Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: mr crisper]
    #967413 -

imagine if every nation had the same proportion of overweight consumers and every nation enjoyed cheap oil and fuel guzzling cars - it wouldn't work.

That's right!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: Rono]
    #967421 -

Rono writes:

Pinky once again I feel flattered by your presence, it seems like the only time you post anymore is when I post first.

Don't flatter yourself. You are far from the only purveyor of dubious theories I choose to engage, but I will concede you are one of the more productive (in terms of sheer numbers of posts) of the breed.

1) I post several links and you decide to choose only one that you wouldn't consider main stream...I can live with that.

Some of them I didn't recognize, so I have no idea whether the average person would consider them mainstream or not. I just find it irritating that you tend to post a whole shotgun spread of links, then imply they are all "mainstream". Quantity is not synonymous with quality.

2) Why on earth would anyone in the administration admit that they were invading Iraq for the oil?

Politicians are not known for their ability to keep a secret, especially Washington politicians. I find it interesting that not only have there been no quotes from attribution, but also no "leaks from highly-placed sources" either. That is unusual. Unless, of course, there is nothing to leak.

but you would have to blind not to accept the possibility...or should I say the probability

There is no doubt that Iraq's possession of significant oil reserves is a complicating factor. As your links pointed out, one of the reasons the US is having a hard time gaining support from France in Russia is because those countries already have signed deals for oil in place with the current Iraq regime which they fear will not be honored by a new Iraqi government. If you look at it from THAT perspective, it IS all about oil, but not in the sense you mean.

you've had many good rebuttles (sic) to my posts...this wasn't one of them.

We all have our off days.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: Phluck]
    #967449 -

phluck writes:

That's the most retarded thing I've read all day. Maybe if you're so brain damaged that you don't have the ability to analyze what someone is saying. Most people, however, have some sort of reasoning skills.

You don't have to choose between blindly believing that everything you hear is false, or blindly believing that everything is true. You can be skeptical of everything, without totally dismissing everything.

And many people allow their reasoning skills to be pushed aside and rely on their preset convictions when confronted with statements from people in power. Rono, for example, has consistently chosen to believe statements from US government officials (and, to a much greater extent, EX-officials) if and only if he can present them as support for his monomania that everything the US does is related to seizing the world's supply of oil. He consistently ignores or categorizes as falsehoods any statements from the same officials that indicate otherwise.

That isn't healthy skepticism, that is bias.

pinky




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: Phred]
    #967831 -



--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Edited by Lallafa (06/10/11 10:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: mr crisper]
    #969452 -

the beautiful usa, made up of land stolen from mexico and the native americans, wealth grown on slave labor and an economy based upon the premise that excessive greed is good, too much is not enough.  What a country to be proud of.

Mr. crisper, are you reading my mind or am I reading yours.  The only way I could have said it better would be to put it in bold.  like so.  :smile: 


--------------------
"You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus." F and L in L.V.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: postalboy]
    #969562 -

Hey boy, it ain't American to think that way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: ]
    #969572 -

Quote:
Hey boy, it ain't American to think that way. 


Allow me to shorten that for you..."Hey boy, it ain't American to think" :grin:


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: Rono]
    #969597 -

I think it's fair to say that the proposed invasion of Iraq is NOT just about oil, although that is certainly one factor. The administration feels they can kill a lot of birds with this one stone:

Set the terms of the debate on homeland security so that the Democrats always seem one step behind (which leads to . . .)

Whip the country into a nationalistic/patriotic fervor so that lots of Republicans get swept into office in November

Pump up the economy in the medium term (i.e., so that it reaches a peak around November 2004)

Redeem the unfinished legacy of Bush the First

. . . and, last but not least, I suppose Bush and his posse actually DO believe, in their crude, uncomprehending, Cold-Warrior way, that removing Saddam actually might do something to protect Americans from terrorist atrocities. Of course, given the fact that the Sept. 11 terrorists needed no help whatsoever from Saddam (and no hard evidence shows that they actually received any), there's no reason why Saddam's demise will necessarily make Americans safer. In fact, quite to the contrary, it will galvanize anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and send thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more crazed young men into the arms of various terrorist organizations.

Saddam is interested first and foremost in his own survival. That's why he didn't deploy chemical and biological weapons during the first Gulf War, even though he easily could have. He knew that doing so would drive the US to seek him out and destroy him at any cost. He also knows that any aid he gives to terrorist organizations will sooner or later be traced back to him, giving the US, once again, valid reason to come in and destroy him. However, if it appears that the US is going to come in and destroy him ANYWAY, he has no reason whatsoever to refrain from using WMD on American troops and giving away whatever is left to terrorist organizations.

Just as dangerously, a war on Iraq could destabilize Pakistan to the point where highly placed individuals in Pakistan's nuclear arms program (a number of whom are Muslim fundamentalist sympathizers) might feel compelled and find the opportunity to slip fissible material and technological know-how into the hands of terrorists. There are also tons of chemical and biological weapons sitting in badly guarded laboratories throughout the former Soviet Union that could sooner or later be seized by terrorists.

The US has enjoyed military supremacy over the rest of the world for a very long time, and Cold Warriors have a very hard time coming to grips with the reality of asymmetrical warfare in which, no matter how strong you are, you are still vulnerable. The administration thinks they will be able "stamp out" terrorists wherever they might arise, and in order to do so they will engage in even more of the imperialist behavior which has inspired the terrorism in the first place. They seem to be oblivious to the vicious circle which they are creating, and unfortunately it seems that many more Americans (as well as people of other nationalities) will die before American policymakers come to accept that their current paradigm has very tragically failed to keep pace with a changing reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #969617 -

that makes sense

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: Innvertigo]
    #969665 -

"just another reason we should drill in Alaska"

Why use our reserve up when we can take the "ragheads" :laugh: oil. They don't need it anyway.



--------------------
Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.-Benjamin Franklin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: Lallafa]
    #970489 -

thanks lallafa, i enjoyed reading your post, much more coherent than anything i could sling together!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #973150 -

I think it's fair to say that the proposed invasion of Iraq is NOT just about oil

Oh I completely agree. it's also about taking that next step toward globalization, to further degrade our constitutional rights, and to scare the shit out of us so we welcome national ID cards/Vera chips/surveillance cameras. In the Gulf War, USA lost 79 men, Irag lost something like 150,000. GO USA!!!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does this look familiar? [Re: chodamunky]
    #973667 -

It isn't all about oil, it's just 99% about oil  :grin:

America might not "need" iraq oil but having access to it will enable american corporations to make billions of dollars.

America doesn't  "need" shopping malls - but they still get built.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* What is "mainstream Islam"?
( 1 2 all )		 retread 5,862 39 09/06/04 09:19 PM
by silversoul7
* No bias in the Mainstream Media, nuh-uh.
( 1 2 all )		 Phred 2,254 22 08/26/05 11:34 AM
by Phred
* Powell lies finally coming out in mainstream media PsiloKitten 551 1 10/14/03 11:33 PM
by afoaf
* Know Thy Enemy -- The Mainstream Media Phred 596 1 09/30/04 10:39 PM
by Worf
* Sound familiar? IRan is 5 years away from Atomic weapon
( 1 2 all )		 ZippoZM 3,205 23 09/03/06 12:29 PM
by fireworks_god
* Drug Company Lets People Go Blind DiploidM 1,114 10 06/18/06 02:16 PM
by Phred
* Battle Brews As Porn Moves Into Mainstream RandalFlagg 1,043 3 04/02/06 06:45 PM
by DoctorJ
* To those who feel the mainstream media gives Ron Paul the short end of the stick.. OneMoreRobot3021 1,504 10 12/21/07 08:35 AM
by fireworks_god

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,702 topic views. 1 members, 16 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 15 queries.