< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3301 OF 4452 ·
|Jun-24-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <aw: Let me give it a shot...1929> I knew you could do it, but didn't think Chopra could...|
....and anyway, did it really unravel the way Chopra implies, in the quoted statement? Think you are using unravel in his same sense? I think the unraveling he has in mind has to do with a continuing disparity in wealth until a few have ALL of IT, and a large majority have NONE of IT....usually the vision of economic lightweights who believe that if I accumulate wealth, it is at your expense.
<Do i get a prize?>
Only a few small tidbits of further enlightenment from "yours truly". Or in today's accepted etiquette, from "My Best Regards".
|Jun-24-12|| ||diceman: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: I'd rather see my hard-earned tax dollars go towards rebuilding lives and infrastructure at home, rather than towards weaponry and soldiers that get killed and destroy lives and infrastructure abroad.>|
Did you forget the lightweight you are?
You donít decide war dummy, your enemy does.
Iím pretty sure France didnít want Germans taking over.
When the enemy is gutting your entrails let me know how your infrastructure is doing?
What infrastructure were you building, a Maginot line?
(thatís the way smart fellas fight wars)
<I'd rather see my hard-earned tax dollars go towards rebuilding lives>
You think your 60ís social welfare stopped?
Go down to the ghetto/slum and see your handy work.
You may want to bring a weapon to your utopian, delusional, world of love and peace.
I can guarantee you wont find anyone employed by ďBIG OIL.Ē
|Jun-24-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <On que, as if by specific direction, we have the economic amateur chiming in with the untutored implication....|
<Colonel Mortimer: <pipi> <If some are free to make billions, then we are all free to make something for ourselves.>
A fine piece of defective induction.
...that I just alluded to, to whit: If I gain, you lose.
|Jun-24-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <pipi> <..usually the vision of economic lightweights who believe that if I accumulate wealth, it is at your expense.>|
As opposed to economic heavyweights who believe that the economics of resources is not a zero sum game.
|Jun-24-12|| ||diceman: <PinnedPiece:
Here's my opinion of Chopra's opinion. >
Wonder why ďDeep pocketsĒ doesnít live in India?
Oh, thatís right, he makes a lot more money here
having liberal lightweights fawn all over his ignorant philosophy.
<he makes a lot more money here>
You know, that evil stuff, like oil and tobacco companies make,
filthy, insidious, profit.
|Jun-24-12|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <diceman: You donít decide war dummy, your enemy does.>|
So in 1939, Germany was defending itself against Poland?
Sort of like what happened when the US was "defending" itself against Iraq in the second Gulf War.
Diceman, in a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
|Jun-24-12|| ||micartouse: <PinnedPiece: 4. Deepak Chopra needs to stay in deep space, relaxation systems, and soothing music, and stop meddling in economic systems, the whole of which he apparently only dimly comprehends.>|
Haha awesome! In all fairness to Mr. Chopra though, it's hard to dispute his demonstrated mastery of microeconomics.
|Jun-24-12|| ||patzer2: <CM> So if by your admission the US did not give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait, then is your previous statement <without the permission of the US it is unlikely that Saddam would have invaded Kuwait> false?|
|Jun-24-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <pipi> <Colonel Mortimer: <pipi> <If some are free to make billions, then we are all free to make something for ourselves.> A fine piece of defective induction.
<...that I just alluded to, to whit: If I gain, you lose.>
Sorry, I should have said a meaningless attempt at defective induction.
|Jun-24-12|| ||al wazir: FWIW, I deplore the misuse of "create" in economic contexts. Why do people say that so and so "created" some number of jobs, when they mean (1) someone hired that many workers or (2) someone created conditions that made it possible for somebody else to hire them? What happens when an employer lays those workers off? Does that mean that the jobs were destroyed? If so, who destroyed them? |
And what does it mean to say that someone creates wealth if he doesn't actually do much to get it? If I dig in my back yard and find gold, am I creating wealth? Or if Hyatt builds a hotel next door and my plot of ground is suddenly worth a million dollars, did Hyatt create that wealth? What about if I buy a lottery ticket and it comes up winning? Did the state Lotto create that wealth for me?
|Jun-24-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <patzer2: <CM> So if by your admission the US did not give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait, then is your previous statement <without the permission of the US it is unlikely that Saddam would have invaded Kuwait> false?>|
You don't need to try at playing dumb. I responded 'no' to your following question:-
<patzer2: So are you saying the US gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait so they could mount a military offensive against him?>
I don't know by what logical construct you take my answer to be 'my' admission that the US DID NOT give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.
A case of the 'biter bite' I'm afraid.
|Jun-24-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <Jim Bartle: Pinned Piece: "What you're missing (time and again) is that a nation under attack is not going to go about its ordinary business, at home and abroad, with everyobdy working hard like normal."
Iraq attacked the US?
Under the terms of ceasefire of the first gulf war with Iraq, Saddam Hussein was to completely (and I mean completely) open all military depots, labs, hideouts, etc. for inspection, and not fly any aircraft. We began patrols to prevent the latter.
He became uncooperative on the inspections, and shot at our aircraft.
He violated the terms, we enforced them. (Granted, it isn't something AmLibs are willing to do--go after a threat--unless it is internal and conservative.)
Let's review the events of 2000 through 2003 again:
2000: Bush election comes down to Florida vote, where Al Gore determined some of his votes were not counted properly in three counties. He sued to allow a recount. In the end he lost. Democrats begin chant that Bush stole the election. (Not true: http://www.covenantnews.com/electio... )
2001: Democrats refuse to work with Bush since he cheated his way into office. 9/11 tears a hole in nation's psyche. Bush's strength of character and resolve makes him the most poplular president ever.
2002: Democrats seethe at lost election, and Bush's popularity. But know they must show the American people they will defend them from threats abroad also. So they join in petitions against Hussein, who they have all called a grave danger since the late 90s.
2003: Bush's patience wears out and he orders attacks on Hussein. The multiple transgressions of shooting at our planes and defying inspectors and UN resolutions tips the scales for war.
2003: Democrats simply cannot tolerate the level of popularity of G. Bush and must now begin the smears and lies, the Valerie Plame incidents, the denials that they thought Hussein had WMD, and all their 6 years of previous harch talk of Hussein....now they needed to use the war to turn the American public against Bush.
2004: The most thorough smear attack on Bush-Cheney from media and Democrats ever, which engendered lies that are extant to this day (eg.g "Gore: "He Lied to Us!"; "Bush planned this war before he took office!"; "Rumsfeld outed Valerie Plame!" etc. etc.)
2005-2012: The lies continue to mount. Over a million Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. troops. The war cost 3 trillion dollars. George Bush knew the yellow cake reports were false. Colin Powell knew better and was an unwilling patsy. The U.S. started the war with Iraq. The conservative Supreme Court cheated Bush into office.
An almost hopeless tangle of (sometimes contradictory) lies and smears...all to gain back the political power they lost when Al Gore lost his attempt to change the vote outcome in Florida.*
---- -- -- -- - -- --- --
*Underreported: the AP and other news organizations, at their own expense, took it upon themselves to recount all the votes according to their own described fair rules. Gore still lost. See this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/th...
|Jun-25-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <Iraq attacked the US?> Much ink spilt, however the question remains unanswered.|
<pipi> <George Bush knew the yellow cake reports were false.>
If so was he deliberately lying..
"In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words."[3"
"The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable."  With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity."
|Jun-25-12|| ||Softpaw: On the subject of "creating wealth":
<Top US and European bankers, including JPMorgan Chaseís Jamie Dimon and Citigroupís Vikram Pandit, have enjoyed double-digit annual pay rises averaging almost 12 per cent, despite widespread falls in profits and share prices, Financial Times research shows.>
|Jun-25-12|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <PP: *Underreported: the AP and other news organizations, at their own expense, took it upon themselves to recount all the votes according to their own described fair rules. Gore still lost.> |
Why would the AP and other news organizations (at their own expense, yet!) do such a thing as recounting all the votes and say that Gore still lost, when the rest of your hysterical screed just detailed that they are pawns in a Democrat-controlled campaign of smears and lies? Keep your bogeymen straight.
|Jun-25-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <Keep your bogeymen straight.>|
|Jun-25-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <CM: If so....>
I think you may have misunderstood that paragraph. Let me try again...
<2005-2012: The Democrat>--and media repeated--<lies continue to mount.> Here are some examples: <Over a million Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. troops. The > true <war cost 3 trillion dollars.> Actually this lie was spread by BBC, I think. <George Bush knew the yellow cake reports were false. Colin Powell knew better and was an unwilling patsy. The U.S. started the war with Iraq. The conservative Supreme Court cheated Bush into office.> I could add many more Democrat-engineered lies: We were *TORTURING* Guantanamo prisoners; we were flushing their Kor'ans down the toilets, we were mindlessly killing women and children; Bush was setting up his favorite corporations to benefit from the war; Bush administration was after oil (but what the heck were they going to do with it???? They could just let American companies begin drilling in Alaska, off the shores, etc!!)
I.e. That Bush knew the yellowcake purchase was a fabrication, was a late lie to layer more blame on his presidency.
|Jun-25-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <GSM: Why would the AP and other news organizations (at their own expense, yet!) do such a thing as recounting all the votes and say that Gore still lost, when the rest of your hysterical screed just detailed that they are pawns in a Democrat-controlled campaign of smears and lies?>|
The news organizations mentioned in my link wanted to prove that indeed Gore should have won. They made a very public launch of their investigation. When it concluded, their results were extremely difficult to find....they didn't put them on page one...but way in the back, because they didn't like the results they came up with.
The news media were not dishonest, just very badly bent in the brain to start with. That is the only bogeyman part of the story---their natural inclination to hate conservatives and believe democrats.
|Jun-25-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <GSM> A little like your own inclination, perhaps?|
|Jun-25-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: Despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity, Bush included the yellow cake report in his State of Union speech.|
If he didn't know the report to be false then at the very least he was irresponsible to include it in his speech.
|Jun-25-12|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <PP> Lucky for us we have fair and balanced folks like you to defend the interests of the rich and powerful in their efforts at accumulating even more wealth and power.|
|Jun-25-12|| ||patzer2: <al wazir> There was an interesting debate in Foreign Policy magazine last year about the role of form Iraq Ambassador April Glaspie's role in confronting Saddam before his invasion of Kuwait in the 1990-1991 Gulf War.|
David Kerner on Jan 6, 2011 at http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/... argues Glaspie's actions didn't cause the Gulf War.
In response, on Jan 9, 2011 at http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts... Stephen Walt, also agrees Glaspie was not personally responsible. However, he argues that the US may have unwittingly given Saddam a "flickering green light" or at a best a "yellow light" by failing to give Saddam "a clear and explicit statement that an attack on Kuwait would be met with an American military response."
P.S.: My conclusion is the first Bush administration might have failed to give Saddam a clear warning of how it would respond to an invasion. However, the charge that the US deliberately gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait is an unsubstantiated false claim.
|Jun-25-12|| ||PinnedPiece: <p2> Concur.
And one wonders how many false signals the Obama administration has been sending out to rogue regimes, and will have to be damage-controlled by the Romney administration.
|Jun-25-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <patzer2:> <However, the charge that the US deliberately gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait is an unsubstantiated false claim.>|
I agree - but let's take out the weasel word "deliberately" and the claim becomes substantiated.
|Jun-25-12|| ||al wazir: <patzer2: My conclusion is the first Bush administration might have failed to give Saddam a clear warning of how it would respond to an invasion. However, the charge that the US deliberately gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait is an unsubstantiated false claim.> It was at best a yellow light. |
The question is, why didn't they turn on the red? I doubt the conspiracy theory, though it's not totally impossible. But if you recall, the Truman administration got charged with the very same sin when North Korea invaded after Acheson incontinently said -- or was reported to have said -- that Korea was outside the U.S. sphere of interest. You'd think that the Bushies would have been more careful.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3301 OF 4452 ·