HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis

[Jeff Davis]

--- spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> >RE: HM Re: [extropy-chat] Re: US not right to
> invade say Iraqis
> 
> I am pleased in a way that a majority of Iraqis say
> that the US was not right to invade.  That means
they
> will cheer when the US devades, or exvades.  (What
is it 
> called when we go away?  

Bail.  Cut and run.  Better late than never.  Good
judgement, at long last.

> I call it the start of the fourth
> Iraqi war, 

The bit about "There'll be a horrible civil war if we
leave!" is just another lie brought to you by the same
folks who brought you the WMDs and the Al-Quaida
connections.  These were the lies to get the US in,
the "civil war" exaggeration is the lie to keep us in.
 They're professional liars with the emphasiss on
"professional".  When they move their lips, your first
thought should be, "Bullshit!"

If we left in the most precipitous fashion imaginable
there would be a short spasm of violence (maybe six
weeks tops) until equilibrium was established, and
then the Iraqis would get on with enjoying being the
filthy rich nation they will be when they finally get
rid of the foreign bandits and/or their domestic
clients who have been looting the country since 1920. 
(For verification of this last point see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml)

I could make the case for the above assertion -- no
civil war of any import -- with data, argument, and
links, but I offer it without these so as to bring
attention to the fact that the counter-assertion --
about the horrible civil war -- was itself just thrown
at you with no evidence to support it, by proven,
declared (see the philosophy of Leo Strauss),
previously convicted liars.  Yet so utterly uncritical
and recalcitrantly credulous are all segements of the
US that no one says, "What clothes?  What wolf? 
What's wrong with this picture?"  

> and good luck to the Iraqis in that one.)
> 
> > ...Anymore than you know that Iran or other
> > countries didn't become more hostile and more 
> > likely to want to harm
> > Americans... Brett Paatsch
> 
> If you read the yankee newspapers, it sounds like
> the Iranians are hostile to the Europeans more than
the
> US.  

Give me a link on this on, spike.  I've never noticed
it.

> Of course our press lies, so I don't know if
> the Iranian president really did say Israel should
> be wiped off the map or that the holocaust never 
> happened.  

> But if he did say these things, 
> it's likely only a matter of time before Iran gets 
> into a shooting war with the EU.

Not a chance.  The Europeans are working their tails
off just trying to keep the US an/or Israel from
attacking Iran and setting off a war stretching from
the Meditterranean to Kashmir.  
They prefer oil at fifty rather than five hundred
dollars a barrel.

> 
>
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/16/iran.israel/index.html
> 
> In all this reprehensible bluster, the Iranian prez
> does make one interesting point: the Europeans slew 
> the Jews, so why was Israel established in Palestine
> instead of Germany?  I don't have the answer to that
> one.

You're kidding, right?  First, show me a nation
European or otherwise that ever evinced a willingness
to donate (its own) national territory for any purpose
whatever.  Someone else territory?  No problem.  Wog
territory?  Sure, what's in it for us?  (Approximation
of the discussion between the British power elite and
the leadership of the World Zionist Organization circa
1917.)

> 
> Perhaps if Israel had been established elsewhere
> besides Palestine, there would not be the one thing
on which
> pretty much all Arabs agree: a hatred for the Jews
> and Israel.  

Ya think? ;-}

> So without them, the Arab world would be
> pretty much constantly at war with itself

Or -- absent the anti-arab bigotry -- polishing their
Mercedes', tending their gardens, and snacking on
hummus.

> and it would scarcely make mention in the newspapers
here, 
> any more than it did in those years that Iran and
> Iraq were fighting each other back in the 80s.

With Rumsfeld glad-handing Saddam, and US corporations
selling him the precursors for those WMDs.

Right about now is a good time to recommend this link:

Harold Pinter – Nobel Lecture. Art, Truth & Politics. 

http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html

You may have heard of it.

I you want, you can skip the first part, a discussion
of literary matters.  And if you're really pressed for
time, just start at 10min 30 secs and listen to the
next 50 secs.  Listen further as pleases you.   

My dog is bugging me to go out for walk, so I'm gonna
forgo my usual spell check.  Please forgive.

Best, Jeff Davis

  "During times of universal deceit, telling the
         truth becomes a revolutionary act." 
                         George Orwell


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com