At what point will air travel become unaffordable

"Tchiowa" wrote:


Padraig Breathnach wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

You did see where I said, "But Bush seems not to be aware of
exactly where the USA's best interests lie," didn't you?

In that, he is in the tradition of the American presidency.

Despite the hopes of many Europeans to the contrary, the best interests
of the US are *NOT* defined as "do what ever Europe wants so that
Europe feels good about itself".

Did I say it was?

Was the promotion of the Taliban in Afghanistan in America's best
interest?

Was the support for Saddam in his war against Iran in America's best
interest?

Is the unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does
(including the expropriation of land), in America's best interest?

It was a European who wrote that there are none so blind as those who
will not see, You probably reject it because of its authorship.

Now go and argue with idiots. I'm not going to waste my time with you.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:35:30 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:30:59 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:14:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:50:46 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:39:07 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:55:42 -0400, nobody
wrote:

What about due legal process ? What about respect for the law, respect
for treaties that you signed/ratified ? What about fair treatment ? Are
these values no longer held by americans ? If so, then perhaps have the
courage to pass a law officially renegging on all the commitmentys
(national and international) the USA had made. In essence, if you want
to support the current administion's goals, you'll need to agree to
change your constitution, especially the part about due legal process.
(and of course, include that exemption to allow Austrian born governors
of California to run for presidency).

I have no idea what the governor of California has to do with the
Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. Is that something you just felt
compelled to throw in to show your lack of seriousness?

I am finding it hard to believe you are serious about the US vetos on
behalf of Israel.

I find it hard to believe you think the governor of California
gets a veto.

*sigh*

Dave, you are being oddly very silly about this whole deal.

I'm not the one who said "(and of course, include that exemption
to allow Austrian born governors of California to run for
presidency)." I'm just wondering why it even came up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Tchiowa wrote:
wrote:
Yes I did, but I didn't understand what it means. Are you talking about
the short term material interests of Americans, or the long term
benefits of living in a moral world, or what? How you define the
question determines what you get as a response.

I'm reminded of someone famous - I can't remember who, though no doubt
someone will help - who was asked what he had done for the defence of
America, and responded that his work made it worth defending.

A worthy goal. Unfortunately what for most of us makes a country "worth
defending" in the eyes of others (such as Islamic fascists) also makes
it worth *attacking*. And that means we need to defend it with more
than just morality.

According to that logic countries such as, say, Sweden would be awash
with suicide bombers. I notice that they're not.

Maybe it's something else that makes America a target, eh?

B;

In article om,
Tchiowa wrote:

nobody wrote:
wrote:
Absolutely - recall the French threatened to veto a UN "declaration of
war" on Iraq, the difference being that the US has the resources to
ignore the UN and go it alone if the vote goes the wrong way.


The French, German, Chinese and Russians were ready to veto the USA/UK
request for the right to invade.

True. But that was *after* they had already given their permission in a
previous resolution. Why the change?

The fact that USA/UK wanted a
resolution is solid enough evidence that they did not already have the
right to invade,

No, it's evidence that the US was trying to do what Bush Sr had done in
getting the whole world on board. We failed to do that primarily
because the French were making money from Saddam and didn't want to
lose the profits. But that doesn't alter the wording of the previous
resolution that was approved nor does it alter the US' right to protect
itself from threats.

The Gulf War ended not w/ a peace treaty, but w/ a cease-fire
maintaining the absolute right to end that cease-fire if UNSC 686 (and
others) were not fully complied with. UNSC 1205 made just that
determination.

No other legal authority was needed.

jay
Sat Sep 09, 2006

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Is the unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does
(including the expropriation of land), in America's best interest?

Let's see:

1. Israel claims it needs land as a buffer zone for protection
2. Isreal leaves land
3. Israel is attacked from said land

Mike Hunt wrote:
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Is the unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does
(including the expropriation of land), in America's best interest?

Let's see:

1. Israel claims it needs land as a buffer zone for protection

I think that's been called "lebensraum" at some time in the recent
past.

B;

On 8 Sep 2006 22:59:39 -0700, wrote:


Tchiowa wrote:
wrote:
Yes I did, but I didn't understand what it means. Are you talking about
the short term material interests of Americans, or the long term
benefits of living in a moral world, or what? How you define the
question determines what you get as a response.

I'm reminded of someone famous - I can't remember who, though no doubt
someone will help - who was asked what he had done for the defence of
America, and responded that his work made it worth defending.

A worthy goal. Unfortunately what for most of us makes a country "worth
defending" in the eyes of others (such as Islamic fascists) also makes
it worth *attacking*. And that means we need to defend it with more
than just morality.

According to that logic countries such as, say, Sweden would be awash
with suicide bombers. I notice that they're not.

Maybe it's something else that makes America a target, eh?

It must be their freedom fries.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:12:06 -0700, Go Fig wrote:

In article om,
Tchiowa wrote:

nobody wrote:
wrote:
Absolutely - recall the French threatened to veto a UN "declaration of
war" on Iraq, the difference being that the US has the resources to
ignore the UN and go it alone if the vote goes the wrong way.


The French, German, Chinese and Russians were ready to veto the USA/UK
request for the right to invade.

True. But that was *after* they had already given their permission in a
previous resolution. Why the change?

The fact that USA/UK wanted a
resolution is solid enough evidence that they did not already have the
right to invade,

No, it's evidence that the US was trying to do what Bush Sr had done in
getting the whole world on board. We failed to do that primarily
because the French were making money from Saddam and didn't want to
lose the profits. But that doesn't alter the wording of the previous
resolution that was approved nor does it alter the US' right to protect
itself from threats.

The Gulf War ended not w/ a peace treaty, but w/ a cease-fire
maintaining the absolute right to end that cease-fire if UNSC 686 (and
others) were not fully complied with. UNSC 1205 made just that
determination.

No other legal authority was needed.

Then why was it sought?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 9 Sep 2006 02:17:03 -0700, wrote:


Mike Hunt wrote:
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Is the unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does
(including the expropriation of land), in America's best interest?

Let's see:

1. Israel claims it needs land as a buffer zone for protection

I think that's been called "lebensraum" at some time in the recent
past.

Which simply tells us you have no idea what lebensraum was.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:

On 9 Sep 2006 02:17:03 -0700, wrote:


Mike Hunt wrote:
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Is the unqualified support for Israel, no matter what it does
(including the expropriation of land), in America's best interest?

Let's see:

1. Israel claims it needs land as a buffer zone for protection

I think that's been called "lebensraum" at some time in the recent
past.

Which simply tells us you have no idea what lebensraum was.

How about the West Bank?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/