 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupation
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 10 Dec 03 - 02:10 PM Well said, Don. Hear, hear! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Don Firth Date: 10 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM If this is indeed how business in general is run, then that, my friend, is the problem. You seem to be under the impression that it is impossible to be both a good businessman and a good human being. That may very well be true, but if so, it speaks volumes, doesn't it? But I do not agree. There are plenty of businesses that do quite well simply by providing quality products and by compensating their employees with good salaries and benefits. Many of them are family owned and have not gone public, so that pretty well obviates take-overs. When they need money for any reason, they get bank loans. That way, they maintain control. They are, of course, alert to whatever the competition is doing and make adjustments, but rather than compromise, they have faith that there are a sufficient number of customers who are willing to pay a bit more for better quality and good customer service. They are in it for the long haul, not the quick kill, and customers know that. Also, there are companies that finance their own pension plans and are relatively immune to the vagaries of the stock market. It's really quite simple, Teribus. What's more important, profit or people? If it weren't for people, where would the profit come from? Now, as far as unbridled greed is concerned, there are also companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton, with CEOs and board members in the government (in violation of conflict of interest laws), who drum up business by getting the United States to destroy the infrastructure of another country so they can be awarded non-competitive contracts to rebuild that infrastructure at the expense of the American taxpayer. The fact that thousands of people are killed in the process of drumming up this business is incidental, of course. "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." Well, that makes for a pretty bitter omelet. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 10 Dec 03 - 12:54 AM Teribus: You are right; however, I think people may be referring to obscene profits. I think there is such a thing. Of course, I don't have any shares in anything. Banks are a business, and their profits are obscene. Some of this shit goes beyond having to upgrade technology; it has to do with lining pockets. I agree with those above who have said that business should come with a moral creed. Unfortunately, too many of them dump on taxpayers, depart with the money and then simply disappear. Sometimes governments help with that. Savings and loan: don't know why those words come into my mind. Age, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 09 Dec 03 - 01:30 PM Hi Don, "Suffice it to say that the companies that put quality of product or service and welfare of employees at the top of their list of priorities wind up with a solid and reliable customer base and a corps of loyal, hard working employees." If that is what they put, "at the top of their list of priorities", they also end up as being ripe targets for a "take-over". What you say is idealistic in every way. I am not saying that I would not prefer it to be as you say, but the plain fact of the matter is that that is not how business is run in general. Having said that, what you describe can work, provided the business you are talking about is specialised enough, privately owned, and can resist tempation to expand and stay small enough to control. You mention "hit-and-run" investors, they have always been around, and always will be - in the main they are the pension funds for many and absolutely have to operate that way in order to cover their commitments and provide growth for the future. The ones you do not mention are the "hit-and-run" consumers, your customers. Very few people now pay more for something they know they can buy cheaper elsewhere. Unless you are keping a very close eye on your competition there will always be someone who can match you for product and beat you for price. LH: "The sole purpose of business is not profit, profit is simply one useful side effect of doing a useful service." Depends upon which principle applies, whether you "work-to-live", or "live-to-work" Of course the sole purpose of business is profit, especially if you want to be in business the next year, and the year after and in the future. "A service that was merely a "break-even" proposition would be far more useful to society" All depends on what you mean by "break-even". If by break-even, those providing that service: - Are committed to investing in personel development of their work-force; - Are committed to maintaining HSE and Quality standards/certification; - Are committed to improvement of the service they provide; - Are committed to keeping pace with the technology require to provide that service. Then that is not a "break-even" venture by any strech of the imagination, because all of the above, and they are all essential, come with costs that are significant. To pay for it you need to generate an equally significant profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 03 - 05:11 PM brucie: Wonder why Californians aren't sueing Enron? Oh yeah, after the big heist the dough was stashed so well that no one can find it and there's not too much in the bank. Even the proceeds of the sale of their headquarters building will be turned over mostly to *other* corporate theives and buddies... Yet, the employee who lost his retirement portfolio is out a' luck... And the beat goes on while Johnny Ashcroft is hell bent on messin' with average American citizens.... Go figgure?.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 03 - 04:03 PM The World gives you back what you give the World. This is known by good, honest business people everywhere. Aggressors need to remember it too, whether they are big fish like the USA and Britain or small fish like Saddam Hussein. The sole purpose of business is not profit, profit is simply one useful side effect of doing a useful service. There is no sole purpose to business, but many purposes, and among them the most important may be "doing something useful and desirable that benefits both the doer and the receiver". A service that was merely a "break-even" proposition would be far more useful to society than a hugely profitable service that benefited a few and harmed many. Profit divorced from wider consequence is an empty and ignorant concept, worthy of criminal gangs, not honest businesspeople, and it is the habit of looking at life in isolated fragments rather than as a whole experience which leads to such empty and ignorant practices. It also leads to war. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Don Firth Date: 08 Dec 03 - 02:32 PM The business principles you express are exactly the problem, Teribus. I have failed to recognize nothing. Suffice it to say that the companies that put quality of product or service and welfare of employees at the top of their list of priorities wind up with a solid and reliable customer base and a corps of loyal, hard working employees. They do very well in the marketplace year after year, decade after decade, thank you. And they provide steady, long-term growth to their shareholders. Oftentimes they don't make headlines. But they do make a steady profit. Perhaps they are not of any great interest to those who only want a quick killing in the stock market, but then, investors like that are hit-and-run only, and are often a detriment rather than a benefit to any business that plans on still being around beyond the next quarterly report. My "idealistic picture" is one of real, existing businesses that make a steady and consistent profit and will still be around many years from now—not those that flare like a meteor and are suddenly eclipsed in a burst of headlines as their officers and some of their stockholders go to prison. Fix your attention on the product, the service, and the people who work for you, and the profits will take care of themselves, Teribus. Many pretty wealty businessment have found that to be a good, solid business principle. Call it "idealistic" if you wish, but they call it 1) easily achieved; 2) simple decency; and 3) good business. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 08 Dec 03 - 01:58 PM It can be a cast-iron SOB to defeat large companies or corporations. In the late 60s (?), there was a lawsuit against PG+E in California. If I recall correctly, they had been overcharging customers. A political fellow (Brown?) took them to court and won. So, PG+E owed some incredible sum of money to its customers. They didn't have the money, so Nixon (yes, that one) allowed them to have a rate increase to pay back the customers. Gotta love it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: sledge Date: 08 Dec 03 - 12:21 PM Too busy queing up for their McDonalds or Blockbuster video franchise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Dec 03 - 12:14 PM Here's a really great thing about the Iraq Occupation: More and more Iraquis are now free to participate on "The Mother of all BS Threads", because Iraq is so disorganized now that the government is no longer capable of keeping track of what the hell is going on. What puzzles me is how few of them are availing themselves of this inestimably valuable opportunity... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 03 - 08:40 AM There's profit and there's obscene profit and there is illegal profit such as what Enron pulled on California. Those who are on the receiving end should know the difference but apparently... they don't?.... And the beat goes on... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 08 Dec 03 - 03:34 AM Thanks Don, "The legitimate and honorable purpose of business is to provide goods and/or services to its customers, and to provide work and a living wage for its employees. If a business does this, then all is well. It needs to make a profit to insure that it will stay in business and continue in this honorable purpose." How are things in Camberwick Green these days? If anybody wanted to start a business and went looking for finance to get that business up and running and you stated your legitimate and honourable purpose - you would be laughed out of the door - and quite rightly so. The sole purpose can only ever be profit - without it you do not have a business. The principal responsibility of any Chairman and Board of Directors, or CEO of any Company is to the shareholders of that company - they own it and the aforementioned are tasked with running it as efficiently as possible and as profitably as possible. Your idealistic picture fails to recognise the following factors and essentials needed for a business to thrive. The inevitable rising costs your outline imparts. The fact that you operate in a competitive environment. The need for research and development and onward investment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: sledge Date: 08 Dec 03 - 01:34 AM The US department of energy also stated that the tubes were unsuitable for Nuclear enrichment programs, the white house's pet weapons expert forgot to mention that! Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Dec 03 - 10:20 PM Saw a documentary I think - that showed that the world's greatest expert on nuclear centrigfuges - US guy in fact - had invetigated them and told the Adminstration that those tubes were too heavy to be of any use - also they were of the wrong type of material (remember aaall that ranting about how special they were!) as they would leak far too mach. He was most upset when he saw the claims on TV and tried to contact anybody who would listen - but nobody in the US media was interesetd, let alone the White House... Also - an Australian company was involved in the purchase of those tubes - and how this US guy (from somewhere in "The Govt") just kept on harping about how they were only suitable for use in nuclear processing - he had no qualifications other than the ear of the President... And Now this Gem.... QUOTATION OF THE DAY NY Times Sunday, December 7, 2003 "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince people that we are here to help them." LT. COL. NATHAN SASSAMAN, whose unit oversees the Iraqi village of Abu Hishma. I Luv Yanks! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 03 - 07:08 PM I hear you, Cluin. For me, it's a life between chapters. Thought it was pretty classy of you to put the tenth post there. I was somewhat surprised to find 13 there already, and it's only 5:00 pm Alberta time. Have a good day, buddy. Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Cluin Date: 07 Dec 03 - 04:40 PM Oh, that's what you did. Gawd, I need a life between gigs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 07 Dec 03 - 04:15 PM cluin, I bet ya right now I could post a thraed with nothing but a question mark and no hint as to what it is for and there will be at least ten posts before midnight tonight. Mudcatters are people who like to interact with other people. In fact, consider it done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Don Firth Date: 07 Dec 03 - 01:28 PM Yeah, sledge, the way the media operates in the U. S., "Saddam's WMDs Found!!!" appears in three-inch headlines on page one. A week or three later, they may or may not print a retraction, saying, "Golly gee, a slight misinterpretation of the evidence was made and what were thought to be WMDs turned out to be a showcase full of carpenter's hammers in a Baghdad hardware store. Sorry about that." And the retraction appears on page 38, somewhere between the obits and the classified ads. Fox News doesn't bother to report the retraction at all. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Cluin Date: 07 Dec 03 - 08:22 AM And here I thought this was gonna be the shortest thread in Mudcat history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: sledge Date: 07 Dec 03 - 02:24 AM I saw on The BBC's Panorama last night the famous "mobile bacteria breeding" plant. It is being stored in a open lot at the weapons inspectors base. It did not look anything close to sterile Terribus. It looked like abandoned junk, the inspectors said that none of the tests done on it showed that it had ever been used for any thing like growing bugs of any sort. The chief inspector was shown his earlier ranting that they had found the hard evidence needed, later in an interview recorded in October for this program he squirmed and tried to twist his way out by going from the hard evidence of ongoing weapons programs to breaches of UN resolutions banning any such activity. Selective use of the UN here. The same applied to the Nuclear bomb program, his assertion that it was ongoing was based on the use of Aluminium tubes in a Uranium enrichment centrifuge, and that they could have no other use, then in October well maybe they were small rocket bodies after all. As for the chemical weapons, "well we have lots of dicuments to search through still", but nothing even as iffy as mystery tubes or pressure cokers. Interspersed into this program were parts of speeches given by Bush, Rumpsfeld and Powell that ALL of these weapons existed and were ready to be used. 190 US military personnel have now died since military operations "ceased". Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 06 Dec 03 - 07:35 PM Which gave us :- Objective Burma !" Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 03 - 07:31 PM Ah, yes, The Marshall Plan - stuffed up the European Film Industry -"You MUST show US made films - withdraw your terrible laws preventing them" Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 06 Dec 03 - 07:30 PM Don't worry - If it's electorially advantageous Bush Jnr will claim n Irish Grandmother ! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: GUEST,"Bugs" Date: 06 Dec 03 - 07:28 PM Don't you call Bush a Moran, he ain't even Irish! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 06 Dec 03 - 07:17 PM Mmmmm ! Is it a genetically modified carrot ? Or is it an organic carrot - ie one that is grown and nurtured surounded by sh*t ? Bobert - your comments noted and I consider them reasonably objective. Moran is a medically definable term. Not being medically qualified I could not comment on Bush Jnr. Gareth Oh !, Stalin wasn't stalling, When he told the beast of Berlin...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 06 Dec 03 - 06:43 PM And when he does inhale, he doesn't absorb. OK, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being a carrot and 10 being the collective intelligence of the Mudcat Crew, where exactly does Bush fit in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 03 - 05:11 PM Thanks, Gareth, fir tryin' to clear up the *who's smarter Bobert 'er Bush thing* but I ain't got a clue. Yeah, sure, Iz probably called Bush an idiot at one time 'er another but I don't think Iz ever called him a moron... He ain't as dumb as folks make him out to be nor are his advisers as smart as folks think... But one thing, irregarless of I.Q.'s, their all crooks. Powell doesn't get a pass either... He can quit, but he doesn't, so that make him part of the gang.... Now as fir alcohol and foriegn substances, in the words of Tom T. Hall, ahhhh, "I like to drink beer...". Right there in one of his songs. I believe the title is "I Like to Drink Beer". As fir the foriegn substances, if I grow my own then I don't consider it foriegn, plus.... I don't inhale. Jus' funnin'... Like why would I risk gettin' arrested if I wasn't gonna inhale... That is one thing that Bush and I have in common. But I don't do no pretzels and that's the truth... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Don Firth Date: 06 Dec 03 - 04:23 PM Metchosin, thanks for the article. I've got a busy day ahead (performance tonight), but I printed it off and I'll read it tomorrow. In the meantime, HERE's the link. Long sucker. 16 pages double-spaced, but it looks like it's pretty informative. Thanks again. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 06 Dec 03 - 04:21 PM Oh - I don't know Brucie, if what we read is here is correct he must have been able to pass his exams whilst his mind was otherwise engaged in the misuse of alchol, and ahem, other substances ! (GWB Jnr that is, not Bobert) Anway judging from his recent speech in London he at least knows that Sinia (SP) is not the plural of Sinus ! (OK Old political joke) Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 06 Dec 03 - 03:50 PM Sorry, but I don't see Bush as being smart. He is surrounded by some brilliant people, but he ain't one of 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Metchosin Date: 06 Dec 03 - 03:11 PM Don, as always, I enjoy your posts. I have noticed that the Marshall Plan is sometimes waved about as symbol of American governmental "economic altruism" and occasionally used as a club to put an "uppity European" in his place...."if it wasn't for us..yada yada....yada". The following paper makes for interesting reading and offers a more balanced perspective on exactly what the Plan accomplished in Western Europe. The Plan was not, as some seem to believe an "altruistic handout" to help Europe recover from the devestation of WWII, it was an American capital ivestment gamble, with strings attatched for those countries that were the recipients. I can't seem to make a link, maybe because it is a PDF file, but if anyone's interested, put "The Marshall Plan as a Structural Adjustment Program" in Google and you should be able to access it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 06 Dec 03 - 02:22 PM Bobert - I crave your appology. In retrospect it would be unfair to compare your intellect with that of Bush Jnr. But now that you admit that politics is the art of the possible, i.e. supporting the one that can spray electorial "Agent Orange" on the Bush Jnr, then perchance there is some hope for the world yet. For outside of Iraq there is much evil in Bush Jnr. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Ebbie Date: 06 Dec 03 - 12:38 PM Thanks for putting out that effort, Don. I appreciate it when I read some well-reasoned exposition on a position; I don't understand why the conservative side seems incapable of it. Bobert, I agree with your conclusion that we *have* to support the candidate in this next election that has a chance at 'overthrowing' (and I don't use the word loosely) the current administration. Did you see what Jimmy Carter answered in a Time Magazine interview [December 8, 2003]? Because he is friends with him and has advised him, Carter was asked if he supported Howard Dean's bid for the presidency. He said, No. I'm going to support whoever (emphasis mine) I think will have the best chance next November. It has to do with pragmatics- first, we have to trim the bushes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: kendall Date: 06 Dec 03 - 12:20 PM I don't need to hold my nose to vote democrat. That party has done a hell of a lot more for me than any other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 03 - 11:33 AM Hear, hear, Don!!!!... Well stated and if Teribus will read what you have written objectively then I believe that you have at least left a scratch, if not a dent. I suspect, as I have pointed out on many occaions, that the T-Bird will do his usual by looking fir the tiniest of detail to squabble with yoy over. It's a very effective defense and one that the Bush administration used quite effectively. I hate to quote Hitler yet again but he correctly obseved that people "will believe the big lie over the smaller ones". Perhaps that explains why so many people think that Saddam was involved in 9/11?...... And, like you, I don't think of myself as a Democrat. I have worked for and voted for Green Party candidates for a long time. Actually I did vote for Gore but it was a "brokered" vote with a Virgina voter. But this time around, I will hold my nose and knock on doors for the Democartic nominee... I hate to do it but it has come down to a fight for saving democracy and hopefully changing our nations course just enough so that it doesn't corkscrew itself into the abyss... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: kendall Date: 06 Dec 03 - 06:50 AM And, if the democrats are unable or unwilling to expose this phoney in the upcoming election, they should lose again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Don Firth Date: 05 Dec 03 - 09:37 PM Indeed, Teribus, it is a damning indictment of the America educational system, especially within recent years, and especially of basic education in the grade and high schools, where the fundamentals are supposed to be taught. I graduated from high school in 1949, when education was measurably more thorough than it is now, and although I got the usual idealized picture of American history, I was something of a history buff and read widely on my own. Also, when in high school, an older friend introduced me to the writings of Philip Wylie and other social critics, so I learned early on to bring a measure of skepticism to what I read. More recent reading includes such works as The March of Folly by that late Barbara Tuchman. Highly recommended, as I think much of what she says applies directly to the current American situation, both foreign and domestic. I could catalog details of the abysmal ignorance of history and current events of a shocking percentage of American high school graduates (and an alarming number of university graduates as well!), but suffice it to say that a huge number of them can't distinguish between the events of World War I and World War II, couldn't give you even an approximate date for the Civil War, and something like 8% of high school graduates couldn't name the current U. S. president (i.e., George W. Bush!). Is it any wonder that some 61% of the American public (nudged a bit by Bush spinmeisters) think that it was Saddam Hussein who attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11? So much for Thomas Jefferson's "informed electorate." The future of democracy in this country looks pretty dismal. Now. On the matter of my use of the word REAL By "real," I mean what actually is the case, not what the aforementioned spinmeisters are trying to get us to think. As in the real reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq—a matter of long-term foreign policy—is explained in considerable detail on the web site of The Project for the New American Century, a Right-wing think-tank. What lends this credibility is that 1) their Statement of Principles (note the signatories listed at the bottom of the page) was written before the Bush administration came to power, and 2) a large number of the members of this think-tank are now in the Bush administration. If one read the material that was posted on this web site prior to the "election" of George W. Bush, and then noted the list of people whom he appointed to his cabinet, one could easily predict exactly what they would do if the came into office. And lo and behold, they did! And it has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein is a nice man or a monster, or whether or not he has WMDs (or whether or not he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks because when the Statement of Principles was written, it hadn't happened yet—that was an enabling gift, providing a flawed but, with some fine-tuning, a usable excuse to do what had long been on the drawing boards). The Bush administration had to peddle this multi-layered story to the American public (and to a Congress who should have known better—although some members did) to get them to accept the very un-American act of initiate a war against a small, second-rate country that just happened to have resources the world needed, the Bush administration wanted to control, and was strategically located geopolitically. The real reason (Merriam-Webster) realI am not now, nor have I ever been a member of a political party. Early on, I leaned toward the conservative side. I have voted Republican. In fact, some decades ago, I was a fan of Ayn Rand—until I saw from my own experience and observations that although she makes some good metaphysical and epistemological points, much of her ethical system takes a mighty leap away from the basis of the more solid parts of her philosophical view, and the political ideas she draws from her ethical system are harsh in the extreme, amounting to little more than Social Darwinism. Let the weak (i.e., the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and others who, for whatever reason, cannot get by without a measure of assistance) die and get out from under the feet of we űbermensche! I gradually evolved into, not a democrat, but something more resembling what might be call a progressive—although, as I say, I belong to no political party. For at least a century and a half the big battle in this country, often going on below the threshold of the general awareness, has been who is going to control the government, big business, or the people? According to the Constitution, it's supposed to be the people. But in the halls of government, it see-saws back and forth. At the present time, the government of the United States is under the control of big business much more rigidly than it has been since the early 1930s. Now, I'm not just repeating the cliché (although clichés are often true, which is why they are clichés) that the Republicans are the party of big business and the Democrats are the party of the people. A pox on both of these parties! But the Democratic Party, historically as now, is a slight bit less hostile to the people that the Republican Party. Since this is a two party system (no viable third party), I am aware that supporting the Dems is not going to solve all our problems My current support of the Dems is an attempt at damage control. Under the Dems we won't be hurtling toward the abyss quite as fast as would are under the Reps. This gives us a bit more time to try to steer the country in another direction. The direction? A government that is more concerned with the well-being of its citizens than it is in satisfying the greed of American-based multinational corporations. The legitimate and honorable purpose of business is to provide goods and/or services to its customers, and to provide work and a living wage for its employees. If a business does this, then all is well. It needs to make a profit to insure that it will stay in business and continue in this honorable purpose. But if its sole purpose is profit, if its raison d'être is for its owners and upper management to enrich themselves at the cost of furnishing goods and/or services of less quality than they are capable of and by treating their employees merely as resources to be exploited and discarded rather than as fellow human beings, then that business is corrupt. It is even more corrupt when it bribes the government to pass laws that give free rein to its corrupt practices. And a government that colludes in this kind of corruption is beneath contempt and deserves to be impeached, or at the very least, removed from office in the next election. When that collusion between government and corporations (Halliburton, Bechtel, et al) extends to having the government invade other nations, not for any altruistic motives, no matter what noble motives are invented, but to add that country to the list of resources for corporations to exploit, and further, put the government in a geopolitically dominant position from which it can subject more countries to such exploitation, then what you have, my friend, is corruption as deep as has ever been achieved. You speak as if those who oppose the Bush administration do so because they have some sort of spontaneous, causeless, pathological hatred for Bush and the Republican Party. This is not true. I, for one, hate no one. I do, however, hate that flaw of character in any human being that allows him or her to become a predator, feeding their own avarice at the expense of the welfare of other human beings. I hate the flaw of character that allows a person to order the institutionalized murder of thousands of people so that his or her friends and associates can extend their power and enrich themselves. And I hate the flaw of in the character that allows a person to look on another person less well off than himself with contempt rather than concern. And I hate the flaw in the national character that allows its government to do all of these things without rising up in outrage. But, save in the abstract, there is no such thing as a "national character." There are many Americans who do see these things and who are outraged. And you see some of the manifestations of this outrage in many of the posts here. And I don't hate, but I do wonder about what I might consider to be the strange quirk of character in a person, particularly someone who considers himself to be a-political, who sees these manifestations of outrage, then takes issue with any comment of a liberal, progressive, or anti-Bush administration nature, seems to regard the writers of the comments with contempt, and spends an obviously inordinate amount of time nit-picking details, restating right-wing arguments that have long since been proven spurious, parsing sentences, and generally chasing mosquitoes while tigers run free. By the way, I fully realize that I won't make a dent here at all. But this gives me an opportunity to vent a bit, and especially to write up some notes for what may very well become the basis for a few op-ed articles and several letters to "letters-to-the-editor" departments in magazines and newspapers as the 2004 presidential elections come closer and the campaigning heats up. Thank you for your indulgence, and good night. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 03 - 08:39 PM Well danged, Kendall, now ya' got me real depressed... I figgured that, well, being on the correct side with the correct story might count fir somethin' and then you come along and burst my poor ol' Wes Ginny bubble.... Sniff.... (Awww, screw it, Bobert! Fight with them knotheads to the end!) Yo, Kendall, I heard that Gareth and the T-Bird are gonna be behind the bowling alley tonight. Got a little "let's rumble" left in ya there, Skipper? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: kendall Date: 05 Dec 03 - 08:26 PM On a dead mans door, you can knock forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 03 - 07:47 PM Now say yer sorry, Gareth... That was down right mean spirited... Aww, jus' funnin'... I don't think Bush is stupid. Corrupt and immoral, well yeah... But not stupid... But I gotta agree with ya' that someone cerainly has a little half-hiemerz going here but if you'll go back to the pre-invasion arguments here you'll find that most of us (if not all) were very consistent in our reasoning not to invade Iraq. Then the invasion and the post invasion rewriting of excuses to invade Iraq by Bush and Co. Hey, we weren't the revisionists here. We have been consistent. First, the invasion was wrong. Why? Because the reasons don't make sense. Where's the proof. Hey, what's the danged hurry, anyway... Let Hans Blix finish the job... Then when things go bad and all of the reasons fir invadin' Iraq melt into *new and improved* reasons fir invading Iraq, we, on our side go, "Hey, that's a crappy reason, too"... Bottom line, the invasion was stupid foriegn policy and has not made the world a safer place. It has created a *dream-come-true* situation for bin Laden's boys. One day it will be looked upon as a major battle **lost** on the War on Terrorism. Might of fact, the entire War on Terrorism is starting much to resemeble a land grab for Bush and Co. and not a war on terrorism at all... 90% of Afganistan is now in the hands of warlords and Taliban... Who cares? Well, ahhhh, I do, thank you very much... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Peace Date: 05 Dec 03 - 07:38 PM Gareth, that was a low blow. No, below low. That was dastardly. No, beneath dastardly. That was way f####n' far low. Woe is me! My dog is smarter than Bush fer God sake. And I buried it last year! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 05 Dec 03 - 06:35 PM No Amnesia here Bobert, just a nasty habit of reminding people of what was said... I dont think there is any difficulty over acepting that you have a degree or two, after all Bush Jnr managed to get one. And I am confident that your intellects are on par. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 03 - 03:18 PM Sorry, McG. I'm sure you were referring to my spellin' which, I'll admit, ain't good. To make matters worse, I am also lexdexic so when I reread stuff it looks fine... Man, I don't know how I ever got two danged college degrees. Okay, one was in art so that one doesn't count... But I'll try to do better... The "new and improved" Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: GUEST Date: 05 Dec 03 - 02:21 PM Saddam Hussein was kept in power by the US. The Taliban and Al Qaida were both kept in power by the US. When it suited the neo-con agenda, as it did at the end of the Cold War in the Reagan/Bush era, Saddam and bin Laden were our boys. You reap what you sow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupation From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Dec 03 - 05:55 AM Pedantic note: These "facists" still keep on cropping up. I don't normally comment on typos, because I'm guilty of more than enough of them. But this one is turning up a bit too frequently. Not FACISTS, but rather FASCISTS - from the Latin Word FASCES, for the symbol of authority carried by Roman officials - see here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 05 Dec 03 - 04:00 AM Bobert, With regard to the "flip-flopping" as you term it, what Gareth has pointed out is perfectly correct. He quotes four exapmles, further study I dare say would reveal more. You are extremely keen on dividing things into one side and the other. Sometimes that is a good thing to mark out - GWB in September 2001 - "You are either with us or against us" War against Terror. With regard to this forum, I question something you say, so automatically I am not only a Republican/Conservative but I am a Neo-Con. Anyone who disagrees with your point of view (and this is true for a few others who profess to be "green", "liberal", "lefty", radical thinkers) must automatically be at the other end of the political spectrum. On figures, bein' a figures sort of a guy, I believe the AUSTRALIAN PRESS (Thats in capitals Bobert to try to get it through that I am referring to figures provided by someone other than myself - therefore NOT MINE) have been keeping a close eye on it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 03 - 09:27 PM Yo, T.... In these days when information is so carefully and stingyilly conrtolled by Bush and his buddies, it *impossible* to get exact fgures... I reckon that would have been the case in 1941 in Germany also, but.... Abdul Haq Al-Ani, a British attorney, who is also representing Tariq Aziz, repoted on Democracy Now on 12/3/03 that the prison outside of Baghdad is filled to capacity. He should know. He just returned... Sure, he was arrested... Like who didn't know that would happen? Your guys change the rules at the drop of a hat. Shoot first and ask questions after.... and only if required... Now as fir the heads on the sticks remarks of a few months back: I'm sure you were aware that I was speaking figuratively and not literally. The sight of one head on a stick in front of the White House, I think we would agree, would be a PR nightmare... What was intended was to spot light the utter glee in the face of George "Bring it on" Bush at the sound of guns a' blazin' fir "freedom and democracy"... What a total crock... If he's so danged in love with democracy then why the heck did he hyjack it???? But back to yer figures since yer a figures kinda guy... You still stickin' with the 700 to 1200 deaths of Iraqis during the Us/UK invasion? Over 30,000 bombs dropped, over a million rounds of tank, artillery and small arms fire and you are stuck on the 700 to 1200 figure? Hmmmmm? Bunch of lousy shots, I guess??? Now as fir yer buddy Gareth, I would just suggest that he spends a little time re-reading the old threads... 'cauze there's some amnesia going on in his head..... Ain't been a lot, if any, flip floppin' on out side but daily flip flopping on yer guys side... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: Gareth Date: 04 Dec 03 - 08:06 PM As a cynic I wonder why the arguments has changed from :- (1) We know what Bio/Chemical Weapons Saddam has 'Cos we sold him them ! to Saddam had no Bio/Chemical Weapons. (2) The USA created Saddam therefore his brutality is our fault to The USA created Saddam therefore we had no right to remove him. (3) UN Sanctions will work to UN sanctions were wrong. (4) The US Oil Barons control the worlds oil production through bribary and corruption on a universal scale to We invaded Iraq to contol the Oil. Hmmm ! Me thinks that when discussing Bush Jnr objectivity goes out the window. Finally, if my memory serves the only poison gases used in Nazi Germany were used Carbon Monoxide, and Zyclon B. - Used as agents of Genocide against those classified as "sub human". I was not aware that America sold Nazi Germany Carbon Monoxide, I thought that you produced this through the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. Zyclon B is better nown as this Click 'Ere a widely used industrial chemical. I believe that it is still sold and used (under restriction these days) as a method of pest control - Probably a more humane method of Rabbit control than myxemitosis. (SP) No doubt some 'Catter more knowledgeble than myself will correct my very fading chemistry - But the basic facts are there. Yup, I can see it now, that nasty facist FDR ordering shipments of Zyclon B across the Atlantic, through the teeth of the Royal Navy blockade, to the common foe and feeding the death machine. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 04 Dec 03 - 04:51 PM Thanks Don, You state that: "In the United States, the vast majority of people seem to be under the impression that democracy and capitalism are the same thing, and neither the school system (emphasizing the positive aspects of American history and de-emphasizing the negative), nor the government, nor the corporations want them to be disabused of the idea." If that indeed is the case then it is a damning indictment of your education system. I worry about people who use the word "real" a great deal, and it causes me to look very closely at what bill of goods they are trying to sell. - "...the real reasons the U.S. is in Iraq - "...a real penchant for missing points" - "...what is really going on in the world" I would gladly just settle for the actual reasons, and what is actually going on. "Real" always hints of a "political" slant on what ever follows. I consider my self lucky in that I have never been a member of a political party and my thinking is not coloured by any subsequent political bias. You would have to look long and hard to find anyone as a-political. I am avidly keen on the study of history and have been taught to look at things from many angles, taking in what ever background may affect the perspective from each particular angle. I object when people trot out illogical, irrational opinions and report them as fact, expecting everyone to accept them as such without the slightest question. The party line far too often on this forum seems based on "Liberal-Good; Republican-Bad; mutter, mutter, Bush & Co stole the 2000 election; mutter, mutter, democracy is dead in the United States, we don't have a President, we have a Resident, mutter, mutter, I hate the bastard so every thing he does is wrong, bad, evil." Which of course is a complete and absolute load of bollocks, things just aren't that black and white. Which makes the above attitude totally illogical - totally irrational. It is in countering that, that I may appear to regard the Bush administration as being, "only slightly below the Throne of God". They have made their fair share of mistakes, but then show me someone, or some organisation that hasn't. Regarding the sense of history that I seem to need so badly - I have enough of a knowledge of history to realise that there has been hardly a policy in the world that hasn't been formulated on lies, deception and double-dealing. The only variables are degree and intent. Why should you expect this one to be any different. When folks on this forum list all the misdeeds of successive U.S. administrations and denounce what evil they have inflicted upon the world in general. Running back through the years, their knowledge and sense of history conveniently forgets the "cold war" and the weird, and at times ruthless, little game of chess it caused to be played out. They blithely apply today's conditions and enlightened thinking to yesteryear's circumstances and "from the hip" condemn outright. They have obviously forgotten what a tight-rope act it was. Your example of American perfidity, The School of the Americas, had a counter-part in Moscow, if memory serves it was called "The Patrice Lomumba (sp?) University" that's were all the foreign pro-Soviet-Communist terrorist were trained. Two wrong things don't make one right - but you have to live in the world you are born in - being pragmatic gets you through it, which means you do what you have to - that sometimes breeds strange bed-fellows. Remember Stalin's Soviet Russia and Churchill's Imperial Britain in 1941, they were our allies for damn near six months before the U.S. came in. Had that alliance not been forged through forced circumstances the Second World War might well have been lost. Talking about, "ignoring details that you find inconvenient," : ". . . what Dr. Blix and his inspectors found." Isn't it a matter of what they didn't find? Or are you having short-term memory problems?" - Al-Samoud II missile system under development that was proscribed by earlier UN resolution. - CB munitions that Iraq had declared they had none of. It's not my short-term memory that is suffering. On this whole Iraq business, Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to retain power. If as many say he didn't have any WMD or capability to develop, or deliver them, why didn't he just come out and say so and provide UNMOVIC with the means to verify that claim? On this the good Dr. Blix was only leaning towards the conclusion that the Iraqi's had nothing late summer this year. That would have stopped the war dead in it's tracks. I also like to question things that appear odd - remember those "mobile labs" that were found, and the unbridled glee that rang out through this forum when it transpired that the function of those trucks was to generate hydrogen for artillery met balloons, and that joy of joys, they had been purchased from the UK. Not one person on this forum doubted those revalations, not one person questioned where they were found (certainly not near any artillery unit), not one person questioned why they were stripped bare, yet remained almost surgically clean, not one person made comment on the similarity in requirements for generating hydrogen and applications relating to the handling of CB agents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupatio From: kendall Date: 04 Dec 03 - 03:25 PM What was that guy's name who went to Iraq before the war looking for WMD? He was a card carrying republican, but he found nothing, reported that it was a wild goose chase. and the Bushits smeared him. Terribus, it's a matter of history. We put Saddam in power to balance the nuts in Iran. We gave him what he needed to do that. We also propped up the Shah of Iran with weapons in exchange for oil under Nixon. We also sold lethal gas to Hitler before the war, and we all know what he did with it. |
