Bring it on, John Kerry

[ChefWide]

Chef

In La bro, sweating my ass off

Its grey and raining here, about 60 degrees... it must be fall... or summer.. or winter... maybe its.. well, never mind.

You think for one second that if the democratic process in Iraq produces, by the will of their people in an internationally verified fair voting process, a government that is Anti U.S. policy, Islamic by definition and/or decides to turn off the flow of oil to the west that the U.S. will stand for that?



We will be back in there with cruise missiles blazing so damn fast you won't have time to re-wrap your 'gift of democracy'.

I think every country in region deserves a democraticly elected government and that it is in the peoples best interests. You missunderstand me. The fact is that we are not in a hurry to depose the Saudi Family just as we would have let the Shah rule for another hundred years if he could have lived that long. All that matters is that the regimes tow the line according to OUR best interests, not according to the best interests of their people.

Answer me one question : What would be the Bush Regime's responce to a Saudi, Kuwaiti or Iraqi 'democracy' in the mideast that turned out to hate us? No WMD's, no internal strife, just no more oil for U.S.

What would happen?

 

[jerseyart]

Chef,

The response of the entire world to a shutdown of oil exports from the middle east would be to forcibly open the pipelines. Thats just reality.

Weighed against the local populations "rights" to their national resource would be the monumental consequences to billions throughout the world, and a depression that would make what happened in the 1930's look like a cake walk. It is a bigboys world, and you dont getr the right to pout and take your ball home whenever you become irritated. Do you think hundreds of millions of children should be allowed to freeze and starve because the Iraqi's decided to throw a hissy fit?

Whats odd is not that reality, but that you choose to criticiize both the eventuality and the steps being taken to prevent them from ever having to occure. Critics are a dime a dozen. What is your alternate solution?

 

[ChefWide]

Chef,

The response of the entire world to a shutdown of oil exports from the middle east would be to forcibly open the pipelines. Thats just reality.

Weighed against the local populations "rights" to their national resource would be the monumental consequences to billions throughout the world, and a depression that would make what happened in the 1930's look like a cake walk. It is a bigboys world, and you dont getr the right to pout and take your ball home whenever you become irritated. Do you think hundreds of millions of children should be allowed to freeze and starve because the Iraqi's decided to throw a hissy fit?

Whats odd is not that reality, but that you choose to criticiize both the eventuality and the steps being taken to prevent them from ever having to occure. Critics are a dime a dozen. What is your alternate solution?

You ended the need for argument by asserting what I have maintained all along: it's a big boys world. Fuck the rights of those people. If we need it, we take it, and there ain't shit to do about it. I am not arguing right or wrong here, that's the fact. You said it, I said it, we agree on it. The actual will of those people or their rights matter not. Oil is too important for that. 'Gift of Democracy', very funny indeed.

Like I said very clearly, it's not about right or wrong, it is what it is: just don't try and tell me its for some gause thin altruistic bullshit smokescreen about 'those poor people and their mean governments'.

Tell it like it is. Finally.

 

[bluepeter]

You ended the need for argument by asserting what I have maintained all along: it's a big boys world. Fuck the rights of those people. If we need it, we take it, and there ain't shit to do about it. I am not arguing right or wrong here, that's the fact. You said it, I said it, we agree on it. The actual will of those people or their rights matter not. Oil is too important for that. 'Gift of Democracy', very funny indeed.

Like I said very clearly, it's not about right or wrong, it is what it is: just don't try and tell me its for some gause thin altruistic bullshit smokescreen about 'those poor people and their mean governments'.

Tell it like it is. Finally.

ChefWide...........karma..........spread around............

 

[jerseyart]

Chef,

You mention worst case scenario. I agree, thats the reality

I also mentioned early on that although we have national interests, those interests are not necessarily exclusive with the interests of the local populations. Its in our interest to foster democracxy there, that doesnt mean that those democracies would not be in the best interests of the locals.

A wealthy man may give millions to charity for the exposure and good will of the communiyt. His motives arent pure, but that doesnt make those who received the charity more hungry or less well off than before he made that decision.

The idea that unless our motives are entirely altruistic, our actions, are undesirable, is childish. Of course we try to act in our self interest, which is often sympathetic with the local populations.

 

[ChefWide]

Is that how you will teach your kids?:

You play the game by the rules.. as long as you are winning. If you dont get your way and you are strong enough, kick the shit out of the other guy. In the long run all that matters is that you get your way.

The fact is, Jersey, that the worldwide catastrophe of no water/oil is coming.

I am just a bit edgey for my kids futures when the country I live in gets bulldozed and anexed by the U.S. because they need something we have here.

Just a matter of time, I suppose, eh?

 

[bluepeter]

Is that how you will teach your kids?:

You play the game by the rules.. as long as you are winning. If you dont get your way and you are strong enough, kick the shit out of the other guy. In the long run all that matters is that you get your way.

The fact is, Jersey, that the coming worldwide catastrophe of no water/oil is coming.

I am just a bit edgey for my kids futures when the country I live in gets bulldozed and anexed by the U.S. because they need something we have here.

Just a matter of time, I suppose, eh?

Try living in Canada. We can feel the eyes of the US government on our plentiful natural resources every day

 

[ChefWide]

Try living in Canada. We can feel the eyes of the US government on our plentiful natural resources every day

As in 'live with CANADIANS'?

Are you MAD!?!?



ok, maybe with Shelly, but thats it.

 

[jerseyart]

Chef,

It's reality

Could I do it, no. Could I give an order to retaliate after a nuclear attack against the US, no again. Could I order troops to war knowing that innocent women and children would be killed, no again. That's why I have no business being in public office.

If a town was surrounded by a horde of armed killers and there were only two options, either surrender an infant for torture and slaughter (in which case everyone else would live and be unharmed) or they would attack and everyone would die, which would you choose? I would likely choose the latter, which in my mind would seem more noble a course, but no kinder to those involved. A leader would choose the former.

Its easy to argue principles when you arent responsible for the lives of all those who will be destroyed by your decision. Good for you, you would respect the property rights of the poor Iraqis. Unfortunately such nobility will be of little comfort to the billions who would suffer as a result of your sense of right and wrong

 

[ChefWide]

Chef,

It's reality

Could I do it, no. Could I give an order to retaliate after a nuclear attack against the US, no again. Could I order troops to war knowing that innocent women and children would be killed, no again. That's why I have no business being in public office.

If a town was surrounded by a horde of armed killers and there were only two options, either surrender an infant for torture and slaughter (in which case everyone else would live and be unharmed) or they would attack and everyone would die, which would you choose? I would likely choose the latter, which in my mind would seem more noble a course, but no kinder to those involved. A leader would choose the former.

Its easy to argue principles when you arent responsible for the lives of all those who will be destroyed by your decision. Good for you, you would respect the property rights of the poor Iraqis. Unfortunately such nobility will be of little comfort to the billions who would suffer as a result of your sense of right and wrong

You assume that when I step up the throne that I won't already have 4.5 trillion dollars over the next five years earmarked for the infrastructure needed to get alternative energies including Nuke power up and running? Wrong again, dear.

I would have our industry powered and functional beyond fossil fuel stupidty within my first three terms in office. Priority one is to get self sufficient at whatever cost needed. FUCK THE MIDEAST and FUCK OIL. How dare ANYONE hold us hostage to their fucking whims!? Not on my watch.

Our national priority number one is get the technology rolling to be able to transport and grow food without oil. Within that need is ability to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels for the creation and maintainence of national infrastructure to a bare minimum. Then I would forcably divest the murderous Saudi bastards from my countries economy and tell them to drink their fucking oil.

THAT is how we win.

And I would roast in my own eternal self hatred and torment for it, but I would give up both my own son and you for the better good of the town. In a heartbeat. Your scenario would conclude that the armed villians would continue to exact tribute once they saw the willingness to give in, I would maintain that if we survive, we will one day overcome, if we are dead, there is no chance of that.

THAT defines me: 'For the greater good' not what defines the American Conservative movement: 'For the greater PROFIT of the few.'

And under my rule, the billions wouldn't suffer, because the iraqis wouldn't be an issue. Let them implode, we have our own energy sources.