The Gulf War In Retrospect: The "Isolationists" Were Right : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

Posted: January 15, 2001 What plans were in the making from the beginning of Bush's seat in office? This was written 9 months before 911, and discusses the plans to persue iol interests in the middle east, even Afghanistan and OBL were mentioned.

The Gulf War In Retrospect: The "Isolationists" Were Right

by Justin Raimondo

Ten years ago, George Herbert Walker Bush unleashed the mightiest military machine on earth against a poor, Third World country whose only "crime" consisted of redrawing the map of the Middle East as originally drawn by the British Foreign Office. Iraq has always claimed Kuwait as its "nineteenth province," an assertion that history in the main supports. In the aftermath of World War I, having promised their Arab allies independence, the British went back on their word, and, in signing the Sykes-Picot treaty of 1916, implemented the chief axiom of politics: to the victor goes the spoils, which the Brits naturally reserved for themselves and the French. It was left to Sir Percy Cox to draw the first line in the sand (literally) at the 1922 conference of Uqair, creating the state of Iraq – but severing Kuwait, previously an adjunct of Basra, which was made an official British protectorate, and narrowing Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf. So the Iraqi "invasion" – or reclamation, depending on your viewpoint – came as no surprise to students of Middle East history, and should have come as no surprise to US policymakers, who had advance notice that Saddam was on the march – and did everything to encourage him.

Whatever Happened to April Glaspie?

Eight days before the outbreak of the Gulf war, Saddam summoned April Glaspie, then the American ambassador to Iraq, and launched into a tirade. He railed about the pernicious role of the British in the region, reminded her that without Iraq the Iranians would not be stopped from taking over the whole region by anything short of nuclear weapons, and complained about the "economic aggression" of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in agitating for lower oil prices. He made it all too clear that he intended to use force to stop what he claimed were Kuwaiti incursions onto Iraqi territory in the so-called Neutral Zone. Glaspie replied that the Americans, too, had experience with "the colonialists," which indeed seems odd given that the US and these very "colonialists" would be jointly bombing the hell out of Iraq in a little over a week's time. As for the price of oil, Ms. Glaspie opined that "We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states." At a time when the US secretary of state was none other than James Baker, a Texan who virtually personifies Big Oil, the implications of what the US Ambassador was telling Saddam were inescapable. Glaspie went on to say:

"I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods . . ."

Yellow and Green

If that was a diplomatic yellow light in response to Saddam's stated intent to use force, then the President's message to Saddam was a green light for the invasion. As Elaine Sciolino has pointed out in an interview with CSPAN, Dubya's daddy didn't even mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi troops poised to strike at Kuwait, and never raised the issue of Kuwaiti sovereignty or declared his intent to defend it. "It was a very, very weak memo," says Sciolino, a reporter for the New York Times and author of The Outlaw State: Saddam Hussein's Quest for Power and the War in the Gulf, "and it is much more dramatic than even April Glaspie's transcript which has gotten so much attention. So that Saddam didn't really think that there was going to be a huge hue and cry when he invaded Kuwait." Saddam thought what Glaspie and her superiors wanted him to think, and the rest is history.

The Survivor

"This will not stand," the First Bush declared, and soon expanded the war aims of the US from simply defending Kuwait to invading Iraq. But a decade later Saddam Hussein is still standing, and to the Arab "street" – the teeming, resentful Arab masses, seething with anger at the US for its Israel-centric policy in the Middle East – he is standing considerably taller. After ten years of sanctions, and nearly continuous bombing, the Americans and their British allies haven't managed to land a bomb directly on their taunting antagonist, nor have they managed to starve him and his people out of existence – although this isn't because they didn't make a mighty effort.

No Clean Sheets

The barbarism of the sanctions is underscored by an aside in Ron McKay's excellent piece in the Scottish Sunday Herald on what "depleted" uranium is doing to Basra. Describing the hospitals of Basra, McKay writes: "The patients lie on sheetless beds because detergents are banned on the grounds that they can be put to dual use – a crude bomb manufactured from a box of Persil, presumably."

Laundry Detergent – Weapon of Mass Destruction

In the perfervid imagination of our deranged rulers, detergent is a weapon of mass destruction, it has a "dual use" and must be embargoed lest Saddam unleashes the lethal potential of Tide. The real purpose of such restrictions is to completely dehumanize and defeat the Iraqi people. Imagine life with no clean sheets! But in ten years they have not succeeded: politically, Saddam's position is more secure than ever, and it turns out that his reported ill health was merely wishful thinking on the part of the Iraqi opposition in exile. What US and Britain have been able to do is inflict a lot of suffering. The hospitals of Basra, McKay reports, "are full of young people suffering from horrendous tumors, most of them not even born when the Gulf war ended." While the fingernails and hair of children who played in the "depleted" uranium-soaked fields of Kosovo fall out, and more fall sick and die, the US and the Brits refuse to acknowledge their own documented worst fears about the new weaponry and its effects. What else do we need to know before we realize that we are being ruled by moral and mental degenerates, who somehow believe that the concept of war crimes cannot apply to them.


The "depleted" uranium controversy reminds us how the course of US foreign policy generally stays unchanged in its essentials from one administration to the next. It was the First Bush who pissed radioactive poison on Iraq, and the Great Pants-dropper soon followed up by similarly defecating all over the former Yugoslavia. Is the Second Bush even now unzipping, getting ready to unleash yet another load of irradiated waste products on Iraq from a safe height?

Going After Iraq

The very first words out of Colin Powell's mouth, after it was formally announced that he would be Secretary of state-designate, were that he intended to "re-energize" the sanctions against Iraq, and he strongly implied that Saddam's overthrow was a hope we should do more than wish for. The selection of Donald Rumsfeld as the new defense secretary, with the ultra-hawkish Paul Wolfowitz ensconced as his deputy, ensures that US policy in the region will become even more militant and irrational: both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signed a letter urging the Congress to pass legislation arming the divided, disoriented, and largely antidemocratic Iraqi opposition, and the Clinton administration, in one of its final acts, authorized the release of $12 million to organize a revolution from within Iraq. The plan, which doesn't provide the Iraqi "revolutionaries" with any arms, is apparently for the Iraqi National Council to set up distribution points for goods embargoed elsewhere, and thus set up "liberated" zones controlled by the opposition that could be expanded outward.

Embracing Clintonism

This foreign policy bequest to the incoming administration is received with open arms by Bush advisors such as Richard Perle, an ultra-hawk who opines that Team Bush (II) will embrace this Clintonian initiative. "It's not a question of blocking them in or forcing them into a situation they would object to," he said. "My guess is they will wish to support the opposition." As to whether this means backing up the "liberated zones" with military force once Saddam attacks them remains to be seen. But here again we see the essential continuity of American foreign policy as hegemonistic, aggressive, and relentlessly focused on the oil-rich Middle East. This hasn't changed in ten years, or twenty, but there is reason to hope that it can and will change as we enter the real new millennium.

Conservatives Versus The "New World Order"

When the First Bush got up on his high horse and proclaimed the advent of "a New World Order," his thin patrician lips forming the syllables of this ominous phrase so as to give it an almost lascivious lilt, a great many conservatives were naturally repulsed. The phrase offended the stern republican (small-r) sensibilities of traditional conservatives, who largely advised abstention from the temptations of empire, which they associated with an advanced state of decadence. "There are plenty of things worth fighting for," said Pat Buchanan, "but lowering the price of gas by ten cents a barrel is not one of them." A decade before the attack on the USS Cole, Buchanan asked:

"How is such a war to end? After destroying Iraq's military and regime and driving its army out of Kuwait, who keeps them out? Of the answer is US troops, will not those troops become targets of the same terrorists who picked off our Marines in Lebanon?"

The Boomerang Effect

The fight for a foreign policy that puts the interests of America and Americans first has engaged the conservative imagination ever since the end of the cold war and the discovery – or rediscovery – that the main enemy is in Washington D.C. (yes, no matter which party is in power). The Gulf war, and the Bushian rhetoric accompanying it, heightened their hostility to internationalism. The Kosovo disaster only confirmed the sneaking suspicion that government intervention abroad has the same effect abroad as it does at home – only in the case of the US Marines in Lebanon, the USS Cole, and the victims of the bombings at US bases in Saudi Arabia, the boomerang effect was spectacularly and immediately fatal. It was, after all, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives that gave Clinton the most trouble over the Kosovo war, and GOP congressional leaders are calling for the US to withdraw from the Balkans. The logic of their position will eventually force them to call for US withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula. Events in the Middle East are fast rendering our traditional policy of unconditional support to the House of Saud irrelevant. The sidelining of King Faisal, and the rise of the heir apparent, Crown Prince Abdullah, will force the US to confront the issue the fuels the popularity of Osama bin Laden as an Arab folk hero: the continued presence of foreign troops on Saudi soil, which is a religious and political affront to the great majority of Saudi citizens. Their new king will reflect the sentiments of his people, or else risk the loss of legitimacy – and the potential end of the House of Saud, which could wind up in the same dustbin of history wherein resides the Iranian Shah and his fellow Pahlavis.

Geopolitical Chess

As a prelude to the expected fireworks in the Middle East, Afghanistan may become the latest battleground in the Bushian attempt to seize the oil fields of the Middle East. The US has been making noises about a joint Russian-American drive to drive the Taliban from power, but Putin is no fool and Moscow, preoccupied with Chechnya, is unlikely to get drawn back to that particular briar patch. Putin is furthermore very much concerned about American incursions into the Caucasus, which is one reason for his recent visit to Azerbaijan, the first visit by a Russian leader to the region in recent memory. The elaborate game of geopolitical chess being played at the top of the world is going into high gear, now that an administration that is not only beholden to Big Oil but actually is Big Oil has taken over the direction of US foreign policy. Afghanistan is one door to the oil-rich Caucasus, so is pro-Western Georgia (which now wants to join NATO!) and Iraq is another: which door Dubya chooses is a matter of military and political opportunity, as well as chance, but whichever one he walks though will involve a major military operation. Remember, these are the people who are formally committed to the so-called Powell Doctrine, which, in essence, is the principle that US military force is not to be considered or applied lightly: once the decision to intervention has been made, it must be carried out with "overwhelming force."

Small Mercies

When I consider the kind of change we can expect from the new administration, I am struck by this theme of continuity that underlies US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East,. Instead of the slow death by "depleted" uranium poisoning and the effects of the embargo, Iraqis can look forward to a quick death in a hail of cluster bombs. This is a particularly obscure example of God's mercy, but surely Team Bush (II) can recruit some Republican theologian into elaborating on it at great length.

Mr. Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 11, 2002


"...a poor, Third World country whose only "crime" consisted of redrawing the map of the Middle East..." That's pretty tough to get past.

Gotta ask you Cherri, as a friend, do you actually read this stuff before you paste it?

My bet is that if Bush the Elder had worried less about pissing off the Saudis and the rest of the sacrosanct coalition and had rolled into Bagdad the resulting Marshall Plan type reformation of Iraq would have, after these 12 years or so, produced a veritable Garden of Eden recarnate. (Sheesh. Hemmingway who?)

-- Carlos (, June 11, 2002.

You don't see the games that were played to help start that war do you? Didn't you listen at the time, or was the fact that it was a war scare you. There was a LOT written about what was going on in the Bush administration from the get-go, long before 911. I honestly believe "Bush" had no clue the aircraft they were being warned about getting hijacked would be flown into buildings. They never once have denied the fact thathey knew and expected hijacked aircraft, they have also said they expected another embassy bombing in another sick is THAT? That is why they had drawn up a war plan on Afghanistan...and NO Maria, I do NOT think it was normal for the prez to demand a war plan against them, having it ready to send to the prez desk on 9-12, to start a war in Afghanistan. Why would we go to war in Afghanistan, before 911? When Clinton went after OBL in Afghanistan he was accused of wagging the dog. Every time something has come out about what the government knew of the terrorists (which Clinton had tracked down and deported, a process Bush put a stop to after he came into office), we get another generic warning. Now we got some American who supposidly asked about making dirty bombs, and suddenly the formally deaf, dumb and blind governm,ent are heros, stopping attacks n America. Now we get the Coast Guard having shoot first ask questions later war powers.

After 911 American's asked in all innocence, why do they hate us so much. They still don't want to know, well some already knew, more are learning and yet others remain in denial, perhaps because the truth is too difficult to handle. And what has this administration done? Gone from The Taliban, al-Quada and obl and the extremists being "the enemy" to every ethnicly middle eastern, every Muslum being "a potential terrorist". Even the media has gone from calling the terrorists "extreme religious terrorists" to just plain Muslum, now every practicing Muslum is suspect.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 11, 2002.

Carlos, to answer your question, yes, she does believe.

Cherri, conspiracy theories are beginning to eat away at you. So they expected another bombing... "how sick is THAT?" It's not sick at all Cherri, it's realistic. Everyone expected another bombing but obviously you. Then you bash Bush for drawing up a war plan?! It's not normal to have a war plan? Since when? Like I asked you before, "You were in the military?"

Clinton didn't go "after OBL in Afghanistan". Clinton was given OBL on a silver plater and instead chased tail (and it wasn't Hillary's). Cherri, you really need to take a deep breath and clear your head. Stop the hatred and think about what you are saying.

And we know exactly why they hate us and we (at least I) don't give a shit why. All I want to do is stop the terrorism.

-- Maria (, June 12, 2002.

After 911 American's asked in all innocence, why do they hate us so much. They still don't want to know,......

"They"? Referring to Americans as "they"? Cherri aren't you an American? Didn't you serve in America's military? Didn't you take an oath to defend America? Didn't your Dad endure the Bataan death march? And now you refer to Americans as "they"?

What's happened to you girl? I'm curious, if you'd ever care to explain how you reached you current negatvity and cynicism, I would be personally interested to know. Something bad must have happened to you.

-- (, June 12, 2002.

You hit the nail on the head there Lars. Fat, ugly, lazy, and unfuckable, she spends all of her time blaming the achievers in this world for her problems. So who should care? Anyone whose taxes are going to support this worthless bitch should care.

-- Oink (oink@welfare.hog), June 12, 2002.

Lars, "they" I am referring to is the Americans who were so involved their life (which is not a "bad" thing, just the attitude prominate in the country due to the fact that "world concerns had no interest or effect on their lives) and after 911 when the shock of the hostility of the terrorists, couldn't comprehend why we would be hated. The adinistration put forward the concept that "they" hated us for our freedoms. The people asking why seemed to accept that. But that is not what caused "them" to hate us, and the major media repeated that theory. Unfortunatly there are some real reasons why they hate us, which has nothing to do with our "freedoms". I think the people who asked why are too quick to accept the official, pat reply from the government.

"They" are still too used to accepting whathey are fed, and don't want to bother to find out the real reasons why "we are hated" by so any, enought for anyone to inflict the events of 911 on us.

The rest of your question I will think through and ask myself, look into the reason I graduated from my decades of elief to the ones I hold now.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 15, 2002.


Don't fall into the trap that Lars has set for you. He's trying to get you to say that your concerns about the deterioration of our country are simply some kind of delusion as a result of your "negative" attitude. Shame on you, lol!

Don't buy into it. The reality is closer to the opposite of what he says. It is precisely BECAUSE you served our country that you are more sensitive and concerned about it than the average blind dimwit; you have a greater sense of pride and respect for our country. You have every right to speak up about these things, because you truly care. Don't ever let anyone try to tell you are unpatriotic or cynical.

The majority of blind Americans prefer to deny the serious issues so that they can go happily on their journeys to Walmart and McDonalds without a care in the world. That doesn't mean you are negative, it means they are idiots.

-- (Lars can't handle the truth @ blames it. on Cherri), June 15, 2002.


Eloquently stated, LOL. I invite you to appear on my trail-blazing TV show to present your aberant POV. Our scientific programming program forecasts that you would be a perfect fit with a group consisting of KKK members and NAMBLA members. Bring your brass knuckles.

-- (Jerry Springer, "Godfather of the decline of Western civilization" @ Schlock.TV), June 15, 2002.

A-hem, uuh, yeah. Well Jerry, I think I'll take a rain check on that. You see, idiot lowlifes like yourself are a perfect example of the moral degeneration of our society and the destruction of a meaningful value system which once made this country great. In the name of greed, you encourage Dumbya's trailer-trash inbred relatives to waste away their lives attacking each other instead of helping them get an educated and intelligent perspective on the world which they so desperately need to be of any value to the human race. Anything for a buck, eh Jerry?

-- LOL (thanks @ but no thanks. scumbag), June 15, 2002.

Ya got me. I admit it, I sold out. I generate junk-TV. I'm on record as saying that I wouldn't watch my own show. But I'm a Democrap. I worked on the campaign for RFK. I was Democrap mayor of Cincinnati. I was a TV news anchor man in Cincy. I aspired to be another Phil Donahue. My instincts are warm and squishy.

My first TV talk show was issue-oriented. But it didn't sell. Jenny Jones and Ricki Lake were cleaning my clock with trash programming. So I beat them at their own game. My high-minded priciples didn't pay, so I went with my gutter principles.

I make millions. What a country!

-- (Jerry Springer @ sold.out), June 15, 2002.

Why do the Republicans, right wingers act and talk as if their fellow citizens, although Democrat and/or liberal, are ENEMIES? Isn't this what we base our freedoms on in this country, each having the right to their own beliefs? We are fellow citizens, we are not enemies. Why the bile and hatred for fellow countrypersons, just because they have different views? It has appeared to me for a decade or so that the republicans actually hate an individual with ideas and beliefs that are not exactly like their own. The administration acts as if the Democrats are more of an enemy than the terrorists that attacked us.

It is normal to dislike anothers ideas, but that does not mean we must HATE the person who holds them.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 15, 2002.

Cherri I could have said the same thing except substituting Democrat for Republican.

-- (, June 15, 2002.

Oh boy, I forgot to mention. Those disgusting, low-life, trailer- trash degenerates I demand for my show…..they’re all Democraps too. While we’re at it LOL, how bout you and the little woman appearing on my Fall Special? This show is tailor made for the two of you:

“Pimple-Faced Losers With Untreatable Erectile Dysfunction Whose Wives Are Having Anal Sex With The Pool Boy.”

Should be a laugh riot.

-- Jerry (luvs@dum.dems), June 15, 2002.

I believe it was the deterioration of standards, the drive for quantity over quality, many little situations where honest moral standards were discarded in the race for getting as much as possible, with as little effort, and loss of pride in quality, pride in ones work, which slowly ebbed over to the mentality of bringing in profits over all, including quality products which showed a lack of pride in ones work which reflects on oneself.

Business, industry, exists for two reasons, to provide a product, and to make a profit for the company. When the profit is the main and only concern, the quality of the product suffers. When the quality of the product is realized by the consumer, the business looses repeat customers, causing and downward spiral. Industry which has pride in the quality of their products may not make as big a profit, but they end up with loyal customers who are willing to come back, over and over again, thus guaranteeing continuing, steady (although not huge) profits.

I also saw the deteriorating concern for fellow man, especially by those who had achieved a higher standard of living, towards those who had not achieved that standard, those who work at "lower" although much needed possitions. Even if those "lower" positions may actually have been harder to do.

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 15, 2002.

Business, industry, exists for two reasons, to provide a product, and to make a profit for the company.

OK, a point of honest dispute, Cherri. You seem to take it as a given that profits are evil (ie, they "come out of the sweat of the working class" as the Socialists used to say). IMO, profits are neither moral nor immoral. They are amoral, but they are essential engines to any business enterprise. As long as competition exists (a critical caveat), the enterprise maximizes its profits by minimizing its prices (through efficiencies) and maximizing its product/service quality. Thus the consumer benefits.

Socialist enterprises have no such motivation. The managers of Socialist enterprises are motivated to preserve their turf, to satisfy their bureaucratic bosses. Pleasing the customer comes last. There is no incentive to take risks, no incentive to be innovative, no incentive to "think outside the box". Is it a coincidence that Socialist economies are consistently wretched? I don't think so.

Bill Gates may be an obnoxious nerd but in the Soviet Union he would have been seen as a trouble maker and never have been funded by the CYA government to pursue his crazy PC computer bullshit. It was too nonstandard, too different, too opposed by the entrenched mainframe oligarchy.

How many jobs has the obnoxious nerd created (directly or indirectly)? How much wealth has he created (I don't mean his personal fortune, I mean the wealth of jobs and products and services and intellectual property that Microsoft's existence has created? That's wealth created; new "stuff" out of thin air, not old stuff moved from one pile to another.

And so, after 72 years of totalitarian striving, the "worker's paradise" of the USSR crashed. Surprise? NOT.

Have you ever owned a small business Cherri? Well, me neither, but I respect those who do.

"Quality"? Same answer. Do you prefer the quality of the Yugo to cars made in free economys?

Anyway, thanks for allowing me to rant. We now return to our regularly scheduled bashing.

-- (, June 15, 2002.

The taxes paid on those ‘profits’ are keeping this fat bitch alive, through various public assistance handouts. Cherri, you would be ashamed if you had one iota of self-esteem.

-- Oink (oink@welfare.hog), June 15, 2002.

Lars, reread what I wrote, profits are not evil. Why would one have a business if not to make a profit? Then you say You seem to take it as a given that profits are evil

It is the corruption which has little or nothing to do with the business that I dislike. Example... Enron would buy a company and claim the cost as a profit. No one stopped them, they used these methods to hype up their profits. Why do that? It appears compensation for the CEO's was given in huge amounts of stock. If they own millions of shares of stock, and they hype up the stock even a few dollars, the profits they make is in the millions. This, unfortunatly, was too good and easy an oppertunity to pass up for too many. They, those who were in positions to do this did not "earn" the money they got, they got the profits at the expense of the people in their companies and the "man on the street" who did not have the huge amounts of stock to make much of a profit in these small increases of stock value in the marketplace.

The draw of such easy profits appears to have become almost addictive to some of these head honchos, breaking down their normal restraint which may have prevented them from doing what they knew to be morally wrong (as well as being bad for their companies). Maybe the ease of getting away with doing this made it too hard to give up. But then they went overboard, to extremes, living in a world where they actually believed they were above the law and could not and would not be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunatly the oversights and watchdogs for such behavior had been weakened and in some cases, brought over to share in the winfall.

This is just one of the things that has caused me to loose respect for, actually become contemptuous of the actions of some big businesses. I still have a huge respect for Boeing, they have always put their passengers before profit and sales. It cost them profits in order to make triple redundant systems in their aircraft, something McDonnell Douglas did not do, which was a good part of their downfall.

As for taxes these companies pay...give me a break, they have so many loopholes and ways to avoid paying taxes that they do NOT pay much in taxes, if anything.
Enron did not pay taxes in 4 of the past 5 years, and nobody appeared to notice. (Until they went belly-up)

I will continue to look back to see where my attitudes changed in other areas.
It is something I had never really thought about, it just happened, but I would like to verbalize to myself what changed my views. *grin*

-- Cherri (whatever@who.cares), June 16, 2002.

"living in a world where they actually believed they were above the law and could not and would not be held accountable for their actions."

Unfortunately most of them will get off with little or no consequences, and the expenses for their defense by some of the world's most expensive lawyers will also be paid by the stockholders. Dumbya and Ashcroft have made it clear that our justice system should not be used to engage in battles with big business, even if the businessmen are serious criminals. Instead, the justice department should focus on framing innocent people to help establish a Nazi police state under the guise of "homeland security".

-- (Dumbya never learned the meaning of "accountability" @ because he couldn't. pronounce it), June 16, 2002.

Cherri Said:

“Why do the Republicans, right wingers act and talk as if their fellow citizens, although Democrat and/or liberal, are ENEMIES? Isn't this what we base our freedoms on in this country, each having the right to their own beliefs? We are fellow citizens, we are not enemies. Why the bile and hatred for fellow countrypersons, just because they have different views? It has appeared to me for a decade or so that the republicans actually hate an individual with ideas and beliefs that are not exactly like their own. The administration acts as if the Democrats are more of an enemy than the terrorists that attacked us.

It is normal to dislike anothers ideas, but that does not mean we must HATE the person who holds them. “

Cherri, I had to read this post 2 or 3 times to make sure that I was seeing these words posted by you. I never had any respect for your poisonous tirades against President Bush and conservative Republicans before, and now, after reading this amazing crap, I must ask you:

Are you trying to ‘put us on’? YOU ARE THE MOST HATEFUL PERSON ON THIS FORUM!!!

Or are you truly as mentally challenged, as you appear to be?

Your life must be horrific for you to have the twisted attitude that you do.

-- Get (professional@help.soon), June 16, 2002.

No, trollboy is the most hateful person on this forum and he loves it.

-- (, June 16, 2002.

Cherri, you sounded quite negative on the concept of profits. If I misunderstood you, it may because "profits" have been demonized by the Left for years. If corruption is your primary concern, we agree but probably not on what to best do to minimize corruption.

IMO, the market punishes corruption. Enron is bankrupt. Whether Ken Lay is incarcerated is not unimportant, but he is out of business. Some innocent and naive Enron stockholders (like me) got creamed but I don't blame my poor investment on you. I coulda bought T bills.

Corruption is a human universal. It exists in the private, public and non-profit economies. The bigger the enterprise, the bigger the potential for corruption. What "market" protects people from the sort of corruption that pervaded a state-run economy like the Soviet Union?

I don't think any of us should be too smug about our lack of corruption. I would like to think that I am not corrupt because of my high moral character. But maybe I am not corrupt merely because I have never had the chance. No one has ever offered me an envelope full of cash simply to avert my gaze. Who knows, maybe I would take it? Maybe you would take it?

-- (, June 17, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ