... and if that possibility isn't interesting enough all by itself ...





... and if that possibility isn't interesting enough all by itself ...





I would be very surprised if Iraq is the last country that Bush tries to invade. The PNAC blueprint the present administration appears to be following has a clear cut goal- world domination.
I think it is more along the lines of finally upholding our beliefs and talk.Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
For years we have supported dictators and monarchs and cronies in that part of the world, all the while speaking out the side of our mouth about freedom and democracy.
We are finally doing what we are talking about, probably because it has finally come to smack our asses - and the world will be a better place for it.
we may be talking the walk more now.... but I disagree that it has made the world a better place.
There is just as much, if not more violence now than before Dubya declared war.
I think the world is worse off , not better.
No pain, no gain. We got rid of the barbary pirates in the 1800's that became a threat to
world commerce. Now it is terrorism. Whatever happened to JFK's "we will pay any price
to bring peace AND freedom" to other parts of the world. Peace shouldn't be the only goal.
All peoples deserve freedom from opressive governments (communist, dictatorships,
theocracies...). We shouldn't be ashamed at wanting to attempt to liberate other peoples.
If we had the resources I would go after Syria and get them out of Lebanon. Cuba and
North Korea will eventually collapse on their own. Countries in South America that have
recently swung to the left will also swing back. Unfortunately, the US has the mantle
of leadership for the world. It's easy for France to sit back and complain. It's easy
to follow and appease. But it takes the US to lead the world toward freedom. That's what
makes us the biggest target.





ah Myssi, you have restored my hope in the future of this country ! I also noticed that unlike many posters here, you're not from the 'left coast' !
What are you talking about? We are supporting Communist China, as if they aren't one of the most brutal regimes in world history. We are supporting the military dictatorship in Pakistan as well as God knows how many countless others we don't know about (we typically don't know about them until years later). The two faced spinelessness and hypocrisy continues!Originally Posted by Deogol
Yet the fundamentalists lead the polls in the Iraqi elections. And EVERY last western forced government in the middle east has resulted in revolution followed by a fundamentalist or military dictatorship replacing it. As far as your comments about communism; think of your dream that people should be free of communism next time you buy cheap Chinese made crap from Wal-Mart. Everything you purchase with a "made in China" tag, goes to make one of the most brutal regimes in history strong for decades to come.Originally Posted by myssi
Keep up the insane policies of conservatism then the EU and China will continue to kick our asses economically. Keep moving our economic and manufacturing base overseas. Keep calling for more wars, on top of more tax cuts, on top of less domestic spending, on top of debt owed to Communist China to the tune of $1 trillion and watch the US as a economic power cease to exist and means to be a military super power will soon follow. Keep living in your fantasy land of make believe that the US will remain strong forever in face of any possible force. Don't forget that EVERY empire in history collapsed. Not from an outside invader, but from their own weight, sloth and greed.Originally Posted by myssi
Well said. Many good points above. Yes, it is unfortunate that we have had
to turn our backs on Taiwan (Republic of China) and have had to cosy up to
Pakistan. (India has never been such a great friend anyway.) Politics makes
strange bed fellows. The best we can hope is that communist China does not
strangle Hong Kong or Macou and realizes that economic freedom can only
exist with civic freedom. Please explain why Clinton gave the US Navy base
at the port of Long Beach to the Chinese and allowed them to buy islands
controlling both ends of the Panama Canal. Was it because of their illegal
campaign contributions?
1st of all, you're assuming that because I despise the current GOP and especially Bush, that I was a Clinton lover. I never voted for Clinton. I voted for Perot twice and Nader 2000.Originally Posted by myssi
2nd, the Chinese illegal campaign contributions are still unproven. These contributions were allegedly funneled through an LA Buddhist monestary.
If you knew the relations between China, Buddhism in the US and Tibet, you'd laugh at the possibility.
3rd the Long Beach Navy base was closed and it was not being given to the Chinese government for military useage, it was proposed to be leased to a private Chinese Shipping company for commercial useage. As far as I know, it never actually materialized.
4th Yet again, the ownership of the islands are a private company and not the Chinese govt.
If you are going to fault Clinton, at least use real examples. Not fictionalized urban myths. I fault Clinton for the China as most favored nation status. But against the republicans (they are not at all lilly white), every president since Nixon pushed for open trade with communist China. Nixon in fact opened up China for trade.
1. Fine you're a Nader-lover or whatever... so what?
2. There have been convictions in the campaign finance scandal... and besides, who was in
power to cover it all up? The beneficiary of the money.
3. & 4. Don't be naive. Private companies? We are talking communist Chinese here. They
are simply fronts for the military.
Let's get to more significant points anyway: Is trade wrong with evil countries or does
it help swing them towards capitalism/democracy? We've got an embargo with Cuba
but not China and had one with Libiya and they seem to have come around a little.
Next, was Nixon right to "go to China" and turn our backs on Taiwan? Well, China
is 1.3 Billion people, so I suppose it ought to be on the UN Security Council and have a veto.
But Germany and Japan aren't part of the rotation. Should they be? Does the UN matter
anyway? But the real bottom line is: since China insists that there's only "one China"
and is not de-communizing fast enough, there will come a time when we can not
finesse things any further: the US will have to make choices about sending some arms
to Taiwan and war will break out... then what will we do?
Getting back to GWB: at least he's done a couple of great things (although you'll
probably disagree)... throwing out the (Nixon) defunct ABM treaty and starting up an
actual anti-ICBM defense (you might appreciate the significance of that more if
you lived on the west coast)...even if it doesn't work fully it may be a detterent and
a country like North Korea can't afford to launch a bunch of decoys. Also, not signing
on to the stupid Kyoto agreement was another good thing.
As for empires collapsing, I'll assume that applies to China as well. Remember the
Roman and Byzantine empires each lasted about 900 years, Thebes maybe 1500 years,
the Shang Dynasty 600 years, the Parthian empire and Katyuri and Eastern Chou dynasties
each 500 years, the Chavan culture of northern Peru about 600 years, the Maya civilization
perhaps 650 years, the Han and the Sassanid dynasties 400 years each, the house of Habsburg
(aka Hapsburg) 400 years, the Capetian and Antigonid dynasties each 350 years, the Vijayanagar
empire and Ming, Song, Seleucid, Heian, Fujiwara Dynasties each 300 years. Denmark ruled
itself for roughly 1000 years, Prussia about 700 years, Scotland 800 years, Spain 500 years.
The US is only roughly 220 years old.
"1. Fine you're a Nader-lover or whatever... so what?"
Why do people like you need to lump others into a nice recognizable category?
Does it make you feel like they are more identifiable? You are wrong by the way.
I'm a registered republican who votes for whoever is the best candidate. I will no longer vote GOP as long as it;s highjacked by the radicals and extremists that currently have control. The GOP is not the party it once was!
2. There have been convictions in the campaign finance scandal... and besides, who was in
power to cover it all up? The beneficiary of the money.
A four year investigation didn't link Clinton to anything. But of course, you have information that the investigators didn't right? Give it up, lady, 3 separate investigations found nothing.
3. & 4. Don't be naive. Private companies? We are talking communist Chinese here. They
are simply fronts for the military.
Indeed there are private companies. If you are so ignorant to believe that there are no private companies in China, tell me why Marvin Bush (Chimpy's brother) is paid $2 million a year to consult for a couple of these private companies lead by the premier's bother?
"Is trade wrong with evil countries or does it help swing them towards capitalism/democracy?"
Does it swing them? no. Has it ever?
"But the real bottom line is: since China insists that there's only "one China"
and is not de-communizing fast enough, there will come a time when we can not
finesse things any further: the US will have to make choices about sending some arms
to Taiwan and war will break out... then what will we do?"
Your "bottom line is completely irrelevant to this scenario. The REAL bottom line is that the US has no leverage to change China and China has no motivation to change. Not when the US willingly sends their manufacturing and jobs there as well as cut their own taxes while increasing spending exponentially. Know where the money comes from when you are an irresponsible party unfit to lead and economy when you run a 500 billion deficit for 4 years in a row? Selling T-bills to foreign nations, thats where. Communist China currently owns nearly 1 trillion of them. Where is there motivation to change? WHere is the US leverage? Bush is already bending over backwards to please his commie masters by supporting the "one China" policy and being a spineless hypocrite... calling himself a great liberator of the oppressed, while patting China on the back for Tibet. Get real kiddo!!
"...and starting up an
actual anti-ICBM defense (you might appreciate the significance of that more if
you lived on the west coast)...even if it doesn't work fully it may be a deterrent and
a country like North Korea can't afford to launch a bunch of decoys"
1st my dear, NK doesn't even have the capacity to launch the feeble nukes they already have.
If they did, the only nation capable of hitting the US is China. Relax and stop spewing science fiction! Pssst! I'll let you in on a secret; the missile defense is a $100 billion complete failure. It is worthless. In hundreds of attempts, it's made contact just a couple times. We wont even go into the likelyhood of a sovereign nation actually attacking us with nuclear missiles and risking complete destruction.
"As for empires collapsing...
The US is only roughly 220 years old"
Look around you my dear. The points that made every last empire that collapsed, do so, are in fact happening. Most of them because they over spent, under taxed and spread their military out way too thin. The US was also the fastest rising empire in world history, as well as the fastest collapsing.
Look around you. The US infrastructure is crumbling, while we play useless war games in Iraq and spend hundreds of billions there. Our education system is dreadfully underfunded and will only get worse as the tax cuts dramatically cut federal funding to the states. But people of your ilk will just turn on AM radio or FOX News for a bunch of feel-goodisms and live with your heads in the sand. Just like people did under Reagan. But when the consequences strike, you either blame others, or say "who could have known"? The US is not what it used to be. MANY other nations are kicking our asses economically. WHen that continues, the US will no longer be an economic force and the money for the strongest military will simply not be there. It's called LOGIC. When you don't take in enough and spend like a drunken chimp, your economic strength is severely compromised. It's only beginning.
Gee, pretty pessimistic stuff. First, you're the one who said you voted Nadar... no labeling
on my part. I think Nadar's position was that we couldn't have free trade with China because
their economy isn't free... ergo no real private companies... seems like you are taking BOTH
positions. What do you suggest? No trade with China? "The US has no leverage with them"????!!!
We are their biggest customer... that gives us leverage. What if we stop buying?
But that's economics... we're the superpower. Not them. Large armies fold against superior
military technology all the time.
And I haven't seen Bush "patting China on the back" over Tibet. I HAVE heard the Dali
Lama say that China has been going a little easier on Tibet and he has pretty much given
up on independence. Should the US have invaded China to free Tibet? There are plenty
of fights we could get into if we wanted to... obviously we do way more for freedom than
any other country... we're willing to pay the price that countries like France aren't.
As for missle defense: there haven't been "hundreds of failures"... just some tests... which
are just that... we learn from both our failures and our successes. There were dozens
of failures when the SR-71 was developed... but it was too important to give up on.
As the Chinese say, "A journey of 1000 miles begins with but a single step."
What should Japan or the European countries have done when they were beaten
economically? Given up? How did China get to be anything? Did it give up when it was
behind? Your "logic" is that when you're behind, quit. Is "feeling bad" a great strategy?
Time will tell if "the US is not what it used to be".... but I'm not bailing out... I'm not
sure why you aren't with your "ilk's" attitude. What's wrong with working for reform? Why
give up so easily? Work to improve things. Of course, vote for the best candidate. Who
suggested otherwise? Does a business declare bankruptcy if it has one bad quarter?
There are natural economic cycles. Keep calm. I don't quit at half shift. No one's rung
the bell. The games not over yet.
Your analysis of why an "empire" would fail is simplistic at best
and in any case China might become an example of the fastest rising and fastest falling...
not the US. Right now the best example of fastest rising/falling is the Soviet empire. This
country that is supposedly kicking our ass hasn't advanced much beyond outhouses in most
of their country.
I wonder what republican you'd actually support... my guess is that you are a protectionist
type since you voted Perot (but apparently not Buchanan)... and didn't like Reagan...and
consider GWB, et al extremists...so you don't support NAFTA or the WTO or open borders or
trade with China, etc. Perhaps you'd favor high tariffs and another "Hawley-Smoot" Great
Depression? "Mutually Assured Destruction" rather than true self defense?
What 'moderate' republican suits you? There must be one at least.
And why should there be any federal funding to the states (for education or otherwise)?
That's just redistribution of our tax monies. Leave the money where it is. And more
money doesn't mean better education anyway. But state money does mean state
indoctrination. The Libertarian solution to infrastructure crumbling is to sell it off.
Only a profit motive will provide the incentive to maintain something right. (A comparitively
small amount spent on painting the George Washington bridge in NY would have saved
a hundred million on rebuilding, etc.)
So we know what you are against, and you think the sky is falling... but what are you
actually for? Would you rather live in Scandinavia? Are they "kicking ass"? Would you
rather live in China? I guess it is very easy to be against everything... to be pessimistic
and not "feel good" about anything. But I'd rather be for something... like freedom.
Where will China spend their trillion dollars? Ultimately, dollars have to be redeemed here.
If they didn't believe in us, they wouldn't want our dollars. I guess you are investing
in Chinese Yuan.
Even if we fail in Iraq... like in Vietnam... at least we tried... which is more than
any other country in the world can say. Once again, the US leads the way to a better world.
Insert Teddy Roosevelt quote here. France isn't in the arena. Scandinavia isn't.
Communism isn't growing. What incentive has China to change? The history of
communism for one. Our example for another.
So back to the real question once again: Will there be a military war with China sometime in
the future? Would China team up with Russia? India? What country would win? I don't fear
economic wars... they go on all the time...between all countries...competition makes us better.
As to the first, you are correct - but only to an extent. While this is a factor, it is much less the case in modern warfare than it was historically. These days, the gap between offensive and defensive capabilities is so great that it is much less so. A weapon designed to kill a certain type of target (whether that be man, tank, whatever) will almost always destroy that target if it hits - even if the shooter is using 'low-tech' weaponry. Superior military technology can only go so far in decreasing the likelihood of those hits, particularly when talking about ground or naval warfare.Originally Posted by myssi
Aerial capability is where this really comes into play, and where the US does have a marked advantage. But one attitude that is very predominant in the US is the whole "superior tech = win". This is not necessarily the case, and the tech advantage becomes less important as a conflict gets larger, depending on relative numbers. 2 well-armed guys will probably beat 4 poorly-armed guys, 20 vs 40 starts getting more difficult, 20,000 vs 40,000...you see the point?
The tech advantage is reduced even more when both sides are trained soldiers (just in case anyone was planning on using one of the many examples of superior equipment & training triumphing over many no/poorly trained and equipped opponents). The other thing that cannot be understated is actual combat experience, which is something the modern US military severely lacks. Both of the Iraqi conflicts were relative cakewalks, with a massive difference in the balance of power. And yet the grand plan did not work as expected, and the troops couldn't understand why. It is, IMHO, one of the biggest problems with the US military (at least at the combatant level, which is the relevant one). They are trained to be, not confident (which is a good thing) but to be overconfident - they believe they are nigh invulnerable, due to their superior equipment.
Even in the relative ease of the Iraq 'war', there was initially a lot of morale problems when the "Shock and Awe" plan didn't work. In a more hard-fought, higher casualty conflict, this problem can only be worse. And no, the Iraq war did not provide much in the way of real combat experience. At best, it gave the few troops that served/are serving there a small taste of what real fighting might be like.
To the second question, there is an easy answer. No. Or at least, not unless some complete imbeciles start running all of the upper echelons of their repective governments. We will never see any of the big boys - the US, China, Russia - at war with each other, at least not beyond the skirmish level. If we ever do, then we're talking World War 3, and we're all fucked anyway.
Why? Because no one side is strong enough to take the other without crippling themselves - not to mention nobody's sure who would win (despite each sides propoganda to the contrary). In addition, I don't think that any side (the US included, for all the high moral ground that is claimed) would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if it looked like they were going to lose. Here's some numbers for you:
Conventional Forces
Active troops: US 1.38 million, China 2.5 million, Russia 1 million, North Korea 1 million.
Reserves: US 1.2 million, China 600k, Russia 20 million, North Korea 4.7 million
Heavy Tanks: US 8,300, China 7,000, Russia 22,000, North Korea 3,500
Armed Infantry vehicles: US 24k, Russia 29k (others non-comparable)
Airplanes: US 9k, China 3k, Russia 6k
Global Nuclear Weapons
ICBMs: US 500 with 2,325 warheads, China 20/20, Russia 756/3,800
SLBMs (sub-launched): US 432/2,325, Russia 348/2,272
Nuke-capable bombers: US 92/1,578, Russia 69/788
Other Nuclear Weapons with more limited delivery (note, this is only relatively limited. North Korea still has the capability to deliver a nuke to the west coast of the US)
US and Russia thousands, China 390, North Korea some
(Hm, I should really check what the Soviet Union's military was like, if this is the leftovers)
Nukes included for completeness, but really the amount is largely irrelevant. China's 20 ICBMs is more than you'd ever need for a MAD scenario at the culmination of a conventional war. The only reason the US and Russia's arsenals are so big is that they were both looking at 'first-strike' scenarios where they launched nukes to destroy other nukes in a surprise attack - hence the more you had, the better chance of some surviving (stupid logic, but that's the Cold War for you).
The upshot of these numbers. In a conventional war: stalemate (or a conflict lasting decades, which is the same thing). No side has enough manpower to take and hold hostile country while still fighting an offensive war. But it wouldn't stay conventional in the end, anyway.
"First, you're the one who said you voted Nadar... no labeling"
I never said I was a Nader lover, you did. I voted for him in 2000, cause he was the best man for the job. You lumped me into the Nader cult.
"I think Nadar's position was that we couldn't have free trade with China because
their economy isn't free... ergo no real private companies... seems like you are taking BOTH
positions."
SIgh. You are taking a position based on ignorance. Try dealing with businesses that deal with China, as I have.
There are plenty of private businesses. There are plenty of US businesses with offices in China. You just aren't dealing with facts in your posts.
"What do you suggest? No trade with China?"
I didn't say that. You made the comment that people have the right to be free of communism.
My original post about China was to illustrate the fact that with every dollar you spend on CHinese made products at Wal-mart or where ever, you are helping support one of the most brutal regimes in history. You seem to have strayed from my point and resisted it.
"The US has no leverage with them"????!!! We are their biggest customer... that gives us leverage. What if we stop buying?"
LOL! DO you think that is going to happen? Our economy has grown dependent on their cheap crap. What happens to the drug dealer when crackheads stop buying crack? Answer: crackheads don't stop buying crack so the point is moot.
"But that's economics... we're the superpower. Not them."
THat's why I said it's beginning. WHen you send the majority of your manufacturing overseas, millions of your jobs and borrow trillions from the same governments, you are setting yourself up for a hard fall.
"And I haven't seen Bush "patting China on the back" over Tibet."
He has gone on public record supporting the "one China" policy.
"Should the US have invaded China to free Tibet?"
Of course not. It was merely another illustration where there was real oppression on a scale much larger than Iraq where Bush did nothing. Yet you call him the great liberator.
"As for missle defense: there haven't been "hundreds of failures"... just some tests... which
are just that... we learn from both our failures and our successes."
They've been testing it for 20 years and it's succeeded in about 6 cases vs about 100 failures.
Yes, I'd call that a failure. Especially when it's wasted apprx $100 billion! But keep appeasing the waste of the republicans, it makes you feel good!
"Your "logic" is that when you're behind, quit. Is "feeling bad" a great strategy?"
LOL! WRONG! YOur misrepresentation of my logic is to quit. My true logic is to actually be economically responsible as a party. Rather than ignore your failures. THis is why I supported Perot twice. EVERYTHING he warned of is now manifesting under Bush. Look up the giant sucking sound. I'm sure you laughed when he said it. It not only applies to NAFTA, but also to the insane economic dependance we now have with China and the far east. Nobody is giving up or quitting. But the handwritting is on the wall. When you overspend, undertax, create a 500 billion budget gap 4 years in a row, borrow money by the trillions from hostile governments... it's just logic that your long term future is going to be compromised. I said nothing about giving up. Reform starts with responsibility for your mistakes, not a general "support the president or be a traitor" attitude.
"I wonder what republican you'd actually support..."
Not any on the current mainstream level, thats for sure. There are few traditional conservatives in the GOP.
"my guess is that you are a protectionist
type since you voted Perot (but apparently not Buchanan)... and didn't like Reagan..."
As for the rest of the tripe in your post; you are merely assuming again and wishing to place me in an easy to understand stereotype. I'm not a protectionist, a mutual destructionist or a typical anything. I merely demand responsibilty from my government. I demand that this "government for and by the people" behave as a government for and by the people in their interests, rather than the interests of corporate monied interests. In fact, the founding fathers, many great presidents and many prominent historical republicans warned that the government pursuing the needs of corporate monied interests over the needs of the many would be the fall of democracy. Looks like they were right, cause everything we are talking about is a result of that.
"And why should there be any federal funding to the states (for education or otherwise)?"
Because, my dear, when you have your tax "cuts" they don't become tax cuts at all, they become tax displacement.
THese phony tax cuts Bush pushed through only facilitated an increase in state taxes fees and fines. WHOOPS! That pesky reality slapping down conservative lies yet again!
"So we know what you are against, and you think the sky is falling... but what are you
actually for? Would you rather live in Scandinavia? Are they "kicking ass"? Would you
rather live in China?"
Did I say I'd rather live somewhere else? I never said I hated America. I'm grateful I live here. Being grateful doesn't supercede my duty to call out our government for waste, decades of bad decisions and current policies that are destroying long term strength. That is where we differ. I feel a need to dissent when I see very wrong things happening, you seem to have a need to support your government no matter what. "DIssent is the highest form of patriotism"- Jefferson
"I guess it is very easy to be against everything... to be pessimistic
and not "feel good" about anything. But I'd rather be for something... like freedom."
You're for freedom? Well, that just said a whole lot of nothing! Who isn't?
Once again, you are putting words into my mouth and creating fiction
OH WAIT! BUSH isn't for freedom: "Freedom should have limitations"
"Where will China spend their trillion dollars? Ultimately, dollars have to be redeemed here."
You are missing the point. The US in indebted to communist China for nearly 1 trillion.
THis is to meet operating expenses while the Bush administration spends like children with their parents checkbook.
Oh, but please ignore that and say another feelgoodism like "I love freedom" and it will all go away!
"What incentive has China to change? The history of
communism for one. Our example for another."
Why did communism fall? Trade embargoes. Nothing more. No means of economic support=collapse.
Reagan merely sped up what was already happening in the USSR. Maybe it would have taken another 5-8 years had there not been the arms race.
"So back to the real question once again: Will there be a military war with China sometime in
the future? Would China team up with Russia? India? What country would win? I don't fear
economic wars... they go on all the time...between all countries...competition makes us better."
Economic wars make military wars possible, or impossible. As you are selectively forgetting from my previous post; when you run a severe debt for years, under tax, and borrow money insanely.. the long term potential for you funding a strong military are compromised. And when you send a great deal of your jobs, manufacturing and economy, while borrowing money from a military dictatorship, you in fact facilitate and fund their leap into greater military strength.
But that's ok, ignore it all. Ignore the logical long term implications. Say something nice about freedom. Cause clever catch phrases are more important that being perceived as negative or some phony concept of unpatriotic.





We didn't get rid of them. They continued to wreak havoc on Mediterranean trade until the French finally conquered them, and turned their lands into a colony, in 1830.Originally Posted by myssi
The Barbary Wars were instigated by Jefferson for pretty good reasons, most notably that it would be less expensive and more reliable in the long run to kick their asses, than to continue paying them tribute (contrary to common belief, we had been paying tribute all along).
The problem was that Jefferson set a dangerous precedent in the way he went about it:
"No matter why Congress accepted Jefferson's actions, a dangerous precedent had been set. Jefferson had embroiled the nation in war without congressional assent. He had done it in attempting to reduce the public debt and budget, a goal he felt was good for the nation and for him, the ends justified the means. Congress had accepted his actions for these reasons, as well as the fact that the Barbary states were no threat to the continental United States. Finally, because the effort was a success, there was no incentive to question its constitutionality. This early action by a President set a historical precedent for future Presidents. These justifications for Jefferson's actions were not in line with the original intent of the Framers' concerning the President's war powers; yet all of these factors would be seen again as justifications for presidentially instigated wars in the twentieth century."
http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%2...%20Pirates.htm
We had to go back and do it again a few years later. The British also fought them afterwards. But it was the French who solved the problem.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________
At least this time we're deposing a despot that was aided by many people currently in this administration, plus they're making a lot of money from the "reconstruction" with all the sweetheart deals going around.Originally Posted by Deogol
How convenient.
"She has written so well, and marvellously well, that I was completely ashamed of myself as a writer...But this girl, who is to my knowledge very unpleasant and we might even say a high-grade bitch, can write rings around all of us who consider ourselves as writers"
Ernest Hemingway on writer, aviation pioneer and horse trainer Beryl Markham





How convienient indeed. Gaining longterm control of the mass amounts of oil there is ofcourse the main purpose in this war in Iraq (all the talkabout wanting to free the Iraqi people was just propganda meant to blind voters of the real reasoning) but the $ that many members of this administration are putting into their pockets via contracts is a nice added bonus for them and was surely consdiered.
Just watch as soon as they have the oil secure and under control we will be out of there . The people of Iraq mean NOTHING to this administration. If they did we wouldn't be over there bombing the hell out of innocents.
Bookmarks