Capitalism? There's no such a thing in this world, Michael... There isn't anything that close resemble free markets... economic power bend governments and people for their own interests... they manipulate the dumb masses... it's has been ALWAYS that way, don't be naive... LOL
When I say the US is looking like a third world country is in the sense that the corporate world bought everyone, control the government and invaded every sphere of people lives. Just that. And no, I'm not a leftist ( I already told you that)... I'm pretty much prefer this kind of world than living in a totalitarian socialist version of hell. But the "free world" isn't pretty... On 6/13/06, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Welcome to captialism. You should try it. It works. --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, these own much fewer shares than the big guys and are not part of the club. > > So you see no problem in maximizing profits at ALL costs, right? ;-) > > > > On 6/13/06, Michael Madigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's your problem with corporations. Little old ladies, school children, working stiffs, > they > > all own the corporation. > > > > --- "Helio W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I asked first and you didn't respond. I'll ask it again: > > > > > > "Will this "new government" work for Iraq people or for the interests > > > of the US government and corporations?" > > > > > > You know the answer. > > > > > > > > > On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Simple question for you Helio: > > > > > > > > Is Iraq and the world better off with: > > > > > > > > A.) Saddam in charge, still funding terror bombers in Gaza and > > > > subverting UN sanctions with the help of his buddies in the French > > > > government and elsewhere in the UN power structure; Zarqawi alive and > > > > roaming about freely; Al Qaeda with a potential, if not real, friend > > > > in power in Iraq, willing to scheme against the free world; Libya > > > > secretly and unbeknownst to just about everybody developing WMDs; the > > > > world still thinks we talk the talk of democracy, but don't walk the > > > > walk, let alone promote it in other parts of the world when our > > > > economic interests don't seem aligned. > > > > > > > > B.) New government elected by the Iraqi people (certainly not of our > > > > choosing, but at least elected) and negotiated between Iraqis despite > > > > sectarian strife; Saddam on trial, his sons neutralized; Zarqawi > > > > feeding worms; Al Qaeda on the defensive; Libya turning over a new > > > > leaf and handing over their weapons program; dictators and mullahs > > > > actively worrying that we take all this democracy talk seriously, and > > > > in a panic over the spread thereof in their own backyard. > > > > > > > > Take your pick. Thanks to America's actions, we live in the real World > > > > B, but you are free like many on this list to continue living in the > > > > long-gone World A if you please. > > > > > > > > We still have problems in Iran and North Korea, not to mention here at > > > > home, and I don't know how they are going to play out, but in general > > > > I can't yet see everything we've done so far as purely bad and > > > > ill-conceived, no matter how hard some people seem to want to paint > > > > them that way. > > > > > > > > - Bob > > > > > > > > ! -----Original Message----- > > > > ! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ! [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Helio W. > > > > ! Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:50 PM > > > > ! To: ProFox Email List > > > > ! Subject: Re: [OT] What does Sen Biden really mean? > > > > ! > > > > ! So the US is going to put a democratically elected government in > > > > Iraq. > > > > ! Will this "new government" work for Iraq people or for the interests > > > > ! of the US government and corporations? Please don't be naive nor > > > > ! consider me a fool by saying that both things can be acomplished > > > > ! simutaneously. > > > > ! > > > > ! > > > > ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ! > > > > > ! > ! > > > > ! > ! Bob, do you really believe the US never intervened in other > > > > ! > countries > > > > ! > ! for economic interests? > > > > ! > > > > > ! > Who said that? Not I. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > Clearly it is in our economic interest to have a regime in Iraq > > > > that > > > > ! > isn't pro-terror, anti-United States, with delusions of > > > > ! being the next > > > > ! > Nebuchadnezzar. It is moreover in our economic interest to > > > > ! ensure that > > > > ! > long-term, all despotic regimes in the middle east are > > > > ! toppled and/or > > > > ! > otherwise replaced by democratically elected governments and > > > > control > > > > ! > of the education of the Arab "man in the street" is wrested from > > > > the > > > > ! > hate-filled religious fanatics who fund and breed fodder > > > > ! for Al Qaeda. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > That hasn't always been so, sadly. We have funded those regimes > > > > and > > > > ! > propped them or indirectly allowed them to be propped up > > > > ! for the sake > > > > ! > of "cheap oil" and our policy in Iraq has them all more or less > > > > ! > shaking their boots and flipping out. This notion that our > > > > economic > > > > ! > interests were served better by dictators with a heavy hand rather > > > > ! > than free societies is what has changed in our outlook since 9/11. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > I would like to point out that the claim that we invaded > > > > ! for cheap oil > > > > ! > was precisely backward. It was for the sake of cheap oil > > > > ! that we never > > > > ! > cleaned that rats nest in the first place. Now that oil is > > > > ! a bit more > > > > ! > expensive maybe the lunacy of that argument can be shown for what > > > > it > > > > ! > always was. The people who were fighting for cheap oil were > > > > ! the people > > > > ! > who fought against us and still seem to think the world would be a > > > > ! > better place with Saddam in power. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > For France and certain elements in other European > > > > ! countries, it was in > > > > ! > their economic interest to keep Saddam in place and > > > > ! eventually to get > > > > ! > the sanctions lifted for Chirac's buddy. I don't begrudge them > > > > their > > > > ! > rational self-interest, but I note sadly that in light of their > > > > ! > unseamly involvment in the oil-for-food scandal, none of > > > > ! our armchair > > > > ! > patriots here seem the least offended that what really lie beneath > > > > ! > their opposition to our military engagement was little more than > > > > ! > kickbacks and bribes, not the lofty principles articulated by that > > > > ! > fraud de Villepin in his passionate knife-in-the-back of > > > > ! Colin Powell > > > > ! > at the UN. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > The higher gas prices that have resulted were not in our short > > > > term > > > > ! > economic interests, and hence were contrary to the short term > > > > ! > political interests of the Republican party and President Bush. > > > > They > > > > ! > have exacted their toll, and may give power back to the Democrats > > > > in > > > > ! > November. But if we stay the course, long term the ME will > > > > ! be a better > > > > ! > place because we took action that in the big scheme of things will > > > > ! > redound to the positive, though that doesn't mean nothing > > > > ! negative can > > > > ! > or will happen. The only people being silly right now in terms of > > > > ! > expectations are the naysayers whose pettiness today is really > > > > quite > > > > ! > shocking. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > Will there be more terrorst attacks? Of course. This is > > > > ! because there > > > > ! > will always be bad people. But will mullahs be ruling the > > > > ! ME the next > > > > ! > 100 years? That now is in jeopardy if democracy in ME takes hold. > > > > If > > > > ! > the mullahs lose power, then civilization has a chance in > > > > ! that part of > > > > ! > the world, and the civilizing affects thereof will do more to > > > > ! > eliminate terrorism than all the bombs and kumbayas of both > > > > extremes > > > > ! > of our political process combined. > > > > ! > > > > > ! > - Bob > > > > ! > > > > > ! > ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ! > ! > > > > > ! > ! > ! > Wasn't it to find WMDs before Saddam could use them > > > > against > > > > ! > the > > > > ! > ! > US? > > > > ! > ! > ! > > > > ! > ! > ! The spectre of WMD was raised in the immediate > > > > ! > ! > ! aftermath of 9/11. > > > > ! > ! > ! There was never a reference to this threat without some > > > > ! > ! other tie-in > > > > ! > ! > > > > > ! > ! > ! to 9/11. The rationale for the Iraq invasion depended 100% > > > > on > > > > ! > the > > > > ! > ! > ! fear that was in the American people at that time that > > > > another > > > > ! > ! > ! terrorist attack could happen at any time. Now who better to > > > > ! > ! > ! personify this threat than that terrible bogeyman Saddam? > > > > ! > ! Given the > > > > ! > ! > > > > > ! > ! > ! general ignorance of Americans about anything outside our > > > > ! > ! > ! borders, > > > > ! > ! > > > > > ! > ! > What a crock of sh*t. Talk about stereotyping and > > > > generalizing. > > > > ! > ! > > > > > ! > ! > ! it > > > > ! > ! > ! was simple to paint Osama == Arab == Saddam, and transfer > > > > the > > > > ! > fear > > > > ! > ! > ! and anger toward Osama and al Qaeda to Saddam and Iraq. > > > > ! > ! > > > > > ! > ! > The argument was and remains that pre-9/11, containment > > > > ! of Saddam > === message truncated === **** New Lower Prices ***** Horse Racing Photos at http://michaelmadigan.exposuremanager.com/
[excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
