Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:04:13 GMT From: Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ethanol ?
in article 492vsgFmm5q6U1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net wrote on 30/03/2006 22:11: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:40:09 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> in article 492oseFl5tmnU1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net >> wrote on 30/03/2006 20:12: >> >>> Look up "Godwin's Law". Pretty sure your statements triggered it. >> >> I really don't follow - that's like causing an accident from behind. So, I >> mention, what? You talk about how grateful we should be for the US "helping >> us out" in WW2 and tell me I made you do it? What? > > I mentioned that it's a good thing that most dictators, like hitler, had > an arrogant disregard for their advisors, which in the grand scheme of > things is fortunate for the rest of the world. You then responded with > "Like the Bush Presidents" or similar. In other words, you are equating > them to hitler. Among the reasons that this is an invalid comparison, > is the fact that the best available evidence at the time, his advisors, > and his political opponents were in agreement with the decision. Here's the quote: " > Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant > disregard of logic thing going for them. Like a certain Bush duo? I'm sorry, maybe you don't know this, but your President is largely seen in that way by a large portion of the world. " You cut ... I responded. There is no mention of Hitler there; you spoke of "most dictators" and I spoke of the Bushes - Senior and "W", who also have an arrogant disregard of logic. I would not liken the Bush family to Hitler for a number of reasons, not least the difference that time has brought. > So, other than the fact that your equating of hitler to the Bushes is > completely wrong on all counts, and offensive besides, no problem. Aside from that I didn't ... Seen from outside the US, we do (we really do) see the US President as a dictator. I said before, maybe you don't see that from inside, but that's the way we see it. The US is a threat to the liberties of, well, everyone by virtue of its ability to simply invade, take over and whitewash the trial of anyone they define as a "despot". Thankfully, the failed coup in Veneluela stands as an example of US interest not winning out. You said it yourself, "why should the US be the world's police". Well, please don't and please don't fool yourself or who you talk to into believing that it for some greater good. That's just horseshit! The wars in Iraq were about oil. Humanitarian interests were/are an aside and a smokescreen. I am in two minds about whether it was for US interests or a foreign power acting on behalf of the Saudis (not officially, of course) to strengthen their interests in the region. Afterall, the US imports most of its oil from its neighbours, not the middle-east. So, why are we discussing this? Well, I return to your very well put point which I challenged you on some time ago in another post. Why, indeed, should the US continue to rely on oil from nations that hate you? Produce your own ethanol and start to break the cycle. Point well put! However, your President is also a high ranking figure of an oil conglomerate which has strong ties with the Saudis ... I have no value laden issue there, most "successful" people maintain positions with multi-nationals. I think that is the failing of internal US power production; that your own leader has interests to the contrary. I do hope onlookers don't see this as another "usenet flame war" (I hope you don't); I don't. Open debate is not a flame war. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
