Article

2004-06-21 Iraq-Jordan

Recall which nations played Saddam's oil game (map)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-06-21 06:29|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mark, thank you for such a perfect illustration of the betrayal that was going on in the "Oil-for-~~Food~~Palaces" program.

I owe Rantburg a debt of gratitude for opening my eyes to this abject treachery by our putative "allies."

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-21 9:51:47 AM|| 2004-06-21 9:51:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The reason Europeans weren't originally in on the pool of Iraq contracts is no big mystery-they got shafted because they left us out to dry, to carry all the losses and blame. We take huge risks and sacrifice lives and money, and they get the benefits?

So now the Irqis want to give contracts to Europe? I guess I'm not surprised-apparently, the socialist world view has penetrated even Iraq: you don't earn a living based on your own labor and talents, you earn it based on OTHERS' labor and talents.

Looks like the Iraqis will reward the very people who wanted to see Saddam, Usay & Quday continue their torture games. Looks like they will do business with people who opposed Saddam's overthrow.

Clueless.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 9:56:20 AM|| 2004-06-21 9:56:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 This is an old map (2002) and does not conform to present reality. It does explain the reluctance of certain European countries to join us in 2003.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-21 1:10:27 PM|| 2004-06-21 1:10:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 jules> So now the Irqis want to give contracts to Europe? I guess I'm not surprised-apparently, the socialist world view has penetrated even Iraq: you don't earn a living based on your own labor and talents, you earn it based on OTHERS' labor and talents

It seems to me to be a quite *capitalist* point of view for the Iraqis not to give a damn about whether the Europeans helped them or hindered them in the past, and only care about whether it's *profitable* to deal with them *now*.

Looks like they will do business with people who opposed Saddam's overthrow. Clueless.

No, the word you are looking for is probably "ungrateful". But I doubt you will ever discover an economical system based on gratitude.

and they get the benefits?

I thought that the benefits were global security, putting your armies in the regional hub, preparing regime change for Syria and Iran, so forth? That's what I've been told about.

Now you are telling me that it's simply a case of blood for contracts? :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 1:22:59 PM|| 2004-06-21 1:22:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 WOT
But check last years RB for an excellent down in the mud BullDawg v. Aris shindig.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-21 1:41:54 PM|| 2004-06-21 1:41:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Link?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 1:46:42 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 1:46:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris:
BTW is most favored country still the Helvetican Republic or have you reconsidered the Scandinavians?

LOL I'm sorry any country named after a San Serif
TypeFace can't be taken seriously.

Now Goudy's Old Style Democratic Republic might be different.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-21 1:46:50 PM|| 2004-06-21 1:46:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 RC Last years' RB from the front page.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-21 1:47:57 PM|| 2004-06-21 1:47:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 It seems to me to be a quite *capitalist* point of view for the Iraqis not to give a damn about whether the Europeans helped them or hindered them in the past, and only care about whether it's *profitable* to deal with them *now*.

Makes sense to me. Countries should be going for what is in their interest. But Aris-that is equally true of every country, including the US. If you want to take this track, then don't come back later and complain about how the US is only acting in its self-interest.

Looks like they will do business with people who opposed Saddam's overthrow. Clueless. No, the word you are looking for is probably "ungrateful".

No, ungrateful would be complaining about the lack of security while you house your brother-in-law Abu who you know to be a buddy of Zaharqawi. It would be cheering as coalition soldiers who saved your a** are dismembered and strung from a bridge. If you don't like clueless, how about not very bright? No one is going to come in and save their a**es again if they make the same stupid mistake of prefering ruthless and sadistic autocrats over tolerant and fair leaders. They have power in their hands to determine their own future. No one will take the blame for them next time around.

I thought that the benefits were global security, putting your armies in the regional hub, preparing regime change for Syria and Iran, so forth? That's what I've been told about. Now you are telling me that it's simply a case of blood for contracts.

If your brother doesn't help you neutralize the thugs who are assaulting your wife, do you give him a special place in your will? Do you pay him to pave your driveway? You have to earn what you get in this life. France, Germany, Russia-these countries increased danger and deaths, increased the rift between America and the rest of the world by not doing the right thing. There should be some kind of price for their having done so. Perhaps Rumsfeld has started that process by reducing American troop presence in free-loading countries.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 2:13:50 PM|| 2004-06-21 2:13:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Robert> I think Shipman's referring to this one: http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=Main&D=2003-06-22&ID=15708, which is actually a day away from being a year ago.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 2:42:39 PM|| 2004-06-21 2:42:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 You certainly got your ass handed to you. Interesting to see how deep your bigotry runs, though. And amusing to see how blind you are to your own hypocrisy.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 2:48:41 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 2:48:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 jules> Countries should be doing what is in their interest, as long as it's within certain moral boundaries, ofcourse.

Supporting dictators and fascism is bad. But offering contracts is a business agreement which is morally neutral (unless you know the other guy will be using slavelabour or something). And currently Iraq isn't in a position to do stuff that is NOT in their immediate interest. A secular democracy there needs the support of as many countries as they can get, even more so than Iraq needed the support of these countries. Thoughts of petty vengeance aren't actually helping Iraq get allies worldwide which (serving their own interest) will try to support the regime.

There should be some kind of price for their having done so.

What kind of price do you think should be exacted on USA for its own support of dictators throughout the world? This is a real question, btw, not a rhetorical one. USA still kept military bases in Greece many long years after the US-supported dictatorship ended. One or two of them still exist, like the one in Crete.

I do believe there does exist karmic justice on occasion. I think USA paid for its support of the Shah with the creation of the Islamofascist Iranian regime. I think USA paid for its support of the Greek junta, by it now having Greece have the most anti-American population in Europe. Earlier support of dictatorships in Latin America may perhaps be getting paid by the growing leftwinged-fascism throughout that continent...

Soviet Union paid for its own greater tyranny by its desctruction ofcourse.

But *contracts*? You think that contracts are the payment to be exacted by all this? You think way too small. If you do well by Iraq, you'll have a real philo-American democracy at your hands that will be allied to you for decades.

And as for France and Germany, they've not done anything in the case of Iraq, that the USA hasn't done elsewhere.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 2:52:43 PM|| 2004-06-21 2:52:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Robert Crawford> Yeah, it's extremely interesting how I've been recently, and perhaps rightfully, attacked for resurrecting arguments from one day earlier, but there's seemingly nothing wrong with resurrecting arguments from a whole year ago.

As to whether I got my ass handed to me, Robert, that's ofcourse your privilege to think so, same as it's your right to think me a hypocrite -- but all I said about UK back then is still true. And I don't see you (or anyone in *that* thread either) managing to dispute most of the things I mentioned there, especially in regards to UK's relationship with the EU.

I wonder if I'll again be considered now to be the one who diverted this thread from it's starting point.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 3:04:31 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:04:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Supporting dictators and fascism is bad. But offering contracts is a business agreement which is morally neutral (unless you know the other guy will be using slavelabour or something).

Morally neutral business contracts? How about if you know he tortures people to death? Worse or better than slave labor? This is part of the problem with the world. This is why there are girls sold as prostitutes across borders. This is why terrorists are able to so easily slip between countries.

I agree with you that it is critical that they get their country back on track.

I disagree with your consistent bashing of America. Do you actually imagine that, were the condition of peoples' lives in other countries up to Europeans, life for ANYONE on this planet would be prefereable to what America has fought for? You let us know when enough Americans have died, suffered, and outlaid enough hard earned money for you to be sated. We won't be holding our breath, because your animosity towards Americans through their foreign policy is bottomless.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 3:15:20 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 aretn y'all arguing over nothing? Per Steve White, this is a pre-invasion map, and doesnt reflect current contracts. I mean Id join in and all, with my usual centrist views, but its pretty pointless to debate air when theres no real data at hand.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-21 3:18:42 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:18:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Aris -- your comments in that thread, particularly combined with this one, lay bare your bigotry and hypocrisy. It's actually quite amusing to see how blind you are to it.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 3:23:06 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 3:23:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Jules> How about if you know he tortures people to death? Worse or better than slave labor?

Jules, are you intentionally trying to be thick? We were talking about contracts that the Iraqis offered to e.g. countries like France, and you seemingly thinking that they should have been offered to America. As far as I know neither of these countries tortures girls to death.

I disagree with your consistent bashing of America.

Stating facts is not "bashing". Saying that America hasn't acted better than how France or Germany has acted is not "bashing".

Choose jules! Am I bashing France and Germany, when I placed them on the same level as America or am I not? How can I have bashed only America about its support of dictators when I said they were as bad as France and Germany were in their support of Saddam?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Anything negative I say about US is considered "bashing", anything negative I say about European countries, is completely ignored.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 3:24:36 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:24:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Robert> Why don't you go off and masturbate in the privacy of your own home rather than in public? I offer arguments, but you simply state your own conviction as if it suffices.

Ooh, yeah, you are "amused". Well *that* shuts me up and convinces me to the truth of your words.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 3:28:45 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:28:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 The international community has taken a real fancy to the notion that there isn't enough dialog between peoples. Interesting how, when an anti-American person is involved in the very dialog the world wants, he does not accord the same amount of respect for or belief in the good will of his fellow conversationalist. Some people will never be satisfied--america is their favorite whipping boy, and like anyone with a scapegoat, they will find out the hard way that once the whipping boy is removed, they still have a problem.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 3:34:07 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:34:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 jules> I'm not an Anti-american except in the eyes who think that not believing USA is the best country in the world makes one automatically an anti-American.

And the "internaional community" really has nothing to do with our argument except through your cliched and faulted expectations of me.

I did ask you a question jules: If you think that France must pay for its support of a dictator, how do you think America must pay for its own support of dictators?

You still haven't answered. Or do you consider this question an anti-American one?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 3:43:09 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:43:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 why dont y'all chill till you have some actual data to fight over?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-21 3:46:01 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:46:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Maybe 900 dead American soldiers and, what are we at, $89,000,000,000, in debt isn't sufficient?

You better take a better look in the mirror, Aris.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 3:50:31 PM|| 2004-06-21 3:50:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Only problem with that answer is that you can't *both* call it "payment" for earlier wrongs commited and yet at the same time say that anyone should be grateful to you for doing it.

That's a bit like saying that Poland should be grateful to Germany for all the lands that Poland gained from Germany after WW2. That was a repayment, so no gratitude was owed.

And as a sidenote, lest someone again unintentionally "misunderstands" me, NO, I wasn't comparing USA to Nazi-era Germany.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 4:01:13 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:01:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Like I said SEVERAL COMMENTS AGO, your only solution is America to suffer some more. Lay it out on the line so we know what you expect. 2000 more American dead bodies make it feel better? No? How about 5000-is that better?

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 4:04:29 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:04:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I don't want America to suffer *any*, because I have absolutely no interest in Karmic justice against either America *or* France. It's you jules, who followed that logic, and therefore it's *you* jules who needs to be consistent in it. Must countries suffer for their support of dictators, or mustn't they?

I don't want anyone to suffer. I'm not interested in Justice, except only when serving to protect Life. And Freedom. And Joy.

And even if I *had* wanted Carmic Justice, jules, my points above were that America has already suffered it through the rise of anti-americanism in former countries where the US favoured dictatorships.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 4:09:32 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:09:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Know thyself.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 4:13:50 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:13:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I offer arguments, but you simply state your own conviction as if it suffices.

Poor widdle Aris. Caught out on his bigotry and hypocrisy, all he can do is spew and whine.

Bigotry:
The "gun in every household" isn't a problem when it's not accompanied by the belief many Americans have that said gun is the solution to every single problem in the world.

This is one of the typical beliefs held by anti-American bigots, that somehow Americans treat guns as magical talismans that make everything better. Oddly enough, that's not true, and your stating it reveals you to be Yet Another Bigot.

Hypocrisy:

You have no problem with France and Germany's backstabbing their allies in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Hell, you supported it, and apparently don't think they should ever have to pay for their duplicity. They were acting in their interests, so no harm, no foul, eh? Never mind what kind of monster they were supporting in Hussein.

But Britain? How dare Britain act in its own interests! How dare they not march along to the EU superstate like the rest of Europe? They've betrayed the most noble enterprise in the world!

You said:
Why should I not despise the country that's warring on the greatest project currently taking place on the face of the earth?

You consider the EU a bigger deal than, oh, liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny? Or bigger than the meta-project of trying to bring healthy, stable societies to the Middle East?

Maybe you'd comprehend our positions a bit if you took that phrase and instead of meaning Britain and the EU, substituted France and the liberation of the Arab world.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 4:21:37 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 4:21:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Aris, where the US supported juntas and dictators, it was usually a choice between two evils, non-communist or communist dictators. The notion of "supporting dictators" by itself is only a half truth. The support was in the context of a global war.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-21 4:27:42 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:27:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Oh you've 'Liberated' Iraq?! From a man that YOU put into power. A guy that 'Rummy' referred to as 'our man'. I've been to Iraq a year before the invasion & I can tell you it will take 40-50 years for any semblance of normal life to take place. The only thing you 'liberated' is Iraqi oil.

Posted by Sammy Frobisher 2004-06-21 4:33:39 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:33:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Virginian has it right. Many of our anti-war friends live in "the world as we wish it is", never willing to make the hard decisions between evil and lesser evil ON THE GROUND NOW, and never dealing with the same humble learning curve of everyone else.

Like a French existentialist said, "not choosing is also a choice".

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 4:36:49 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:36:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Sammy the troll moves threads, but the idiocy does not stop. Real regional expert are you Sammy? Yeah, the US put Saddam into power. Sure. Ever read history books Sammy?

Posted by remote man 2004-06-21 4:37:07 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:37:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 So Sammy, you were there a year before, eh? Tell me, how where the rape rooms? Did you have fun? Or were you more inclinded to watch the shredders at work?

Oooooh, did you get any oil vouchers?

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-21 4:39:55 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-06-21 4:39:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 God you're ignorant, you dispute whatever u don't like u throw a couple insults but you got nothing to say not a single thing. you must be part of the 72% of americans polled who couldn't locate Canada on a map of N.America.

Posted by Sammy Frobisher 2004-06-21 4:42:42 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:42:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 That's it Sammy. We are all just dumb, ignorant neocon-loving Joooooos. None of us have ever travelled any where nor done anything. Make a credible point and we will respond to it. Throw crap against a fan and see what you get back at ya.

Posted by remote man 2004-06-21 4:46:48 PM|| 2004-06-21 4:46:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Don't be stupid Sammy, everybody knows Canaduh is next to France off the shore of China.

Now answer my questions, how did you like the shredder shows over in Iraq and did you get any of them UN-sponsered Iraqi oil vouchers?

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-21 5:23:56 PM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2004-06-21 5:23:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Mr. Frobisher, I think the reason people are not taking the time to argue with you on substance is that your comments are so infantile. Let's see a real ARGUMENT from you instead of a bunch of slogans and perhaps people will beigin to take you seriously.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-21 5:31:00 PM|| 2004-06-21 5:31:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Robert>

The "gun in every household" isn't a problem when it's not accompanied by the belief many Americans have that said gun is the solution to every single problem in the world. This is one of the typical beliefs held by anti-American bigots, that somehow Americans treat guns as magical talismans that make everything better

LOL. Sorry, Robert, but many Americans do indeed believe that most if not all problems can be solved through the barrel of a gun. An attitude which would be considered to belong on the fringes of the politics of most European countries, it is instead mainstream in America, judging from everything I've seen in American populated forums. Legalize guns and you reduce crime rate (even though US has more of a crime rate than Europe, even though most crimes happen with legally bought weapons illegally resold). Legalize guns and you ensure against dictatorships (even though every Iraqi home had an AK or two, that doesn't seem to have helped). Legalize guns and you ensure equality in freedoms between poor and rich (because the poor can shoot the rich, I guess).

Bigoted? Because I said that "many Americans" believe something that indeed many Americans do indeed believe? Check out this forum alone, and I'm guessing that most Republicans here think that gun-control is almost as bad as limiting freedom of expression itself.

"How dare Britain act in its own interests!"

Ah, you can't actually bring a *quote* for this one, so you paraphrase according to your desires your twisted mind.

No, actually it's "How dare Britain sabotage plans that wouldn't have influenced her at all, how dare Britain sabotage something simply because it doesn't want to see other countries prosper independent of its control. Even when it could have chosen to just leave, why does it remain to sabotage the others?"

I want it to "march along to the EU superstate"?

NO, I WANT UK TO LEAVE THE EU SUPERSTATE. I WANT UK TO LET THE REST OF US IN PEACE, AND STOP TRYING TO SABOTAGE EVERYTHING THAT ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE UNION WANT TO DO.

Who's the hypocrite now, Crawford? You attack France and Germany for something that they only tried and *failed* to do, prevent USA from going to war. I'm attacking UK for something it's been doing and so far succeeding for more than a decade now -- hindering, sabotaging, delaying.

You consider the EU a bigger deal than, oh, liberating Iraq from decades of tyranny?

Yes, I consider the EU a MUCH MUCH bigger deal, than the present-day fad that USA's current mini-project of choice represents, to be quitely likely forgotten and abandoned as soon as you change an administration or two. I consider the voluntary union of the democracies in an ENTIRE CONTINENT, and the system that for all intends and purposes prevents dictators from EVER arising in these countries again, a MUCH bigger deal than the uncertain eviction of a single tyrant from a small country in the Middle East. There's not that big a world of difference between the rule of Saddam and the rule of Sadr we'll get to see.

Or bigger than the meta-project of trying to bring healthy, stable societies to the Middle East?

LOL! And how are you gonna do that? Healthy and stable societies? No, healthy and stable societies are the EU's suceess, seen with my own eyes in Greece, slowly expanded to the entirety of Eastern Europe.

EU's bettering influence in Turkey *alone*, may perhaps outweigh all the quite uncertain, all the quite possibly transient, "benefits" USA achieved in Iraq.

Maybe you'd comprehend our positions a bit if you took that phrase and instead of meaning Britain and the EU, substituted France and the liberation of the Arab world.

It'd quite a bit more accurate to substitute *Iran* and the liberation of the Arab world, because France if anything has failed to alter your course one bit, while Britain has succeeded in hindering the EU almost as much as Iran has succeeded in hindering the "liberation" of Iraq.

virginian> Aris, where the US supported juntas and dictators, it was usually a choice between two evils, non-communist or communist dictators.

And quite often it wasn't. The junta in Greece for example. There was no chance of a communist dictatorship whatsoever at that point, such a chance had already been destroyed at the civil war of more than 20 years earlier.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 5:34:11 PM|| 2004-06-21 5:34:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Emotion is in the air. That map of Saddam oil deals ain't a surprise. He wudn't going to deal with the US. We was policing no fly zones and such. I ain't seen a current map of Iraq oil deals, but I bet it don't look like Saddam's. I don't know what that says about Capitalism, Socialism or what - y'alls way ahead of me.

Posted by Hank 2004-06-21 6:17:07 PM|| 2004-06-21 6:17:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Aris, I don't defend the US support for the junta, but from what I gather, the US perception, rightly or wrongly, was that they were supporting a government that was an ally in the cold war. I am sure the US would have preferred a nice democratically elected government, if that had been our choice. Or do you claim that the junta was engineered by the US?

Posted by virginian 2004-06-21 6:31:35 PM|| 2004-06-21 6:31:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 "I've been to Iraq a year before the invasion & I can tell you it will take 40-50 years for any semblance of normal life to take place." #29 above

Normal life in the Middle East? Is that what the WoT will determine - what normal life in the Islamic world will be? The choices they have had over there haven't been the best of all worlds have they? Let's see, there is a) the deranged dicator with even more deranged son's (Saddam model, Syria,); b) islamofascist theocracy (Iran and Taliban - a very popular chioce among women); (c) the friendly family Kingdom/dictatorship (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait); and (d) the totalitarian military/dictatorship (Pakistan); and (e) wildcard (the al Qaeda fanatical quest for an Islamic Caliphate). Is freedom a part of normal life over there under any of the choices they have had? If you add a choice - a government elected by the people that protects the freedom of . . . - no, freedom is just not a part of "normal life." They really don't want freedom - they prefer the old choices?

Posted by Jake 2004-06-21 6:45:49 PM|| 2004-06-21 6:45:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 I consider the voluntary union of the democracies in an ENTIRE CONTINENT, and the system that for all intends and purposes prevents dictators from EVER arising in these countries again, a MUCH bigger deal than the uncertain eviction of a single tyrant from a small country in the Middle East.

What in the EU constitution would prevent the rise of dictators? A resolution? A common agreement? Again, how do you KNOW that such a dictator wouldn't emerge in the near future? Looking at the EU voting results on BBCNEWS-votes which were all over the board, depending on the country involved, the results must have been shocking to the intellectuals in Europe. There is no one voice, just a scattering of countries nitpicking to find a coherent voice. Europe is starting to resemble the UN-conflicted in direction, toothless, hypocritical.

It may be a bigger deal in terms of assets, diplomatic accomplishment and geography, but let's see if it this EU lasts and whether your hopes for what it should be is what it will actually be.

Posted by jules 187 2004-06-21 6:48:06 PM|| 2004-06-21 6:48:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Aris, you karmic justice theory is interesting. So America is punished because the Iranian people have a brutal theocracy? America is punished by Latin American nations going socialist? America is punishe by Greek anti-American attitudes? This seems backwards, I would say the Iranian people living under a brutal theorcracy are the ones punished. I'd say those destined for poverty and foreign adventures in the socialist states in latin America (and their neighbors) are the ones being punished. I would say the hotels and restraunts in Greece watching the yanks (who overpay for everything) go to London or Rome are the ones being punished. Americans try to help, but we can only do so much when faced with folly, and self-inflicted harm. No its not America being Karmicly punished, its the nations that America tried to help from Fundamentalist Islam and Communism that are paying the Karmic price.

You do make good points, by the way, but you need to keep your posts a bit shorter.

Posted by Yank 2004-06-21 7:09:17 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-06-21 7:09:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Or do you claim that the junta was engineered by the US?

No. The same way that Saddam's dictatorship wasn't engineered by France. Except more so. USA seems to have indeed attempted a coup, a coup by former king Constantine -- but the successful coup wasn't engineered by the USA, simply strongly supported by it.

I am sure the US would have preferred a nice democratically elected government, if that had been our choice.

Lyndon Johnson: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution,"

American 2-star general: "It's the best damn Government since Pericles"

In short -- no, the USA *didn't* prefer a nice democratically elected government. It very much preferred a friendly dictatorship than a democratic neutral country.

http://groups.google.com.gr/groups?selm=9xJi3.661%24IY1.76814%40newsr2.u-net.net&rnum=1

http://groups.google.com.gr/groups?selm=bxJi3.662%24IY1.76814%40newsr2.u-net.net&rnum=2

jules> What in the EU constitution would prevent the rise of dictators?

In the EU constitution or in the entirety of the EU system? The same thing that has helped every former dictatorship become stably democratic in the the EU. The mass of sewage that must form before a dictator takes power can now be combatted, the steady ever-much-stronger violations of rights that need exist before the complete overthrow of democracy, those are now actively opposed at the EU level before they become a real problem.

No dictator can arise at the national level because the EU courts would protect the human rights before such violations became widespread, before they become a defacto reality.

And no dictator can arise at the EU level for several reasons -- because there's no European nationalistic ideology that would overcome the smaller nationalisms if it became oppressive, because every country is free to depart from the EU whenever they want, because each country retains its own armies, because each country has its own courts and political systems and traditions.

There is no one voice, just a scattering of countries nitpicking to find a coherent voice

YES! Free people pull in all sorts of directions. It's only slaves that pull in the same direction.

And that's what will stop EU count from ever becoming a dictatorship itself. Such as America was, EU as a federation will be founded on principles first, on mutual ancestry *second*.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 7:19:58 PM|| 2004-06-21 7:19:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Yank> Oh, sure peoples suffering are ofcourse themselves suffering. Karmic justice unfortunately cares more about punishing the wicked than helping out the innocent. :-)

But as two further important sidepoint -- this atheistic-leaning agnostic doesn't really believe in Karmic justice, I only see certain simple cause-and-effect reaction, e.g. if you wrong a population they will most likely not like you very much, which will in the long-term hurt you much more.

And secondly, ofcourse Greek society was far from innocent itself -- for internal dictatorships to survive you need to first have a deeply rotten society in advance. For example the support of the Greek Orthodox Church was probably atleast as important, possibly even more so, to the junta than the American support was.

Part of the reason I dislike the Greek Orthodox Church -- another reason was their support of the Bosnian Serbs -- a yet third one was the relatively recent hooplah about the religion being marked in the IDs.

And as for me babbling less.... uh, I will try, but I make no promises. Sorry.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 7:31:41 PM|| 2004-06-21 7:31:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Jeebus, give the thread a rest, kids!

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-21 7:35:59 PM|| 2004-06-21 7:35:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 And as a sidenote jules:

whether your hopes for what it should be is what it will actually be.

-- The EU already *is*. Even if it never progresses beyond this stage of half-assed confederacy, even if it never finds a strong voice of its own in global affairs, even if it gets stuck in this relatively weak state... it will already have been worth it and more than worth it.

For the current expansions of freedoms in the continent alone.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 7:38:09 PM|| 2004-06-21 7:38:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 So! That's how you make chili!

13 Robert Crawford> Yeah, it's extremely interesting how I've been recently, and perhaps rightfully, attacked for resurrecting arguments from one day earlier, but there's seemingly nothing wrong with resurrecting arguments from a whole year ago

Jesus... I just thought last year's thread was pretty good... Not near as good as this one tho. :)

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-21 7:39:56 PM|| 2004-06-21 7:39:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Aris: Lyndon Johnson -- what a sh*thead! You'll get no argument from me about him. He also screwed up Vietnam.

Posted by virginian 2004-06-21 7:46:45 PM|| 2004-06-21 7:46:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 #3 re old map:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4983

Posted by rich woods 2004-06-21 8:13:43 PM|| 2004-06-21 8:13:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Sorry, Robert, but many Americans do indeed believe that most if not all problems can be solved through the barrel of a gun.

Bullshit, Aris. Utter bullshit.

Bigoted? Because I said that "many Americans" believe something that indeed many Americans do indeed believe? Check out this forum alone, and I'm guessing that most Republicans here think that gun-control is almost as bad as limiting freedom of expression itself.

Your inability to distinguish between believing that people should be able to defend themselves -- from crime and tyranny -- and "guns solve most if not all problems" is the source of your bigotry. You're constructing a strawman, Aris, or rather you're buying into the lie you've been fed all your life.

If you can ever get past that big blind spot you have, maybe you'll understand us a bit more. Until then, you should STFU about America.

Who's the hypocrite now, Crawford?

We all are, Aris. You just wear yours blindly.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 10:13:47 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-21 10:13:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Your inability to distinguish between believing that people should be able to defend themselves -- from crime and tyranny -- and "guns solve most if not all problems

And what does your inability to distinguish between the tools that can helf defend your rights, and the alienable rights itself say?

What does it say when you think that guns are the only way to defend yourself against "crime and tyranny", to the point where you don't even know how you distort my words?

What does it say when you don't even understand that some people may disagree that gun proliferation is any more likely to bring security than nuclear weapons proliferation is?

Until then, you should STFU about America.

If you are gonna do it that way, then who first spoke about someone else's continent in this thread?

"Who's the hypocrite now, Crawford?" We all are, Aris. You just wear yours blindly.

You think that confessing to hypocrisy not only gives you a free pass to keep on doing it, but also gives you the right to judge others (people who don't want to reconcile themselves with hypocrisy) according to the choices of your own stupid persona.

Not only an unrepentant self-confessed hypocrite but a wimp as well.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 11:00:37 PM|| 2004-06-21 11:00:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 *in*alienable

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-21 11:01:42 PM|| 2004-06-21 11:01:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 One of the biggest problems is ,Aris,you never have anything good to say about America.

Posted by Raptor 2004-06-21 11:37:10 PM|| 2004-06-21 11:37:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 And what does your inability to distinguish between the tools that can helf defend your rights, and the alienable rights itself say?

??? I'm not having that problem. A gun and the right to defend myself are different things. The gun is merely an expression, an implementation of that right.

But removing guns is as much an impediment to that right as forcibly gagging a person is an impediment to free speech.

What does it say when you think that guns are the only way to defend yourself against "crime and tyranny", to the point where you don't even know how you distort my words?

You said Americans believe "most if not all problems can be solved through the barrel of a gun". How did I distort what you said? You said those words, didn't you?

Those words are simply wrong. Americans do NOT believe that. Most conflicts (99.9999999999999999999999999999%+) between people in the US are not solved with guns. Using guns is extremely rare in the US, despite what you've been taught.

What does it say when you don't even understand that some people may disagree that gun proliferation is any more likely to bring security than nuclear weapons proliferation is?

I understand that some people disagree. They're simply wrong. Certainly, merely adding guns doesn't do squat. You also have to have laws and an agreement to abide by those laws. The presence of guns helps in the "last ditch" defense; when someone's threatened and no law enforcement's around, for example. It also shifts the odds, making it riskier to commit crimes, particularly crimes against people.

(Of course, if you can't distinguish between a firearm and a nuclear arm, there's no point even talking to you...)

If you are gonna do it that way, then who first spoke about someone else's continent in this thread?

Jules, I believe. Followed by you proclaiming the Great Karmic Justice against the US.

My (clumsily made) point is that you have only the barest understanding of American culture and traditions. You're viewing us through a massively distorted lens, one that seems to be universal in Europe. Yes, Americans view Europe through our own distorted lens, too. You, however, defend your distorted view as if the picture were perfectly clear, as if you know the absolute truth.

You think that confessing to hypocrisy not only gives you a free pass to keep on doing it, but also gives you the right to judge others (people who don't want to reconcile themselves with hypocrisy) according to the choices of your own stupid persona.

Not only an unrepentant self-confessed hypocrite but a wimp as well.

You don't understand the point.

I realize I'm a hypocrite, and that I am on probably quite a few issues. I try to deal with it, but it's just human nature. Hell, there are some issues and subjects that I'll go on being hypocritical about, in full knowledge that I am. It's part of being a less than perfect being, one with emotions and attachments.

You, on the other hand, proclaim your moral perfection -- you have no hypocrisy! Yet you defend France's actions towards Iraq, even seek to equate it to US actions in the past; and when pressed on Britain, the spittle flys from you as if you were trying to water a lawn. Britain harmed no one; you yourself admitted that the EU members still have their own militaries, still have their own courts, are still free, that the EU is still happening -- yet you have infinitely more hatred for Britain than you do for the French who routinely ignore EU rules when it suits them, who treat other EU members as lesser beings, who treat the EU as an imperial extension of France. Which endangers the EU more -- Britain's reluctance or France's abusive arrogance? Which is more dangerous for what the EU could become?

Something else I don't understand: You've said you're not a nationalist, that you don't value any group of people over any others. But you think the EU is more important than trying to improve the conditions in the Middle East. Isn't that attitude a form of nationalism? Isn't that a statement that you value some people over others?

I don't get the "wimp" remark, either. I'm not saying I'm proud of my hypocrisy, or trying to hide behind it, but that I'm not blind to its existence. I'll admit that I give the US the benefit of the doubt much more often than I do any other nation; I know I have that quirk, bias, hypocrisy. I think it's a hell of a lot more honest a position -- the admission that I'm not perfect -- than the one you take.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-22 12:03:18 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-06-22 12:03:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#55 #28 Aris, where the US supported juntas and dictators, it was usually a choice between two evils, non-communist or communist dictators. The notion of "supporting dictators" by itself is only a half truth. The support was in the context of a global war.

virginian, if we are to boil this down to any sort of "black and white" issue, this is it.

Aris, I always try to appreciate your own viewpoint, but I hope you understand this one's importance. Elsewise, there may be no middle ground, whatsoever. Communism was only equaled by Nazism in its threat to the civilized world's progress. Militant Islam is the only newcomer that can possibly rival the evil of those other two.

Posted by Zenster 2004-06-22 12:13:26 AM|| 2004-06-22 12:13:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#56 Zenster, Thanks, I never thought I would reach the end of this page with all these views & comments. And I thought, ah maybe a few people might take a peek. :)

I shall continue to dig a litle deeper for a moor detailed map(s) concerning this issue .....AND also which nations at present are dealing with Iran for her OPEC oil,. Iran's mullahs have just stepped over the line which is made to order.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-06-22 12:28:06 AM|| 2004-06-22 12:28:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#57 Lots of my comments were erased, when my computer crapped out. Aargh. Tp keep it brief.

Raptor> I have said that it would very bad for the world if the USA stopped existing, I have said that it's one half of Western civilisation and to wish ill on one half of Western civilisation, is to diminish the chances this civilisation has of ending up victorious in the war against Islamofascism (and tyranny as a whole), I have said that USA is one of the few countries founded on principle rather than mutual ancestry, I have said that USA does more good to the world than ill.

But according to you the only positive comment that'd be strong enough to hear would be if I had said "USA is the bestest nation in the whole wide world, blessed by the angels, chosen by God, a paragon of moral perfection."

Sorry, no can do.

Come on, you tell me something positive about the EU instead. Go ahead.

Crawford> But you think the EU is more important than trying to improve the conditions in the Middle East. Isn't that attitude a form of nationalism?

When you are talking about "Middle East", you are in reality only talking about Iraq instead. EU is about improving the conditions in an entire continent, so on sheer size alone it's vastly more important than Iraq.

And *that's* ignoring the institutional attributes of the EU and the paradigm it represents, as the greatest and most varied voluntary union of democracies that ever existed. Do you *really* fail to see the importance of that?

And sa for your France-vc-England commentary, France is brought to court when it violates EU rules, and I'm really not that interested in how much it wounds the feelings of other countries -- that's bad ofcourse, but it hurts France itself more than it hurts anything or anyone else.

The actual sabotage that UK has been attempting is tons more important.

that the EU is still happening

We shall see, won't we? If it's still happening (which is far from certain given how Britain will proceed to act if it fails to ratify the constitution), it won't be thanks to Britain, it will be despite Britain.

Zenster> As I've mentioned, not all the capitalistic dictatorships that the US supported had overthrown communistic dictatorships -- occasionally they had overthrown quite innocent democracies instead.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-06-22 9:10:03 AM|| 2004-06-22 9:10:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#58 Is it just me... or do Aris' non-ending post marathons remind you of a child on a playground, hurling poo-poo face insults, in the eager hope of getting someone to play a lengthy round of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" game?

Posted by B 2004-06-22 9:21:57 AM|| 2004-06-22 9:21:57 AM|| Front Page Top

14:18 Robert Crawford
14:18 Robert Crawford
14:18 Robert Crawford
14:18 Robert Crawford
14:17 Robert Crawford
14:17 Robert Crawford
18:00 A Loved One
22:37 Frank G
22:28 Anonymous6299
18:33 Anonymous5746
06:11 USMarine1980
09:21 B
09:10 Aris Katsaris
01:11 Zenster
00:57 Atomic Conspiracy
00:52 Atomic Conspiracy
00:44 Zenster
00:39 Dog Bites Trolls
00:28 Mark Espinola
00:23 Mark Espinola
00:13 Zenster
00:12 Traveller
00:09 Anonymous5184
00:07 Edward Yee