France And Germany Fund Terror

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear rightturnonred,

You ask

Why don't you tell me exactly how past US actions have resulted in the growth of Islamo-Facist terror around the world. Don't just pull some bull out of your ass, I want historical examples.

Here is but one...Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his 'Party of God'. Fighting the Soviets, to be sure, as was Osama Bin Laden. But for what goal? Democracy in Afghanistan? Surely neither the US nor you could be so blind.

The famous quote "the enemy of your enemy is your friend' should be changed to "the enemy of your enemy (and you) all owe the same international bank".

When you say

Everything in that post is the result of twisted perceptions and outright fabrications. None of it really has any basis in fact.

I must disagree, Mr. Farrius has directly quoted lots of undeniable facts. The CIA had themselves stated that the installing of the Shah of Iran was one of their greatest coups, as it was done for a mere $60,000US.

If you are going to put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA to the truth, then I suggest it is you who twist reality to fit your perceptions. Do you think that the CIA must be lying when they took credit for the coup?

Your argument that the US can only do good if its actions do not benifit itself defies logic.

The US has only US interests in mind. I believe the logic in this statement is that if the US benefits anyone else other than itself, it is inadvertent, as that was not it's primary goal. It's primary goal is to profit, not share.

[KrustyKidd]

The US has only US interests in mind. I believe the logic in this statement is that if the US benefits anyone else other than itself, it is inadvertent, as that was not it's primary goal. It's primary goal is to profit, not share.

What's your primary goal Riff? I havn't gotten too many cheques from you lately so can only figure you are looking after your own as a primary load station as are all governments. I would imagine even the most ardent Leftie would oust the Liberals pretty quick if they started catering to any other country rather than our own. You must be estatic and a huge Bush supporter now that he has combined the goals of the US with the freedom of the people of Iraq? And sharing? Well, five hundred Billion Dollars going down range with no chance of getting it back.

That's right Riff, not a hope in hell of getting that money back. There isn't that much oil there for starters and even if there was, by the time it was pumped, refined, sold, transported and needed to be used (as you can't use it all at once) we'll be flying electric cars.. So, I would say that along with a SERIOUS redirection of foreign policy by the US government they are also riding on a high of actually helping somebody as well. Are you not happy about it? We all win! You get a people freed, a change of foreign policy, the world gets one less outhouse where terroists can breed and a twenty five million person market open for business.

Anyhow, guess you missed Morgan's post. It's only a couple up, I'll quote it here for you.

What difference does it make? If a nation benifits from US foreign policy, it means that nation has interests in common with the United States. The ultimate aim of American foreign policy has been to ensure the survival and growth of our principles of democracy and freedom, principles that many nations, like S. Korea, have in common with the US.

Your argument that the US can only do good if its actions do not benifit itself defies logic.

He also said somthing about how helping Saddam and other dictators defeat their enemies (who at the time happened to be our enemies) did not mean automatically that they have the right to attack us. I know that is leftist logic but is not based on any loose sense of reality. Speaking of reality, if you have noticed, there has been, scince Bush has taken office a distinct difference in foreign policy. Afganistan was bombed with food, money and aid more than explosives. The 'Shock and Awe' in Iraq was a mind game designed to destabilise Iraqi leadership and it worked. Instead they got kid gloves in order to leave the country intact in order to rebuild in a democratic form. This is a distinct difference from the first part of the war in '91.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

That's right Riff, not a hope in hell of getting that money back. There isn't that much oil there for starters

The largest known and confirmed reserves are there.

The ultimate aim of American foreign policy has been to ensure the survival and growth of our principles of democracy and freedom,

Utter nonsense. The ultimate aim is more power and profit for the US, hence the support of dictatorships where US economic interests are dependent on squashing democracy.

I did not miss Morgan's post, I laughed at it.

in order to leave the country intact in order to rebuild in a democratic form. This is a distinct difference from the first part of the war in '91.

Yes, there was a big difference. The US and coalition did not enter Iraq. They did not act solely on the issuance of a resolution penned by the US/UK only, either.

[KrustyKidd]

Dear KK,

That's right Riff, not a hope in hell of getting that money back. There isn't that much oil there for starters

The largest known and confirmed reserves are there.

The ultimate aim of American foreign policy has been to ensure the survival and growth of our principles of democracy and freedom,

Utter nonsense. The ultimate aim is more power and profit for the US, hence the support of dictatorships where US economic interests are dependent on squashing democracy.

I did not miss Morgan's post, I laughed at it.

in order to leave the country intact in order to rebuild in a democratic form. This is a distinct difference from the first part of the war in '91.

Yes, there was a big difference. The US and coalition did not enter Iraq. They did not act solely on the issuance of a resolution penned by the US/UK only, either.

2nd largest actually. Five hundred billion dollars worth of oil to repay what the US spent? Hmm, lets see ....

Oil reserves of 100 billion barrels.

3 million a day pumped at full steam is 33 thousand days or a hundred years.

Oil price: $30 a barrel

Pumping, refining, transport and infastructure costs; $20 a barrel

Leaves profit of $10 a barrel.

Most has to go to the Iraqis themselves so give a figure of $7 for Iraq and $3 for the US in payback.

This leaves a repayment of $9 million a day on an investment of five hundred billion dollars.

Fifty thousand days to make back the investment. Hey! Your great, great, grandchildren will get the final payment around the year 2150! Now that is economics at work!

Now, let's put a little interest on this amount. What rate shall we use? LOL Forget it, it's an unatainable amount anyways Lonius. The argument is crap.

It just goes to show that the reason for the action in Iraq was not for oil unless of course the US administrationis using your economic strategy. And if not for democracy then what?

The rest of your post was a unsubstanciated one liner and something about a resolution. Was it refering to the ceasefire agreement that was set in place in '91 saying that it was conditional on Iraq's adherence to UN res 687 or was there something else

[Craig Read]

This post is about France and Germany funding terror.

They do, and they opposed Gulf War II due to economic and investment interests.

Period.

None of the adolescent vitriol by Riff Raff and Fairyius and the well named Fleabag make any sense.

The US has freed 35 nations and one of them, South Korea, is according to Fairyius a bad example because it is geopolitically relevant. Good one. Ask the South Koreans if they would prefer to live under North Korean or Chinese dominion. Have a referendum there. Ask them if they prefer US military protection or the good words of the Chinese communist dictatorship. In fact ask Hong Kong that same question.

The answer is obvious except to the most rabid of marxist ideologues who vouchsafe that socialism and fascism are redeemable systems - in which millions are murdered of course, but that is preferable to US military-capitalist domination.

The US is in Iraq for GEOPOLITICAL reasons in fighting terrorism. As KK said they will never receive back their return on investment from this campaign, UNLESS by so doing they prevent another 9-11. Iraq is the perfect place to start rebuilding the Middle East and as yesterday's PRO DEMOCRACY demonstrations in BAGHDAD made clear [of course NOT shown on the CBC], the Iraqi people WANT reform, not Saddam.

I don't know why the mindless minions of marxist anti-americanism are even allowed to post on here. They add ZERO value to the discussion.

As i posted previously and it cannot be refuted, certainly not by the trash posted by the 3 merry marxist members:

The Bush doctrine is a new US policy that seeks to eradicate terror at the source. So now we have Lie-berals stating:

1. Past policy which freed 35 nations and destroyed Communism [Rep. policy thank you] was no good. Some bad guys were supported and we don't [tears in eyes, reaching for kleenex] like that.

2. Current policy to protect against another 9-11 and depose fascist regimes that murder their own citizens is not good, since well, the UN and France don't like it and is frankly too manly for us.

So how to please the Lie-berals ??

Easy - let the fascists control the world, the UN become a world government and let terrorists win the war.

Then MAYBE they will be content [as long as they can still watch the BBC or CBC and Joe Millionaire].