Do you think we should release Jeffrey Dahmer because he hasn't killed or eaten anyone in over ten years?
Come on, Fred, you can do better than that <smile>
If the US had GIVEN Dahmer the knives with which he cut up his victims (say, because they were supporting him against a neighbour), then got hold of him and left him free to do what he wanted for ten years, and then one day, after he has done nothing in ten years, decided to kill him, I would also find that very suspect.
Having a contract that benefits the US does not connote exploitation
I was more referring to placing in power a guy who will give you a good deal. Are you sure, Fred, that this is the best deal Afghanistan could have had? Or was Unocal chosen from the start? If you agree that the US installed a president in this country who they know would give a US company the pipeline project, is this or is this not "exploitation" in your book?
In fact, as you know, every contract is drawn so that both parties benefit.
Not in cases where one of the contestants has the decision-maker in his pocket.
However, and you know this to be true, many Europeans reflexively interpret all actions of the US as exploitative, rather than mutually beneficial.
I am not sure if this is such a good example for that re my comments above.
a recent CNN nonscientific poll indicated that 75% of Americans were opposed to invading Iraq. Bush saw that poll also.
Do you think that will make him:
(1) Back off
... or:
(2) Step up the marketing (ex: with a smearing campaign like the "incubator" lie that got the public roaring to go into Kuwait a decade ago)
Finally, the notion that a feudal society, of mainly nomads, who happen to wander over oil fields, should control these resources that they didn't earn is also a problem for me.
What do you suggest? People living in a land own the skies above it and the earth below it. |
