process of succeeding?


>> That is where at least part of the debate is. Many of us see no
>> signs of success, it seems you do.


> It's funny (in a perverse way, of course).


> The US polls reflect that Americans are getting less hopeful about
> success in Iraq (who can blame 'em with the non-stop negative
> reporting).


> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.


> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Iraqis
> don't know what's going on in Iraq.


Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no spin.

There are few people who believe in the veracity of this
administration as the dirt begins to burst from the secrets bags and
bags and bags. Every day new revelations discredit the Bush,
Rumsfeld, Rice proclamations. True believers are diminishing, but we
are fortunate here on wreck.bike to have some of the most adamant of
these.

I don't understand how it isn't embarrassing to take that stance with
all the evidence to the contrary. Arguing that others in the
legislature are complicit does not absolve the administration of
lying.

Jobst Brandt
 
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> FACT: Cheney has consistently insisted on staying within the bounds of
>> international law and the Geneva Convention.

>
>That would be a lie, Mark. A very publically verifiable one.
>
>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051104.wtorture1104/BNStory/International/
>http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2005/11/06/news/nation/nat02.txt
>http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=viewstory&cat=2&id=11623
>http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2574


FACT: you're changing the subject. Let's look at what I was actually
REPLYING to... you typed:

>FACT: Torture is condoned and practised by proxy as a matter of policy
>by the vile corruption that you so idolise.


Not only did you have nothing to say about the other claims I
disproved from your post, now you have to snip out your own comments
so it's not so obvious you are switching from "practiced by proxy" to
"he asked for permission to do it in certain cases". Disingenuous at
best.

>Water boarding (partial suffocation by drowning) and beating the legs
>and feet of bound prisoners has been ackowledged to be torture for
>centuries. They were both pouplar among the torturers of the Spanish
>Inquisition. Your murdering ******* buddies over there have *killed*
>prisoners by *beating their legs*, Mark. They have killed prisoners
>whose bodies were found hanging from the ceiling. I can't believe you
>are in such denial about this. Unfortunately, you have established
>enough of a pattern that I _can_ believe you'd stick up for them
>anyway.


Chalo, have you actually watched "real news" in the last few years?
You'd learn that those who abused prisoners (and not just in Abu
Grahib) are being prosecuted, and given harsh sentences.

>It doesn't suit anybody to stick up for this kind of extreme ugliness,
>Mark. Not even an established shill and tool like yourself.


If someone breaks the law, they should be held liable for it, period.

If they're doing something acceptable under Geneva Convention
guidelines, they are not by definition "torturing" the prisoner, and
are not breaking the law.

OTOH, what's your feelings about kidnapping women and sawing their
heads off for a video? Does that bother you even a little bit? Have
you seen any of the videos of Saddam's method? Makes waterboarding
look like a day at the beach.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter Cole wrote:


>> In those days, as in these, some find opposition to the war to imply
>> lack of support for our soldiers. I don't understand that today, while
>> back then it was even more difficult an assumption to make as most were
>> reluctant draftees. Some friends were gung-ho before and after service,
>> we had many heated arguments, but no judgment.

>
>I agree. I spent some time at Walter Reed and thus was around for some
>of the largest peace gatherings in DC. It was surprising that there was
>some vitriol aimed at us when we were out of uniform and the only
>identifier was our hair cuts. But you are right is was a minority that
>acted out grossly, but a noticable minority.


With Chalo's posts the last few days, does anyone really have a
problem believing that there are those who'd spit on returning
soldiers?

Probably only once though.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was vehemently opposed to the start of this war, but now I don't see
>any way out of this horrific quagmire (one of the reasons I was opposed
>to it). It's a botched execution of a bad idea. Now we're in a damned if
>we do/don't situation. Thanks to our neocon visionaries -- they have
>managed to exploit fear (WMD) and wounded pride (9/11) to promote their
>own fanatical agenda, and get us into this mess -- they're worse than
>the cold war loonies of earlier administrations. I certainly don't know
>how to extricate our troops without risking complete carnage in Iraq,
>but dumping the idiots responsible for this would seem a logical first step.


Peter - serious question... Are you going to be disappointed if "it
works"? The Iraqis are a whole lot more optimistic than Americans are
about it, so you'd better start thinking about how you might react to
GWB being right.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Starr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:15 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>And then you can wonder how many hundreds of thousands more Iraqis
>>>>would have followed them into their mass graves if Saddam and his
>>>>Baathist thugs had NOT been removed from power.
>>>>
>>>>Which is precisely what the anti-war crowd have to be longing for,
>>>>since they were unwilling to believe Saddam was worth removing.
>>>>
>>>>Mark Hickey

>>
>>>Hickey, are you really that out of touch with the concept of anti-war?
>>>If we don't support war, why would we be longing for people to die?
>>>It is also misguided or completley disingenuous to claim that we don't
>>>believe Saddam was worth removing.

>>
>>If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
>>claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
>>isn't a third choice.

>
>Mark, you're obviously being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure even your
>news sources reported that we had economic and military sanctions in
>place, and that we had weapons inspectors in country, and the fact
>that they found none of the weapons of mass destruction that
>the right is claiming today.


And the sanctions and weapons inspectors would have somehow removed
Saddam... HOW? Perhaps you could explain that one to me... sailed
right over my obtuse head.

>"Isn't a third choice?" So few things are really that black and
>white....
>
>>The French (you know, one of the stars of the oil-for-food bribery
>>scandal) made it clear that they would veto any vote to go after
>>Saddam under any circumstances, so the choices were for the US and
>>coalition partners to go in, or leave Saddam in charge so he could
>>continue offing his political enemies and shooting at our pilots.

>
>See above ... or refuse to. Your choice.


I know - you figure the weapons inspectors would kidnap Saddam, right?

>>>I object to the way we did it. Didn't Bush Sr say that the reason he
>>>didn't march into Baghdad was because we had no exit strategy. Well,
>>>apparently his incompetent son, didn't pay attention to that lesson.

>>
>>It might occur to you that 10 years just MIGHT be enough time for the
>>military to work out some of the details. Or not... If you really
>>don't believe that the invasion of Iraq wasn't high on the military
>>planner's list over that time, you're beyond naive.
>>
>>>It's kind of interesting, I never hear any of you right wing assholes
>>>show any concern for all those poor people that get hacked up in
>>>Africa. There are villages, where they all congregate at night,
>>>because alone, they won't make it through the night. Let's help them,
>>>they might actually be happy to see us. But, we know that won't
>>>happen, there is no money to be made in Africa, there is no oil.

>>
>>Sure I'm concerned about them, even though I'm a "right wing asshole".
>>Go figure. But we're NOT the only country in the world who can deal
>>with these issues (remember that war cry from the left?). Where is
>>the UN in this? If you want to see how the world works when left to
>>the UN, go to Africa - or you could just rent 'Hotel Rwanda' and get a
>>good flavor.

>
>But, Mark: we don't need a permission slip, right? If we think a
>cause is just, we're not afraid to act unilaterally. The dead in
>Darfur? The child soldiers in Cote d'Ivoire? Famine? Drought?


Name a country who provides more humanitarian aid than the US.

>'cept in those cases, it's highly UNlikely that other UNSC members
>would veto.


Veto, schmeto - why don't they get off their over-bribed arses and do
something themselves?

>>Should I ask where the outcry from all the lefties was over the
>>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered by Saddam?

>
>I heard it. I'm still hearing it about oppressed people around the
>world.


So you must at least be happy that a despot is no longer offing an
average of at least 10,000 Iraqis a year (not to mention the hundreds
of thousands he killed during the Iran war and Kuwait invasion).

Or maybe not.

>>>There are places in this world where we could do some good, but
>>>where's the profit in that?

>>
>>So now we ARE the world's policemen? I thought you guys were opposed
>>to that concept. You want us to "invade" some more countries?

>
>God, no. Ain't you got any OTHER tools in your toolbox besides
>invasion? I would have thought that we, as a country, did....


So if we go into Africa and take out a despotic regime to prevent them
killing their own citizens, it's "good"... but if we do it in a
country that's got oil, it's "bad".

Y'see, that's why I can't be a liberal. My brain hurts when I try to
make sense of something like that.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame