D
daedalus77 said:all decisions create beneficiaries, right? we as individuals have to ask "who benefits from the wars in the middle east?" only then do we begin to identify the real motives for these wars. hopefully, the realization will be that the common american has nothing to do with this fiasco by big businesses. we, the common american, have nothing to gain by sending our childeren to die in some rediculus political agend.
No. That’s another topic altogether though isn’t it? For the sake of argument, I’ll pretend to accept your claim for now.daedalus77 said:all decisions create beneficiaries, right?
Ok, who benefits from the wars in the Middle East?daedalus77 said:we as individuals have to ask "who benefits from the wars in the middle east?" only then do we begin to identify the real motives for these wars.
I’m sorry but you just changed the subject. You went from a person asking honest questions to a person making biased assumptions in one sentence. What about all the meat in the middle you so conveniently chose to bypass?daedalus77 said:hopefully, the realization will be that the common american has nothing to do with this fiasco by big businesses.
Not so. I have much to gain from it and it has noting to do with my stock holdings or for whom I work.daedalus77 said:we, the common american, have nothing to gain by sending our childeren to die in some rediculus political agend.
daedalus77 said:hopefully, the realization will be that the common american has nothing to do with this fiasco by big businesses.
"who benefits from the wars in the middle east?"
Turenne said:Illogical Liberal Conspiracy Theory #569.No this war has nothing to do with 'big business'.Stupid as the invasion no doubt is and no matter how much Chomsky you have read,US foreign policy isn't based around the whims of 'big business'.
daedalus77 said:all decisions create beneficiaries, right? we as individuals have to ask "who benefits from the wars in the middle east?" only then do we begin to identify the real motives for these wars. hopefully, the realization will be that the common american has nothing to do with this fiasco by big businesses. we, the common american, have nothing to gain by sending our childeren to die in some rediculus political agend.
PatriotSon said:That is a statement with no substantiating evidence. I didn’t say war would end terrorism. I said education would. I took several paragraphs to explain my position in detail, outlining my reasoning. You did nothing of the sort. So I will place you opinion with the rest of the mindless theories and unsubstantiated assertions that are common in the liberal thought processes.
Kelzie said:It isn't? Ever heard of the United Fruit Company and Guatemala? How much was Halliburton's various contracts for? And how much did we have to buy from various arms companies? Not saying that it's the only reason for the "War on Terror", but these mega-corporations have thousands of lobbyists at Capital Hill, some of whom make millions lobbying for the corporations.
Turenne said:Your missing the point.Guatamala had to do with communism not business,just like Iran 1953 had nothing to do with oil.How those Haliburton's actions directly infleunce US foreign policy?While many of these companies owned by profiteers like Cheney and Perle have power,to say that the US's foreign policy is influenced by corporations doesn't work.The typical Chomsky idea that the flawed US foreign policy during the Cold war was thought out by corporations instead of paranoia over communism is incorrect.
No, I'm not missing the point. You've missed your history lesson. There was no communism in Guatemala. What there was, was a democratically elected president (Arbenz) who tried to buy back the land from the United Fruit Company so he could give it to his starving people to grow food on. There was also connections between the CIA and the United Fruit Company, much propaganda by the United Fruit Company to convince the US that Guatemala had turned communist (looks like it worked on some), and finally a CIA led coup called PBSUCCESS. The coup led to 30 more years of repressions and killings.
To say that corporations have no affect on American foreign policy is very misinformed.
Turenne said:There's a clear difference here.The United Fruit Company didn't say to the CIA to simply iniatate covert action because of Guzmans redistribution of lands but instead fed off the rabid US paranoia of Communism taking hold in a South American country and then spreading.The covert action in Guatamala was still because of the CIA and US's paranoia over Communism.
Sorry but the actions of the United Fruit Company 50 years ago have little relation to the actions of present day Haliburton in Iraq.I would ask you for prrof that Haliburton had much to do with the invasion of Iraq but you won't be able to provide any.
Well, we do know that Haliburton is raping the United States financially:Kelzie said:And it took 50 years for this information to come out. It is very possible in another 50 that we'll have damning information on Halliburton too.
KBR spent millions getting $82,100 worth of LPG into Iraq
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there — quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel.
Gandhi>Bush said:Re-education is a great thing to preach, but when you pick up a gun you begin working backwards.
teacher said:If their existing society only lets them learn "hate America and the Jews", how then Gandhi, do they get re-educated at all. And don't say, "the truth will find a way".
Gandhi>Bush said:The truth will find a way? When have I ever suggested something like that?
]You think they see nothing? You think all current events come from the local bomb vest vendor?
This is you from War on terror is bogus #376.
I was saying we have to crash into Afghanistan and by force open their eyes. Force the free flow of information and freedom of the press. You were saying the info gets in there anyway.
I, teacher, of the giant brain never forgets anything...now where are my pants?.......
Gandhi>Bush said:There are ways of putting pressure on a governement and ways of persuasion that could open all sorts of options that most people simply don't have the patience to even consider.
teacher said:Well yes. Beam radio and TV at them. Underground literature and so on. But the problem is in an oppressive government they stand the chance of being killed just for possessing or listening to such. Secret police and all. So I put forth the government has to go. You can sanction them all you want. Think Saddam and those in power missed one meal because of sanctions? Did we not try all these things in Iraq. How many lives were lost because of our invasion? And how many did Saddam kill and how many more would have been killed if he were left in power? In the long run how many would still be alive if we had not waited all those years for a "diplomatic solution". I understand your non violence stand Gandhi I really do but what if violence saves lives in the long run. Are you more concerned with not doing violence than you are of the lives saved from doing said violence? I feel less people died because of our invasion of Iraq than would be dead by now if we hadn't.
Gandhi>Bush said:I believe that this war in Iraq has spread terrorism. I believe that this war has polarized many muslims into those that the love America and hope that we will rush to their country next, and those that hate America and intend on rushing to our country next, or in today's case our allies' country. I believe that GWB said that he wanted to spread a moderate islam, but I believe that he has destroyed the moderates and forced everyone into the extremes. There is a good side to the extreme, but there is also a very very bad side to the extreme.
When it comes to sanctions, sanctions on food hurt the people, it should not be our aim to hurt the people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?