[SATLUG] [Even More OT] Speechless

[Travis H.]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 01:57:20PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Your knowledge of history is a bit spotty.  What was Japan's excuse for
> invading Korea, China, and quite a bit of Southeast Asia?

You're knowledge is spotty too, as you forgot Manchuria.

They had been fighting the Russians since the 30s, and had planned their
expansion since the 30s.  According to a guy I know who interviewed
Geishas after the war (he was the son of the British ambassador to
Japan), the main people behind it were the heavy industry bigwigs.

But apart from that, it's not an "excuse" for anything.

> Maybe the oil
> embargo had something to do with unacceptable behavior?  Today the UN
> calls such actions sanctions.

Yes, I'm sure the oil embargo had something to do with their imperial
goals.  What is your point?

> What was Germany's excuse for attacking Poland, Austria, Hungary, and a
> lot of other Eastern European countries before they attacked Russia in
> June of 1941?

Not an "excuse", see above.

> Hussein invaded Kuwait with the intention of permanent rule just like
> Japan and Germany invaded other countries.

That's not what he said at the various Arab summits.  He had been complaining
of slant drilling into the oilfield they share and the Kuwaitis producing
more oil than their OPEC quotas.  One of those companies pumping the oil
in Kuwait was a joint Kuwaiti-US venture, and George Bush Sr. was an
investor in it.  They said numerous times that they would leave when someone
would enforce the Kuwaiti's OPEC quotas.

Also, Iraq was the first OPEC country to start pricing its oil in
Euros.  Also, apart from the city of Abu Dhabi, Iraq has pumped
less of its oil reserves (percentage-wise) than any other country
(~40%).  That means the oil is cheaper to produce, because you don't
have to do things like pump water into nearby wells to force it
out.  In fact, at first, the oil can gush out under its own pressure.

> The US has *never* wanted to
> rule Iraq, but the intention

How do you know the intention?  Because a politician told you so?

Talk about gullible....

> wise or not, was to provide freedom to the
>  Iraqis.  I've never heard anything else from the politicians, although
> there are conspiracy theorists who say we did it for the oil.

However, the US (Brenner?  I forget the name of the guy's position)
has imposed a stipulation that Iraq may not tax its oil more than,
IIRC, 5%.  Now why would they be meddling in their finances like
that?  It has nothing to do with freedom.

Also, the US now has the largest embassy in the world, in Baghdad.
I suspect they have no intention of leaving.

Politicians are not stupid.  They think we are, and most of the
time they are right.  They play out these scenarios as some sort
of ethical dilemma, where they have no choice but to attack and
kill people.  And for some reason, it's almost always in their
personal or financial or strategic interests to do so.

Do you really expect a politician to give you an honest explanation
for launching a war?

> Comparing the US of the 21st Century to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan
> is like comparing apples and oranges because they are both fruit.

Okay, they _are_ both fruit.  And _all_ of them launched wars of
aggression against other countries, which stood to offer them more
power and wealth.  What exactly is your point?
-- 
"Cryptography is nothing more than a mathematical framework for
discussing various paranoid delusions." -- Don Alvarez
<URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> -><-