Exactly. Post-war planning had plenty of time given W was hot on going to war from day one. But little to none was evident.

---

Little to none... of the kind of planning you might expect or want, or that might match up with their lofty rhetoric. But I'm pretty sure they planned alright where it was important... to themselves. So don't look at the "failure" part. Look at what's succeeding. Ah, Halliburton! That's where the plan was. Democracy, security, and so on are only "failing" because they weren't planned for at all.

I'm sure they are hoping to stabilize the place so that resource extraction can continue apace, and in this they have taken account of a divided Iraq. But even if they fail to stabilize, much of their plan has come to fruition. Some important people made lots of money, and Iraq's oil market is closed to their competitors.

It all makes sense, I think.

---
What others say about boorite!

Heh, Heh. 69.

Although nearly everything boorite so calmly and eloquently conveyed was worth quoting, I like this one the most. It saddens me that someone can be so maddeningly mule-headed that in the face of what was little-known but yet completely true fact, and even now that these truths are becoming greatly known, they still manage to find some miniscule point to attempt to obfuscate the rational opposition.

MaKK's entire purpose seems to be just to sideline progressive discussion.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Although nearly everything boorite so calmly and eloquently conveyed was worth quoting, I like this one the most. It saddens me that someone can be so maddeningly mule-headed that in the face of what was little-known but yet completely true fact, and even now that these truths are becoming greatly known, they still manage to find some miniscule point to attempt to obfuscate the rational opposition.

MaKK's entire purpose seems to be just to sideline progressive discussion.

---

I noticed that too. That's why I've moved on to snorting at him.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

I noticed that too. That's why I've moved on to snorting at him.

---

I was wondering what that noise was! I thought someone was doing a huge mound of coke.

---
What others say about boorite!

If by "sideline the discussion" you mean "refuse to become part of the brainwashed anti-Bush choir" then yes ok, that's what I'm doing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You didn't respond in full to it. Unless saying "ha ha, yet right" is responding to the question.

---

That was not my response to that question.

---

Well you missed another good chance to clear up what your "real" response was, other than a simple negation. Sorry if I call you out on a "no you're wrong" point, but yeah I need some logic behind that. So sorry to be a bother.

I never said big oil wants the US run out of Iraq, or that they don't want the Washington to set up a working government (meaning a government that works for big oil). Quite the opposite. They want the US in there, setting up the government. That's precisely right.

---

Then why did you say we don't want a democracy in Iraq?

I don't know what that means.

---

It means they are a cartel which dictate prices as if a monopoly. You're so keen on history and footnotes, look up the "energy crisis".

quote:

---

I know that if the Eastern Countries produce the oil, then it is absurd to say they have "hegemony" over it. I mean, hegemony over one's own resouces? That's like saying you stole from yourself. Ridiculous.

---

I didn't say we should go in and take the other countries oil fields. I didn't even say we should go in and take Iraq's oil fields. I said Iraq's oil fields being put on the open market, rather than contributing to the poor economics of the cartel, or being sold off below market price with money laundered to the Saddam regime, they could be regulated by normal market forces.

WOOOOO!! DEVLISH OF ME!!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or Saddam lording over oil fields?

---

Note that Washington had no problem with that as long as US oil companies had access to the oil on favorable terms (i.e., their terms). Big oil got rich, Saddam got rich. Where's the problem?

---

We could have had access to the oil if we agreed to pay 10% "surcharges" on Iraqi oil, which was merely a payoff to the Saddam regime. We didn't want to support Saddam with money, that's the bottom line.

A trial of Saddam under international law will bring his accomplices to the dock. Some of those accomplices happen to be US officials. Let me put it in terms you can understand. Rumsfeld no want policeman. Rumsfeld no want trial. Rumsfeld no want arrest and policeman questions. Rumsfeld no want hang from rope with Saddam. So Rumsfeld no want Saddam trial in Hague.

---

Ok so first you said "America doesn't want to bring Saddam to justice for certain reasons that prove Bush is sneaky *wink wink*."

And I asked what those reasons were.

And you said "Oh it's so obvious don't play dumb. America will be implicated in his crimes."

And I said that didn't make sense and why could America not already be charged with whatever these crimes were without Saddam also on trial.

Now you're saying it's all Rumsfield, that he will fall if Saddam is put on trial. Once again I ask for more details (and wonder why it took you so long to make a point even that specific). If Rumsfield has done something so wrong that he is so precipitously poised to fall if Saddam is brought to trial, why could he not already be charged with [mystery crimes that boorite will explain to the world unless he can find a way to change the subject once again now that he is caught]?

And EVEN if that were the case, is there nothing Saddam could be charged with that doesn't implicate Rumsfield? Was Saddam really Rumsfield in a rubber mask? I think you've been staring at the picture of him with Saddam too long.

Halliburton Halliburton, Rumsfeild, Halliburton, Cheney, Rumsfield.

quote:

---

quote:

---

4. You'll "believe in subversion when...?" You've already stated that you see perfectly well how the US is subverting international law, and said you don't give a damn.

I said I'll believe in the subversion of bringing Saddam to justice. I didn't say I'll believe in any subversion. Once again, if you could cut up and paste my argument in any way, then yes, maybe you would have a point. Idiot.

---

So you don't see the "subversion of bringing Saddam to justice," even though you see we're doing it in an unlawful way, and stated that you don't care about those laws? Seems to me you see the subversion OK.

---

I don't see that we're doing it in an unlawful way. When did I say that?

Milosovech is STILL being tried! We've had Saddam for a few months! Your idea of subversion is a little odd. I think Saddam needs a nice quick fair trail and then be hung. If three years have gone by and no headway on this has been made, then yes, I might note some subversion is going on. A Saddam brought to justice is good for Iraq which is good for American interests. Again I fail to see your point.

Oh right Rumsfield is symbiotically joined with the "host" Saddam, and will die if anything happens to him.

When Washington was sending him weapons and money and diplomatic support? Yes, you're certainly right. There wasn't even any "political will" in Washington to get rid of Saddam at that time. He was our little iron-fisted teddy bear at the time.

---

That policy was based on maintaining the contingency of the Iran-Iraq border. We supported Iran in that war also.

I don't see how this proves your point. I say "America couldn't have gone after Saddam before the Persian Gulf War" and you say "America SUPPORTED Saddam before the Persian Gulf War!" Big deal. You're not countering what I said, you're not addressing the point.

If we did something so horrible doing those years fine, try whoever you want, but justice shouldn't be subverted because of it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not only does Washington decline to invade and overthrow this unsavory bunch-- they seem perfectly happy with them. (Except when they get minds of their own and start exerting "hegemoney" over their own oil.)

---

Once again you seem to have the tone that you are countering my point when you're just saying something different. I said "we can't overthrow the Saudi royal family, we have to work with them, even though it looks bad," and you say "ah HA! We work with the Saudi royal family! Look how bad that looks!"

You're missing my point that yes, we do work with unsavory nations to the extent that we half to, and to the extent that their crimes don't endanger the stability of surrounding countries and regions.

I didn't just start going off on a tangent, I was addressing your favorite point, that America's intentions today must always be darkened by our past relationship with Saddam. I was illustrating how international politics plays into such relationships.

Pretty weak stalling technique, boorite, you must be getting tired.

You get real. People are up in arms about our cuddling up to the Saudis. It is a major complaint of what passes for the Left in this country. To say "no one is up in arms about it" is just monumentally ignorant.

---

Yup all those protests...and boycotts..and um..er um...
um..

mumble..

Sir I believe I told you to get real first.

Whatever that "support" on the "Left" is, it wasn't enough to stop the Iraq war, and it's not enough to start a war against Saudi Arabia. I find it amusing that when I say there would be no support at home or abroad for a war on Saudi Arabia, you point to the minority that DID NOT WANT THE WAR IN IRAQ, as if their "outrage" (as they are most likely up in arms as we speak) was so great as to push us on to war.

You are really getting silly now.

Except for one thing: A democratic Saudi Arabia would probably want to manage its oil on terms favorable to the people of Saudi Arabia, as opposed to terms favorable to a few Saudi royals and a bunch of Western oil companies. That would be something Washington would hardly "love." Something like that happened in the early 50's in Iran, under a President Mossadeq. So the CIA and MI-6 overthrew him and installed the Shah, with the help of some Muslim clerics who proved somewhat troublesome in the years that followed. Anyway, Washington doesn't act like a country that loves democracy in the Middle East, or anywhere there are raw materials for it to exert "hegemony" over

---

just because we can't uninstall the Saudi's doesn't mean it's because of oil interests. Also I am dubious that democratic control over the oil fields would change the economics so much.

I can't even IMAGINE who in American politics would stand up and say "let's go invade Saudi Arabia and take the oil fields from the royals," much less what would happen to them.

Oh, yeah, it's all because of U.S. big oil.

We can't fix the situation with force? OK, so let's back off all support for the despots. That's the least we can do as decent people. It'd be a lot better than propping up a dictator until it became necessary to go to war with him. Which is what we did in Iraq.

"The importance of Saudi Arabia to our economy...." well, yes, to go on consuming way more than our share per capita, and to maintain dominance over our competitors, it's necessary to command Saudi oil. I mean if the Saudi people got control over it, they'd probably want to use it for something besides our interests, such as their interests. Hell, they might even industrialize and compete with our manufacturing sector. Yes, Saudi Arabia is important to our economy, as is Saudi democracy (preventing it).

---

I don't really see much of a point in there, except you seem to say U.S. interests wouldn't want an industrialized Saudi Arabia.

Such a thing would help the world economy, our economy, stabilize the region, and reduce the tendency towards terrorism by slowing the country's slow decent into joblessness and poverty. And no doubt the country would become more secularized because of it. Oh yeah, we'd be quaking in our boots then.

I didn't add it later. It was there to begin with. The point being that supporting dictatorships is a large and long-lived pattern of US behavior. I've noticed it's a point you haven't conceded, although you are smart enough not to deny it.

---

The point was about the situation in Iraq today, right now, and again you pointed somewhere else. But you've already said that we want a flourishing democracy in Iraq so there's no point to argue since you agree with me.

Again, show me an instance of the U.S. backing someone we could easily uninstall after threatening border contingency and maybe I will concede you have a small, but anecdotal point about hypocritical U.S. policy.

But 1) I don't think you can find a recent example and 2) it wouldn't change the fact we're talking about Iraq, now, today, not 20 years ago.

Again: Your question doesn't make sense and so it is impossible to answer. Democracy can only "fail" if it is tried, and I don't think Democracy is in the US plan for Iraq. If you have planning documents or some other evidence to think otherwise, I'd like to see that. The plans I've seen are not for democracy. Which makes sense, because the people of Iraq would probably vote to use Iraq's oil for Iraq.

So to repeat myself, the question is: Who profits from tyranny in Iraq? Big oil, among others. Who's in there right now, up to the elbows in cash and oil? Halliburton, Halliburton, Cheney, Rumsfield, Halliburton, etc etc...

Your mention of Saudi Arabia only served to show that the pattern of making money off dictatorships is regional and historical. In fact, if the US supported democracy in Iraq, it would be a first.

---

So you hinge your argument on the U.S. not wanting a democracy in Iraq on the fact that "the Iraqis will vote to get to use their own oil".

Um. I don't remember voting to use my own oil.

Please provide one valid, logical reason we wouldn't want to see a democracy in Iraq.

I didn't say "if Iraq falls apart." I said if Washington installs a tyrannical puppet government. Washington's idea of "stability" has never meant democracy. They supported Saddam-- even after the Gulf War!-- for the sake of the "stability" that an iron-fisted dictator brings to his country. Same as we do all over the world. So you've changed the question.

---

Like I said, I'm really sure the administration wants to have their name attached to a brand new dictator. I'll believe it when I see it.

If it were the U.N. in there putting together the government, you would no doubt be singing its praises. The U.S. is in there risking soldiers and trying to scrape together a basic government, so it's automatically a tyrannical puppet dicatorship.

I just think you are biased.

Playing by what rules?

---

By the rules established by the U.N., saying that Iraq could only sell it's oil for food.

quote:

---

Was Halliburton an example of a US oil company "playing by the rules" and yet "taking advantage of Saddam's dictatorship" by making millions off it?

---

No, since they weren't violating the "rules" I was talking about. (The rules regulating how Iraq could only sell it's oil for food).

quote:

---

Oh, Halliburton's not important! Halliburton Halliburton, Cheney. P.S. Halliburton.

---

Looks like you have the party talking points down pretty well.

quote:

---

But seriously, do you know anything about this topic? Are you even interested in the facts? I'd think you'd have to go out of your way to avoid knowing this stuff and drawing certain conclusions.

---

I think I addressed the facts quite well. You keep trying to qualify both of our statements by framing the facts at incorrect points in time and space. "We can't rightly go in and overthrow Saddam because we support Saddam!" This isn't true, he began to be our enemy when he invaded Kuwait, we don't at once exist today and at once twenty-five years ago. "We don't want a democracy in Iraq because there is a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia." Well we don't have cause to go in and take out the Saudi Royals. Etc. and so forth.

Yes, I seem to have my facts all wrong because they don't make sense in boorite-world, where America is always the bad guy, always supporting dictatorship, and always somehow the smallest thing that could maybe somehow one day hurt big oil is part of a giant Halliburton-Cheney-Rumsfield conspiracy.

9. We didn't.

We didn't "uninstall the last tyrant" in the region. In Iraq itself, it seems we're setting abpout imposing a kind of tyranny to supplant the de facto tyranny of the occupation. So, no, I don't think it's fair to say we've uninstalled the last tyrant. Our support for tyranny continues in Iraq as elsewhere.

---

So you are saying we didn't depose Saddam.

Which sanctions? Fair warning: I supsect you haven't a clue what you're talking about here, so be careful.

---

I told you, the sanction which said Iraq could only sell oil for food.

If this is true and so much money was being made, why did we overthrow Saddam?

All tapped out I guess, huh?

I understand you could be frustrated when it takes so much work to find a way to frame your argument so that it appears both logical, correct, and full of merit.

He delayed going in because he wanted full international support before doing so. He only had full international support to kick them out of Kuwait. He waited, played by the rules, lost the election, and Saddam won. I'm glad his son learned the lesson to do what needs to be done when you have the political capital to do it, and ignore the illusion that international policy by consensus is naturally the more correct course of action.

---

Another stunning perspective of MakKian history. You have just about everything exactly backwards. Well, I guess we can talk about that later.

---

So your argument is "no that's wrong"? Great, I'm really re-thinking things. What is wrong? Which point? What would you like to challange?

Could there be a reason you are lacking specifics..maybe because it's ALL RIGHT?

I was asking how big oil would profit by chaos reigning in Iraq.

---

Uh, no. You said "failure of democracy," or in my terms, "tyranny" in Iraq. In Washington parlance, "tyranny" is often synonymous with "stability." So I would never say that Washington's goal is to destabilize Iraq. It just so happens that its preferred method of stabilizing is tyranny.

---

I like how before you were saying we didn't want the new government in Iraq to succeed, and now any government we back in Iraq will be a "tyranny", thus proving anything you say is correct. I'm sorry that you are so pessimistic about the future while I am so optimistic.

Tell me what would make you feel better about the new government? A U.S. pullout? The U.N. coming in? Because last I heard the U.N. won't come in until it is safe for them. How else can we make it safe except to keep our forces there?

Nice try. YOU brought up Saudi Arabia. I just pointed out that it's a perfect example of how and why big oil (i.e., the Bush administration) profits from tyranny in the Middle East. And yet you think it somehow proves we want democracy in Iraq. And I'm the confused one? I take it back-- it wasn't a nice try.

---

It demonstrates why we didn't move to uninstall Saddam before, not why we want democracy in Iraq today. I was addressing your point about us being "in league" with Saddam negating our intention in Iraq today. Nice try to rewrite the conversation, boorite.

Ah, so it's stablilize now, is it? So I guess you see now that your first question, which is how big oil profits from an undemocratic Iraq, has been answered. Although pigs will fly before you concede that point.

I never said Washington and friends will profit if they cannot stabilize Iraq.

---

So now you equate tyranny with stabilization.

War is peace, hate is love, boorite is right.

Again, I see no reason to think the US is pushing for democracy in Iraq. You may take our crooked Administration's grandiose and self-serving speeches as evidence, but I don't. Big oil, i.e., Cheney's Best Friend and Employer, Inc., is profiting right now from a form of government the Iraqis don't want. I mean you love democracy, right? So let's put it to a vote: Who among Iraqis wants Cheney's grubby hands all over their country? Show of hands?

---

I didn't know Cheney or Halliburton was going to be appointed President of Iraq.

Uh, no, I am busy calling attention to that point....

I mean you must have noticed that....

o_O

---

You mean calling attention to the fact you have now tried to change your argument from the vague "America's intent in Iraq is not for a new democracy" to "If America succeeds in Iraq the new goverment will by a tyranny, as demonstrated by stability. America will then profit from tyranny. If America fails, tyranny will rise in Iraq, thus profitting America. In any event only tyranny in Iraq will somehow profit the oil companies, and they will get what they want."

Ok, if that's your point, stand by it. Or change it again as I point out problems with it, or as I ask you to be less editorial and more specific.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

I don't really see much of a point in there, except you seem to say U.S. interests wouldn't want an industrialized Saudi Arabia.

Such a thing would help the world economy, our economy, stabilize the region, and reduce the tendency towards terrorism by slowing the country's slow decent into joblessness and poverty. And no doubt the country would become more secularized because of it. Oh yeah, we'd be quaking in our boots then.

---

You know, I pretty much agree with this. I'm not sure I agree that it would strengthen our economy, in an unqualified sense. But overall it would be a Good Thing, for the reasons you mention. I especially agree that an industrializing country with a growing middle class tends to secularize. Since we agree on something so basic and important, we should go from here.

Seems to me then, we should be talking about ways to promote democracy in the region so that countries like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia might take command of their own resources, using them to industrialize and diversify. Can we agree, then, that we support "Iraq for Iraqis?"

Actually, no. Blue hats, green hats-- occupation is occupation. The idea is to end it before the US (or anyone) has a chance to set up a puppet government that serves narrow foreign interests.

Uh, no. My position is that Washington's habit is to support dictators and not democracy in the Middle East, and the main reason is control over oil markets, and it looks like we're doing it again. I don't think Washington wants its tyranny to fail. That's what happened in Iran-- another tyranny replaced the Shah's, but the new one wasn't any good for profits.

Anyway, we both support Iraq for Iraqis. We like the idea of an industrializing Middle East with control over its own resources. Right? If so, I think that's enough for one day. As we continue, we can look at what's happening in Iraq and elsewhere and see if it's headed where we want.

---
What others say about boorite!

But of course you think that Spankling hasn't added anything to this thread, because the links he posts are worthless to you because they don't mesh well with your pro-Iraqi invasion stance. As for my adding nothing, I'd like extend my thanks to you as well for making me laugh with your posts, it's refreshing to see unintentional humor. Like this post for example :

Let's get hypothetical here. So if I suddenly hopped on the pro-invasion bandwagon, wouldn't that mean I've just become brainwashed by something else? Oh wait, I forgot. If you support the invasion, you're right and a true patriot. Sorry, my bad.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

I don't think I'm towing anyone's party line when I criticize Bush for rely on WMD talk to get us into the war.

Other than that, once again thanks for adding nothing and just repeating Spankling's comment that he adds nothing because he doesn't need to acknowledge me for [reasons unknown]. I think he's just mad I pointed out the intent of his "HA!" remark, which at the very least diluted its power after I examined the implied intent in the context of my post. He is still welcome to clarify what he means further. I however disagree that the post Iraq situation is a disaster, and as a politcal enemy of Bush he would paint any unfortunate situation there as an utter failure of policy. 100 dead, 250 dead, 500 dead, 3000 dead, it wouldn't matter.

Anyway, boorite, please stop agreeing with me.

About democracy in the Middle East, I've heard a few good lectures on the subject, and it seems like there is frustration on both sides of the fence. There's a stereotype that Arab culture is "immune" to democracy, and a sort of shame within Arab culture that they are somehow unable to get their act together.

Combine that with problem you face in a country with a long history of democracy, like the U.S., in terms of liberalization and secularization. In fact one of the biggest problems to over come in the Middle East is the fight for a certain level of secularization (to secure some basic tenets of a democratic institution, such as freedom to worship and equal rights), and is still a battle we are facing here in the U.S. today.

We can't export religion, we can't export our way of life, but we can try and repeat industrialization and communcation revolutions, so better economic policies in the Middle East, in my opinion, is the best thing to do. Securing a playground for local and co-opted business should be a priority, and good things will flow from security and prosperity. A better educated population adds to the stability of both an economy and a democracy. Again, by "better educated" you can read "well-funded secular public schooling", which comes back to the same catch-22.

Obviously this is an old problem and this could not be the best answer, if an answer exists at all. Removing certain impediments to human advancement like living under constant fear and abject poverty are starting points I would think everyone could agree on, regardless of what events bring them to pass.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

But you still support the "war" and Bush. So, who's party line are you towing when you say, "Thanks for the great economy, Bush! :)"...?

Were you saying the same thing back when Clinton was President and we had a budget surplus?

P.S. The supposed upcoming "democracy" in Iraq = one big dog-and-pony show. The Iraqi people won't have much say in what happens. This adminstration runs the show, and will continue to do so, even after they "leave".

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

No way Bush is doing a great job in Iraq! Thanks for the new democracy Bush! ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I am thoroughly convinced MaKK is trolling.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Do I even need to point out the absolute retardedness of this statement? I mean, really? Everyone, please look and see that for his outwardly extensive vocabulary and his ability to run roughshod over rationality, MaKK is, at heart, just a fucking dumbass.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

boorite said we didn't want the Iraqi's to "vote to use their own oil". I think the statement is applicable. We have some laws restricting oil speculation in certain nationally protected areas, but voting to drill there isn't voting so that I, mAAk q. mAAkington, can profit from the oil.

If you call my statement a point of "absolute retardedness" then you're pointing out how dumb boorite's statement was. I was trying to be a little kinder than you.

He is welcome to explain further what he means but I think he pretty much asked to drop the issue.

I think the worst they could do (from the standpoint of what boorite was implying, that it would influence the profits of big American oil companies) is levy taxes, but Saddam was already levying a hefty payoff "tax". They could also regulate speculation, but again even our own wells are regulated to an extent. Capping production in Iraq would probably be better for U.S. oil so prices do not drop too steeply.

This is where I say it's important to fight the ability that our enemies might pull off some kind of concerted effort to damage the U.S. economy with oil prices, because a flood of oil on the open market would be rather bad if anyone remembers the economics of the great depression.

I will agree that the U.S. might see it in it's own interest to make sure U.S. firms get to develop the lion's share of oil fields. But we also did the lion's share of over throwing Saddam. And still, as boorite points out, it's Iraq's oil, we aren't stealing it, but yes some companies would profit from the development (as would the Iraqis).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

That's also impossible.

First off, I am NOT calling boorite's statement retarded, and I love how you try sooooooo damn hard to insert just a liiiiittle bit of dissension between people in agreement with each other. You have a reMaKKable ability to try to confuse every issue by attempting to turn people against each other and confuse them with nonsensical, rhetorical, diversionary argument.

Now, to explain my statement about you not remembering being able to vote what happens to YOUR oil...

Are you fucking kidding me? We do not live in a true democracy, so even if we WERE an oil-exporting country, we would have no say in it BECAUSE we are not allowed to have a say in such things. A true democracy would. Also, we USE our oil, jackass. We are one of, if not THE major consumer of petroleum products in the world. We use more than we have, so we must import from places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Iraqis have far more oil than they need. They ABSOLUTELY should be able to vote on what happens to it, because they should be the ones receiving the profit on it.

I ask again, are you retarded?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Yes.

---
America's favorite little pyromaniac.

Thank you, all I ever wanted was some kind of recognition of my great ability to make people angry.

*sniff*

Was that so hard??

WAS IT???

That's ALL I WANTED

Also what you are talking about is socialism not democracy.

Go back to third grade.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I must confess - I completely scroll past long Mak posts without reading a word.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Slavery alive and well in Florida

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I do the same with yours Spanks ;)

j/k I try to read it sometimes.

Also, I don't know why anyone's suprised that slavery still exists in the US.

And damn you for getting my hopes up with that link. I thought it was gonna be kinky.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Is there such a thing as democratic socialism? Or economic democracy? There's supposed to be.

Is there such a thing as democratic capitalism?

Anyway, I like MakK's idea of an expanding and diversified industrial base in the countries that we're having problems with. I think if I read him right, he agrees with me that development along Western (G7) lines will demobilize the popular and lethal sentiments that have been deployed against us.

So, how did the G7 countries get where they are today? what are the policies we should be pushing, and how are they different from the policies we are pushing? Those are the relevant questions.

I think the policies pursued by the G7 as they industrialized (and continuing to the present day) can be summed up in the phrase "economic nationalism." It is these very policies that Washington (and other G7 countries) will not tolerate in client states (and former client states) like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, and the Emirates (to name a few from just one region).

In short, the powerful countries have to stop telling the weak countries how to run their business. Those who are in a position to influence US policy have their own interests at heart, namely profit, and no country has ever pulled itself up from despotism and poverty by kowtowing to foreign monied interests.

No country, ever. We in the US certainly didn't.

I think most of us would benefit from the changes in policy that would result in the development of our client states-- raising them from clients to peers. I am saying that most of us would benefit from a decline in US dominance over global affairs. Who would be hurt, then? A minority: those monied interests I mentioned, who are in a special position to influence policy, because of their hold on electoral politics.

That's how they make their money!

OK, so that's how I see it.

---
What others say about boorite!

Oh, and MikeyG has a point, MakK. We're so far from "voting" to use our own oil in our own interest that the question never enters thought. Just contemplate the phrase "Arab interests in the Gulf of Mexico" for two seconds, and ask yourself why the phrase does not exist in the press. It's unthinkable. And yet "US interests in the Persian Gulf" passes without comment.

---
What others say about boorite!

UK spied on Kofi Annan. And here's what Tony has to say about the story. Notice he doesn't deny it.

Most likely, and eventually.

Large populations only mobilize if they are unhappy and unempowered, either against their own government or against the U.S. (because it's always our fault)

quote:

---

So, how did the G7 countries get where they are today? what are the policies we should be pushing, and how are they different from the policies we are pushing? Those are the relevant questions.

---

I'm going to stop you there and interject "colonialism" and "a tradition of democracy".

And if you think the mix is a bad thing, look and the examples of countries being colonized, overthrowing their empire, and setting up their own working government.

After the end of colonialism, we still have a sort of history of "planting" democracy and capitalism in nations, such as Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, and so forth.

quote:

---

I think the policies pursued by the G7 as they industrialized (and continuing to the present day) can be summed up in the phrase "economic nationalism." It is these very policies that Washington (and other G7 countries) will not tolerate in client states (and former client states) like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, and the Emirates (to name a few from just one region).

---

Again I'm not sure how we would express this intolerance for economic development, or how it would help our interests in the long run. The biggest problem is that many of these nations rely on one or two industries (usually one, oil), and that is not a good recipe for economic development.

quote:

---

In short, the powerful countries have to stop telling the weak countries how to run their business. Those who are in a position to influence US policy have their own interests at heart, namely profit, and no country has ever pulled itself up from despotism and poverty by kowtowing to foreign monied interests.

---

I still am not sure how we have our necks on the nations of Saudi Arabia, or Iran (which really isn't all that tyrannical), or even North Korea.

If keeping nations so economically crippled is a good thing for us, why did we rejoice at the fall of communism in the U.S.S.R.? (and work towards that end).

quote:

---

I think most of us would benefit from the changes in policy that would result in the development of our client states-- raising them from clients to peers. I am saying that most of us would benefit from a decline in US dominance over global affairs. Who would be hurt, then? A minority: those monied interests I mentioned, who are in a special position to influence policy, because of their hold on electoral politics.

---

I think the U.S. is one of the few shining lights for opressed people around the earth, and even if we are severely limited in our ability to affect certain nation's humanitarian policies, every little bit of "dominance" should give us more and more lobbying power in that area. If you could replace global dominance with a force that also has humanitarian values at the core of it's operational base that would be fine, but to have power, you in the end need the military force to back it up. The laundry list of such powers are short, and definitely not better for oppressed people, in comparison to the U.S.

Recent affects of retaining our dominance have included: depriving Afghanistan of the Taliban; depriving Iraq of Saddam Hussein. This isn't keeping me awake at nights.

MikeyG's "point" was "YOU ARE STUPID!!" as far as I could read it.

If this is your point, it doesn't seem to address mine. America is a democracy, we don't get to vote directly on how profits from oil is to be used. You said "Washington doesn't want Iraqis to vote to use their own oil!", and I was just pointing out how that didn't make sense to me.

I guess they could vote to nationalize their oil fields and become socialist, but they'd still need someone to develop the fields. There aren't many mom and pop oil rigs that I know of. I'm really trying not to be sarcastic here, I just don't understand your point.

You hear about Ecuador in the context of their banana production because their economy relies a good deal on them. You hear about Arab nations in the context of their oil industry because their economy relies so much on them. You don't hear about other nation's oil interests in America because our economy doesn't export one or two goods.

You DO hear about America in context to the strength of the dollar, trade barriers, and so forth because that does affect other nations.

--

Also about spies: Everyone spies on everyone! Friendly nations and organizations maybe even moreso.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Also about spies: Everyone spies on everyone! Friendly nations and organizations maybe even moreso.

---

So why won't Blair confirm that he did?