Subtlety is not one of my strengths

Welcome to Small.To v2.0
Thursday, July 19 2018

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Singin\' In the Rain
Authored by: dbsmall onTuesday, April 01 2003
\"I won\'t be naive enough to tell you financial opportunity does not enter into the long term outcome possibilities. But, it would be moronic, and criminal, to commit a country to war to make a buck. But, fighting to protect a people that have been cowed and brutalized for 20 years is noble, and worth the effort. Because, freedom is what it is all about.\"

--->Right. It would be moronic and criminal to commit to war to make a buck. But fighting for idealism is great.
That\'s why we\'re engaged in warfare all over Africa (Congo, Rwanda to name a few). That\'s why we\'re liberating Tibet. That\'s why we bombed the crap out of N. Korea. Iran...they\'re toast. Pakistan, no they\'re not our allies. We\'re bombing Jordan, because it\'s all about FREEDOM.
Thank you for explaining it so clearly to me. We\'ve always been about fighting to free people.
The war on Iraq is about freeing an oppressed people.
What color is the sky in your world?


\"Not just for us, but for others in the middle east. Saudi princes, although autocratic, do not send Sarin gas into a village of dissenters. They don\'t rape wives in front of political prisoners. Their hands are dirty, make no mistake, but they do not brutalize their own people.\"

I\'m sorry, my head is spinning trying to keep up with which side of this you\'re on.
Either you think we should be fighting a war to protect the interests, sovereignty, and position of our own country (in which case I agree, at least, with your reasoning, but think there are more urgent threats than Iraq), or you think we should be fighting a war to protect an oppressed people from their own government.

If it\'s about threats to the US, the Saudis produced ObL, most of the 9/11 hijackers, the funding or the attacks in Tanzania and Kenya (ahem, which occured on the anniversary of U.S. troop arrival in Saudi Arabia for the liberation of Kuwait in Gulf War v. 1), royal family funding of some of the housing of the 9/11 hijackers....

If it\'s about threats to their own people, and freedom, then I must vehemently disagree with your assertions about the Saudis.

Oh, I\'m sure you\'ll criticise Amnesty International with ad hominem (probably just dismissing them as \"liberal\"). If you must, I hope you\'ll provide me with a trustworthy source that says the Saudis are as swell as you suggest.
In the meantime, http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/index.html

Amensty international says that the Saudis do pretty much all you say they don\'t.

But we\'re off the topic.

The historian suggests that flipping off our allies and enemies isn\'t a long-term strategy for international relations. I agree. And I also think there can be multiple motives for our actions (so I hope that---to some extent---you\'re right and we do care about freedom, but it\'s truly naive to believe that\'s the only or even primary reason Bush is attacking Iraq.)

Wag, wag, wag, the dog...
Singin\' In the Rain
Authored by: dbsmall onWednesday, April 02 2003
A couple of clarifications:

The whole religous metaphor was inspired by norcalfella\'s use of \"AMEN\". Then it became too fun to stop.

Paul Revere Society: yes, I figured your politics were aligned. But it also might have been inspired by your reference to \"one if by land, two if by sea\". Ya think?