Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantThis photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]
ParticipantThis photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]
ParticipantThis photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]
Participantarraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.
Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.
Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.
The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.
It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.
Participantarraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.
Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.
Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.
The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.
It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.
Participantarraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.
Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.
Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.
The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.
It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.
Participantarraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.
Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.
Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.
The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.
It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.
Participantarraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.
Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.
Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.
The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.
It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.
Participantmarion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.
Ta.
Participantmarion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.
Ta.
Participantmarion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.
Ta.
Participantmarion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.
Ta.
Participantmarion: No worries, please relax. I knew what you meant, and was responding accordingly. No insult taken, and I know there was none intended.
Ta.
Participantmarion: Gee, thanks. Really. I feel soooo much better about myself now.
Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Fortunately, I try not to think too much, and that really seems to help. That’s one of the nice things about having that arch conservative mindset: I’m well conditioned enough to not question things (or look too closely at them).
-
AuthorPosts
