Stop the torture of Bradley Manning

Rick is the one who said "always be revealed."

Yes, my example was extreme. However, no one has still been able to say who makes these decisions, how they are decided and what to do if you disagree with the decision.

I'm still waiting for a real world workable policy.

You're right in that China and India are big competitors for resources. But you still haven't answered how we're exerting control over the region's resources in any practical fashion. If we were, then China wouldn't be getting any oil and we would be getting it a lot cheaper. Top that off with the fact that the Afghanis are still in control of that vast mineral wealth (that we discovered) and we're still left wondering how you can possibly still be going on about this supposed domination.

That doesn't seem to be what your comrade Rick is endorsing though.

That is what is used. If you support this you are against Assange and the traitor Manning as they went outside of this "apparatus".

Just responding to your post #505...

You're contradicting yourself. You're the one who said use the apparatus we have, now you're saying that's no good.

So once again we're back to none of you being able to put forth a real world workable solution that gets you what you want.

You'll need to explain to me why we would expect oil to be cut off to China. That would be disastrous. Similarly, you'll need to explain to me why you think that making oil cheaper for American consumers would be desirable from the point of view of state-corporate elites. Those are very simplistic expectations of how global power ought to work.

As noted, the US has made enormous mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, so their maximal aims have not been achieved. However, control over those countries, both by means of military occupation and through obedient client states do allow them a "veto" over the future development of their competitors. Right now, it's in their interests to keep the supplies flowing. But the fact that they have their hands on such levers at all gives an enormous degree of influence - they don't even need to use it as long as its understood to exist.

If, for example, relations with China were to turn sour, do you think the Chinese would be more or less likely to back down in any confrontation knowing that the US could seriously limit their access to fuel?

And you still refuse to show how we might have any control over our competitors by these actions. We certainly don't have any meaningful control over Iraqi oil now, even with what's left of a rapidly diminishing military presence there. You keep repeating the same rhetoric yet you can't even make up an example of how it has happened or even might happen.

And you have the nerve to say my expectations are simplistic?

I have explained precisely how there is control. Can you answer the question I posed while seriously maintaining that it does not exist?

And yet you've been shown precisely how you're wrong. The military control just isn't there. As for the political control (you know, the democracies which we helped to establish?) we can't even get preferential treatment for our companies in their bidding.

In what practical way have we gained anything except for gaining a largely autonomous (Iraq, of course, and getting more so all the time) ally in the region and getting rid of a homicidal dictator who'd been attacking us round the clock for years?

You say we would've gained more if we hadn't messed it up. That's pretty self-serving to support your bogus position. It's far more likely that we never were trying to gain the things you were saying.

Kind of the problem with "liberalism" in general. Hell even good old Barry Obama is learning how his idealism doesn't quite work in reality.

The political and military control both remain. If you think it possible that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken absent the type of geopolitical considerations I'm describing, then I can't help you.

It's been very obvious that you can't answer the question. I'm just playing along right now to see if you've changed your tune.

Have you thought of this, though? If there were some form of advantage the U.S. hoped to gain by the invasion and, through bungling, had lost it, then don't you think the same (no doubt illuminati) forces would've redoubled their efforts to really establish the kind of control you're having nightmares about here? Since, by your own statements, these powers aren't accountable to the American public, what stopped them?

I don't really expect an answer to that question since you haven't been able to answer the others but I'm kinda bored right now.

Ricky never answers questions. He has no answers so he ignores them. It's why he still hasn't answered the question of how he'd apply his secrecy ideas in RL. Dan at least made an effort to answer, ineffectual as it was.

I have answered your question. That fact is not predicated on your agreement.

As I've said, the US did not achieve their maximal aims in Iraq. They do not posses infinite power, and what power they do posses is somewhat accountable to the American public and subject to competing internal demands. Luckily enough, those responsible for the invasion originally are at the extreme end of the US political spectrum. They were forced to moderate their approach after their first term.

:dancingbacon:

Nice dodge!

:easterconfused: Not really......we just started running out of work! :eastergrin:

Well, he better get used to the new digs, he's gonna be there a while.

And He also needs to thank God these aren't the good ol'days where a traitor like him would just have been shot and been done with.

Actually, he should be tried at the appropriate time and if found guilty sentenced to execution by firing squad ASAP.

Awww, Timmy is all butthurt.

Anybody post this?

Good luck to him. If he thinks life was bad before, wait till his traiterous ass gets put in GP.

Somebody quote this so that little pussy weasel will see it.

Come on now, didn't you know that holding someone like this for these types of crime is considered torture by some. Namely at least one person who lives in Ireland.