Pakistan

Superfreak said:
Which brings us back to the original reason I posted this.... how do we draw Bhutto and her group into this so that it is seen more as support for Pakistan in general rather than Musharraf in particular. Is there a way to bring her group into the mix in a way that will ensure an election and return to democracy while at the same time giving us the opportunity to go after Al Queda (and very likely Osama) in northern Pakistan?
Click to expand...


No. The people of pakistan are not on "our" side.
 
Of course the people of Pakistan are not on our side they are on their side. which encompases more than one side.
Just like the USA, we are not all on the same side here either. 24% still think Bush is doing a great job. Are we on Pakistans side ?
 
Superfreak said:
It is not speculation that we blocked Japan from receiving oil. It was the trigger. FDR pulled it. But that doesn't fit into the whole sainthood the dems have imagined for FDR does it?
Click to expand...

It certainly is speculation to claim you know what FDR's motivations were, that is the very definition of speculation, sorry.
 
Superfreak said:
How do I like it so far???

So far I think you are like all the other fucking parrots. Instead of reading the article and providing constructive ideas, you want to continue with the "bush is evil" chanting of the left. Fuck coming up with solutions.... lets just go with the " oh poor us, Bush is evil and no one likes us, so there is nothing we can do but sit by and watch this nightmare unfold". Fine, I get it. If anyone dares to start dialogue on the board, then they must be a neocon fucktard. Understood. You are not capable of thought beyond what moveon.crap tells you to think.
Click to expand...

The National Review should be used as toilet paper. Only an idiot would read anything the National Review wrote and say "Yeah man, maybe we should do that, those guys got a decent track record, man".

You neocons crack me up. YOu thought you were going to run the world and then you found out that most of the world doesn't like you, and you still can't believe it. Deep down, and it shows in your posts, you believe the people of Pakistan are waiting for America to come save them.

But they're not. And they will put a bullet in your ass if you try.
 
uscitizen said:
And why did we block Japans oil and steel , etc ?
Because they invaded China among other places ?
Click to expand...

Well that's why claiming that you know why FDR did what he did and what he was thinking when he did it, is the definition of speculation, and irresponsible speculation to boot.

Who knows what FDR has to do with this, but it's amazing where neocons will go to try and divert attention from their gathering shitstorm.
 
Ohh I see it the other way around. Based on what we did by cutting off oil to Japan for invading an occupying China, another country would be right for doing to us today for invading and occupying Iraq....No difference....
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh I see it the other way around. Based on what we did by cutting off oil to Japan for invading an occupying China, another country would be right for doing to us today for invading and occupying Iraq....No difference....
Click to expand...

Forget it, this American exceptionalism is rampant and inbred and you can't get them to see it. It's always different, when it's us.
 
Darla said:
Forget it, this American exceptionalism is rampant and inbred and you can't get them to see it. It's always different, when it's us.
Click to expand...

Yeah because we deserve it....sigh....

starts up chorous of Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.....
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh I see it the other way around. Based on what we did by cutting off oil to Japan for invading an occupying China, another country would be right for doing to us today for invading and occupying Iraq....No difference....
Click to expand...

Yes, you're getting it now. It was FDR's fault that pearl harbor was attacked, because he embargoed OUR oil to japan when they attacked OUR allies.

I'm amazed that when Poppy Bush and Clinton put sanctions on Iraq, neocons weren't crying for Iraq to attack us.
 
Darla said:
The National Review should be used as toilet paper. Only an idiot would read anything the National Review wrote and say "Yeah man, maybe we should do that, those guys got a decent track record, man".

You neocons crack me up. YOu thought you were going to run the world and then you found out that most of the world doesn't like you, and you still can't believe it. Deep down, and it shows in your posts, you believe the people of Pakistan are waiting for America to come save them.

But they're not. And they will put a bullet in your ass if you try.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is my impression too.

NeoCons are in deep, deep denial. They keep reading pundits who have been disasterously wrong for years, and they simply can't imagine why the world hates them and their policies. Its like that book review I posted of bush. They have absolute certitude and belief in themselves and their cause, in spite of all the facts to the contrary.

Oh, and they're in denial about their war- as we can see, by them trying to draw equivalency between bush's fucked up war, and saying that FDR was just as bad as bush.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, you're getting it now. It was FDR's fault that pearl harbor was attacked, because he embargoed OUR oil to japan when they attacked OUR allies.

I'm amazed that when Poppy Bush and Clinton put sanctions on Iraq, neocons weren't crying for Iraq to attack us.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Darla said:
It certainly is speculation to claim you know what FDR's motivations were, that is the very definition of speculation, sorry.
Click to expand...

I did not speculate as to his motivations for blocking the oil. I stated that it is NOT speculation that he did it. He did. Or do you think that is simply a myth that we blocked the oil from Japan?
 
Darla said:
The National Review should be used as toilet paper. Only an idiot would read anything the National Review wrote and say "Yeah man, maybe we should do that, those guys got a decent track record, man".

You neocons crack me up. YOu thought you were going to run the world and then you found out that most of the world doesn't like you, and you still can't believe it. Deep down, and it shows in your posts, you believe the people of Pakistan are waiting for America to come save them.

But they're not. And they will put a bullet in your ass if you try.
Click to expand...

No dumbshit, that is not what I am saying. If you would bother to pull your head out of your ass you would see that the whole point of this was to try to figure out a way to solve this potential problem. To open it up for ideas and suggestions. To discuss the issue. But idiots like you want to turn this into another thread chant of "bush is evil" or "you must be a neo con" bullshit.

I asked you and others for ideas and potential solutions. In return you start your parrot routine.

So I ask you one last time.... HOW would YOU proceed? Is your solution to this simply to stand on the side and HOPE really really hard? If not, then WHAT would YOU suggest.
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh I see it the other way around. Based on what we did by cutting off oil to Japan for invading an occupying China, another country would be right for doing to us today for invading and occupying Iraq....No difference....
Click to expand...

I actually agree with that. It would be the same.... so lets play this out a bit further.... IF a country were able to effectively block oil from the US.... how do you think we would respond?
 
What's happened is that our nation has been hijacked by globalists seeking to use our power to implement their own plans of global control. We are not wrong to criticize the use our government and resources in this fashion. But american citizens still have a right to be protected and jihad is a threat to all non muslims. Hence, we have a right to protect ourselves from nukes, but not to go and reengineer their society for more maximum use to the global machine. Hence, we should do what damo said, take their nukes, then leave.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What's happened is that our nation has been hijacked by globalists seeking to use our power to implement their own plans of global control. We are not wrong to criticize the use our government and resources in this fashion. But american citizens still have a right to be protected and jihad is a threat to all non muslims. Hence, we have a right to protect ourselves from nukes, but not to go and reengineer their society for more maximum use to the global machine. Hence, we should do what damo said, take their nukes, then leave.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with people criticizing our government. It is a responsibility of the people to hold our elected officials accountable. That said, who said anything about reengineering their society?

The rest I agree with you on.
 
Superfreak said:
I have no problem with people criticizing our government. It is a responsibility of the people to hold our elected officials accountable. That said, who said anything about reengineering their society?

The rest I agree with you on.
Click to expand...

Forcing elections? Hello? Reengineering society.
 
Making everyone submit to the World Bank, IMF, WTO and all that is reengineering their society.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/101100-101.htm
Stiglitz, an owlish intellectual who reminds audiences of Richard Dreyfuss, probably won't win the Nobel Prize in economics when it is announced this week. But he has earned every other distinction in the field -- a Ph.D. from MIT; the top prize for young economists from the American Economic Association; faculty positions at Yale, Princeton and Stanford. In 1995 he became chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and in 1997 chief economist for the World Bank.

Then, in a series of increasingly public critiques, Stiglitz delivered a stinging attack on the world trading system, a dissent that culminated with his resignation from the World Bank last year.

Stiglitz came to Minnesota last week to speak at the annual Nobel Conference sponsored by Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter to coincide with the announcement of the Nobel prizes.

Stiglitz argues that free trade and open markets could be forces for good -- reducing poverty in the Third World, sharing technology across borders, moving investment from rich nations to poor. But he says that trade has been "badly managed" by the rich countries and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), causing unnecessary instability and hardship in the developing world.

Stiglitz takes the debate to a higher level -- not just because he dissects the orthodoxy with its own tools, but because he uses the anecdotes of an insider to confirm the suspicions of the outsiders.

A few years ago, for example, Ethiopia came to the IMF seeking a loan to stabilize its troubled currency. Stiglitz had visited the east African nation and thought its progressive new leaders were taking the country in the right direction. But economists at the IMF balked at providing the loan. They didn't like Ethiopia's bookkeeping -- it counted foreign aid as well as tax revenues in reporting a balanced government budget. Stiglitz asked: So what? Foreign aid is unreliable, IMF economists replied. Stiglitz went home and had one of his World Bank researchers run a study; it turns out that foreign aid is actually a more stable revenue source than tax receipts for poor countries. But when he took these findings to his counterparts at the IMF, they refused to reconsider. "They wouldn't look at the facts," he said in an interview. "It was like talking to the wall."

About a year later, when the World Bank was preparing its widely read annual report on world economic conditions, the scholar in charge solicited several essays challenging the view that economic growth was reducing poverty. A top U.S. Treasury official read the draft and insisted that the criticisms be softened, according to Stiglitz. The editor resigned in protest, saying that politicians were rewriting staff research.

Then there was the debate over trade with South Korea. The Clinton administration was preparing for trade negotiations with its Asian ally and wanted to urge "capital market liberalization" -- that is, allowing Korean banks and corporations to borrow more easily from foreign lenders. Research by Stiglitz's staff at the Council of Economic Advisers showed that this might actually destabilize a small nation if its banks and regulators weren't ready for huge, fickle flows of money -- which is exactly what happened two years later. But when Stiglitz prepared a briefing paper on the matter, his rivals in the administration said the president didn't even need to study the question.

If Stiglitz finds fault with the big institutions of world trade, however, he would not tear them down. In fact, he thinks that free trade will ultimately be a good thing. And suddenly he sounds more like the leading scholars in international economics.

"Globalization does represent the best chance to lift the poor out of poverty they have lived in for centuries," he told the audience at Gustavus.

Later, in an interview, he added: "In China or Indonesia, the alternative to a job in a Nike factory might be unemployment and destitution. What you want is not for Nike to shut down, but for Nike to recognize that it doesn't cost much to build a factory with air conditioning, regular work breaks and so on."

What Stiglitz would like to see is better management of globalization, management that spreads the wealth. In particular:


The rich nations of North America and Europe should eliminate all tariffs and quotas on goods from developing countries. The poor nations would prosper faster if the rich nations would buy their sugar, peanuts, grains, textiles, shoes, garments and other low-tech goods.

Congress should fund the debt-relief program proposed by President Clinton so that poor countries, especially in Africa, don't have to spend so much of their current income repaying old debts to rich nations.

The IMF and the World Bank should have governing boards with greater representation from developing nations. The agencies now are funded chiefly by rich nations and operated by Western or Western-trained technocrats. These experts, Stiglitz says, often fail to understand the importance of such basic development tools as free primary schools and land redistribution.
Though Stiglitz has gained the reputation of a firebrand since his resignation from the World Bank, an hour's conversation shows him to be modest, funny, thoughtful, deeply concerned about social justice -- and ultimately optimistic.

"The marches (in Seattle and Prague) have had an effect," he said. "Remember that the marches of the Civil Rights movement and the (European) revolutions of 1848 had an effect too."

Maybe Stiglitz will turn out to be neither an insider nor an outsider, but a bridge between the two.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top