Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #251022] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 15:19 |
|
Originally posted by: Guido
David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
> Because instability in other parts of the world never comes back to bite
> us in the ass?
Only when we stick our nose where it doesn't belong :/
Since we think we "know better", we butt in and give reason for others
to hate us. Then we get bit.
|
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #251024 is a reply to message #251023] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 18:30 |
|
Originally posted by: Tim McGaughy
catpandaddy wrote:
>
> "Guido" <hcharper@goldenvalleycable.com> wrote in message
> news:hpqj17$5mi$1@news.parasun.com...
>> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>>
>>> Because instability in other parts of the world never comes back to bite
>>> us in the ass?
>>
>> Only when we stick our nose where it doesn't belong :/
>> Since we think we "know better", we butt in and give reason for others
>> to hate us. Then we get bit.
>
> How to determine where we do belong though? Some might say we should
> have stayed out of the Croation conflict during the Clinton years.
Would have been nice. All we managed to do for a very long time was to
prevent the croats and muslims from equipping themselves for proper
defense, while the serbs ran around the countryside committing war
crimes right and left.
It's noteworthy that the serbs didn't come to the peace table until we
got tired of trying to police the place and just started swatting them
whenever we saw them on the move. If we'd simply let others arm their
cities, we'd have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
And the ONE place we actually SHOULD have intervened, we screwed up
horribly. So now we have goddamn pirates in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #251029 is a reply to message #251022] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 20:45 |
|
Originally posted by: David Loewe, Jr.
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:06:22 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
wrote:
> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:53:37 -0600, RT <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> OM wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:54:17 +0700, Guido
>>>> <hcharper@goldenvalleycable.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I responded to the claim that there was absolutely no reason to invade
>>>> > Iraq in 2003, saying oil was a good reason, which Cheney/Halliburton
>>>> > didn't forget.
>>>> ...Kids, I'll say the same thing I said when this happened: no matter
>>>> what the spoils of war turn out to be, the end will wind up justifying
>>>> the means so long as we get Saddam Hussein and put him six feet under.
>>> Not America's problem.
>>
>> Because instability in other parts of the world never comes back to bite
>> us in the ass?
>
> Iraq had a stable government. We destroyed it and left chaos in its
> wake. How stable is that?
Note that I didn't specify stable "government."
Iraq went to war with Iran under your "stable government." Iraq invaded
and torched Kuwait under your "stable government."
The Iraqi government may have been "stable," it brought instability to
the region.
--
"Earth is the cradle of human kind, but one cannot live in a cradle
forever."
- Konstantin Tsiokovsky
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #251030 is a reply to message #251022] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 20:47 |
|
Originally posted by: David Loewe, Jr.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 02:19:00 +0700, Guido
<hcharper@goldenvalleycable.com> wrote:
> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>
>> Because instability in other parts of the world never comes back to bite
>> us in the ass?
>
> Only when we stick our nose where it doesn't belong :/
> Since we think we "know better", we butt in and give reason for others
> to hate us. Then we get bit.
Did we belong when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Was the region more stable when
Iran and Iran were engaged in their bloody war?
--
"It is a consolation to the wretched to have companions in misery."
- Publius Syrus
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #253053 is a reply to message #251022] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 20:54 |
|
Originally posted by: David Loewe, Jr.
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:11:02 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
wrote:
> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:39:36 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:27:33 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>>>> >> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:50:43 -0500, "catpandaddy" <cpd@cat.pan.net>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> >>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:04:30 -0500, "catpandaddy" <cpd@cat.pan.net>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> >>>>> I don't dispute that. I'm simply not sure what makes it such a big deal
>>>> >>>>> one way or the other. Is it simply a terminology argument, or is there
>>>> >>>>> something implicit in Shell's ownership by the Dutch that makes it a
>>>> >>>>> company to avoid?
>>>> >>>> Huh?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> This is about whether America received the (bulk of the) benefit of
>>>> >>>> liberating Iraq from the rule of the Ba'ath Party.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> My argument is that, if Shell received the contracts, then the Brits and
>>>> >>>> Dutch benefited. Note that no one arguing that America received the
>>>> >>>> benefit if Shell received the contracts has ever proven *which* RDS
>>>> >>>> subsidiary (and there are quite a number of them) holds the Iraqi
>>>> >>>> contracts - to whit, it has never been proven that the American Shell
>>>> >>>> Oil Company based in Houston TX holds them.
>>>> >>> Got it. Is the information publically available?
>>>> >> I don't know.
>>>> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/oi l-in-iraq.html
>>>> > US Companies Join Race on Iraqi Oil Bonanza (January 14, 2010)
>>>> > US companies, including Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford
^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> > International and Schlumberger, have arrived in Iraq to pursue
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> > rebuilding contracts which could total $10 billion over the next five years.
>>>> Why didn't you post the URL for what you quoted?
>>> It's right above what I quoted, Duhvid. It would seem that they moved
>>> the article.
>>
>> Given the structure of the page (a summary of and link to various
>> articles on Iraqi oil over several years), very doubtful.
>
> On reviewing it, I DO find tht quote on the original link, along with a
> number of links to other articles you should read.
Read what I wrote. The page has a snippet. The ARTICLE that snippet is
from is the one *I* gave.
>>>> As for the content, I have proven that Weatherford and Schlumberger are
>>>> not, as indicated in the article, Houston-based. Weatherford is a Swiss
>>>> company and Schlumberger merely has "offices" in Houston.
>>> Who cares?
>>
>> Why are you still posting here if you don't?
>
> Nobody was talking about Weatherford and Schlumberger,
Actually, YOU talked about Weatherford and Schlumberger. It is in the
material YOU quoted.
>>>> All that sound and fury and you didn't answer the freaking question.
>>> All I did was provide a few links.
>> None of which address the fundamental question of whether or not the
>> Shell subsidiary based in Houston is the one holding the contracts.
Still unable to answer the question, I see.
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #253054 is a reply to message #251022] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 20:57 |
|
Originally posted by: David V. Loewe, Jr
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:12:13 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
wrote:
> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:28:13 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:14:55 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > catpandaddy wrote:
>>>> >> Reposted without comment, save this:
>>>> > "Reposted without comment" means you won't comment.
>>>> Which part of "save this" was unclear to you?
>>> Reposted without comment, save this:
>>>
>>> It's a silly reply,
>>
>> And... ?
>
> If silly is your goal, then you're succeeding beyond your wildest dreams.
You're laughable.
*I* didn't post that. "catpandaddy" did. And *you* quoted him.
And, over in your other reply, you can't even figure out that you're the
one who mentioned Weatherford and Schlumberger. Give up while you're
still merely behind.
--
"Though these wounds have seen no wars
Except for the scars I have ignored
And this endless crutch, well it's never enough
It's been the Worst Day Since Yesterday"
- Flogging Molly
|
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #253056 is a reply to message #251022] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 22:05 |
|
Originally posted by: OM
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:06:22 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@toast.net>
wrote:
> Iraq had a stable government. We destroyed it and left chaos in its
> wake. How stable is that?
....Iraq had a dictatorship that was engaging in the first steps
towards coordinated genocide of a specific portion of the country's
populace. What gets me is that in the middle of all the bitching and
whining about the WMD claims being supposedly falsified, the Cheney
puppets havent' come up and shown us those uncovered documents found
that showed Saddam was making inquiries regarding the design and
construction of concentration camps for the purpose of rounding up and
exterminating the Kurds.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
|
|
|
Re: Caprice--Way to go Adama! (season finale spoilers) [message #253057 is a reply to message #253055] |
Sat, 10 April 2010 22:07 |
|
Originally posted by: OM
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:27:20 -0500, "catpandaddy" <cpd@cat.pan.net>
wrote:
> "Godwin. Hitler. Nazis."
>
> Thread over, per the FAQ about Godwin's Law.
....That doesn't work, CPD. The Allmighty God-Wind was an old college
buddy of mine, and even he agrees that the "Godwin Corollary" isn't
valid.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
|
|
|
Re: Pirates [message #253059 is a reply to message #251024] |
Sun, 11 April 2010 00:08 |
|
Originally posted by: Guido
Tim McGaughy wrote:
> And the ONE place we actually SHOULD have intervened, we screwed up
> horribly. So now we have goddamn pirates in the 21st century.
Always had Pirates, always will. It's not like they just popped up
recently. Sharks aren't the only reason to take a shotgun fishing,
especially in a nice boat.
|
|
|
Re: butting in [message #253061 is a reply to message #251030] |
Sun, 11 April 2010 00:36 |
|
Originally posted by: Guido
David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> Did we belong when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Was the region more stable when
> Iran and Iran were engaged in their bloody war?
Are we now to spend a month arguing what "stable" is and for whom?
Plain and simple, that was all about the oil, and US access to it in the
future. We didn't and still don't care about that region's stability as
long as we have access to the oil, and they leave the Jews alone.
We consider oil of "strategic interest", since "supplies are limited".
Cutting off Arab oil from the USA would incite panic and riots, and
cause tremendous loss of life as highway gangs tried to secure access to
local supplies. Didn't anyone watch Mad Max or Road Warrior movies? Take
that terror and cube it for an idea of what the USA would do without all
the oil it wants. We're unrepentant addicts about oil.
|
|
|