• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The war in hindsight and my suggestions to the Iraqi people.

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55022-2003Nov2?language=printer

The shoot down of the Chinook this weekend really hit home with my BIL being in the local area. It got me to thinking that we have not really talked about the war in a while. I just read the article above and I came away even more convinced that we did the right thing - maybe we did not sell it to the people the best way - but the world will be a better place.

Oh, here is my message to the Iraqi people: Quit shooting, get your shit together, and hold an election and we are out of your country faster than you can say "dung beetle." We do not like you or really give a shit about you. Moreover, we would like to leave. However, unlike America in the last 40 years we are not going to run away if you kill some troops. In fact, you'll likely find our nice guy routine starting to wear thin in the next month or two. If you get what I mean - wink wink nudge nudge.

Therefore, if you keep shooting at us, and if Bush is re-elected, we will be there until every insurgent is dead or hiding. At least for the next 5 years. If on the other hand you got your act together - fake it if you have to - you give us an excuse to leave. Then you can have your coupe de ta and go back to being Baathist Thugs - (a litter wiser from the experience I hope). France would be glad to help you then and we can all live happily ever after. Even the press - they get to say I told you so. After all, they were wrong on everything else so far.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
I think the reasons for going to war were bs and it is becoming more evident that there were no WMD. Also, if we were fighting terrorists, we all know that Saudi Arabia should be the first target. With that being said, the US cannot leave. Any presidential candidate that says we should will not get my vote. If we leave, Iraq will become a lawless haven for terrorists and we cannot allow that to happen. I didn't support the war, and I think that the Bush administration has a terrible foreign policy direction. However, anyone who says we should pull out is being short-sighted and foolish.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
Without bringing up the question of whether or not it was right for us to go in, I think there are two clear conclusions you can draw from what is now going on.

1) We were not prepared to deal with the issues of rebuilding Iraq after the battling stopped; and

2) The Saddam loyalists are carrying out an effective strategy.

I heard a ridiculous comment from Rumsfeld on a talk show yesterday. He said that we had no idea how bad their infrastructure was. Do you really believe that our intelligence capabilities are so poor that we could not tell Iraq had problems with its roads, electricity, water, etc.? Very little preparation was made for dealing with rebuilding the country, and that cost us a lot of support from the local population.

As far as strategy goes, the Saddam supporters would prefer to see the country remain in a state of chaos and terror. They want to isolate the US and its few allies, drive out the UN and humanitarian organizations that might be a stabilizing influence, and drag out the occupation so that the US is blamed for all of the problems. So far (thank you, UN) it is working.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,482
Points
41
Cardinal said:
I heard a ridiculous comment from Rumsfeld on a talk show yesterday. He said that we had no idea how bad their infrastructure was.
Code Speak for "Haliburton is going to need lots and lots more US $$$$ to get the job done".

Why is that the British are not being targeted in Basrah or Umm Qasr the way we are in Fallujah and Baghdad? Experience with Colonialism, perhaps?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Geduncker:

I think specifically the areas of Basra and Um Qasr are are sunni (or shia_ I forget whos who) stongholds and historically oppressed by Saddam. As opposed to Falluja etc which are considered Baathist areas and areas where Saddam historc tribe is from.

Regarding our position there El Guap, I agree, our purpose should remain resolute and I we should continue to help build a free society there, regardless of what political system it eventually takes.

The cries about Haliburton are tired. Haliburton is the foremost world leader in the oil and gas industry. They would have just as must in contract $$$$$$$ if there was a democratic administration in power.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
We shouldn't have gone there in the first place, but now we're stuck. Our only hope is that we can get a president who knows what diplomacy is so we can try to get Europe and the UN to bail us out.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
iraq

This is what I think will happen. The Muslem extremists are going to take over Iraq as soon as the US pulls out just like the N. Vietnamese did in '75. There will be no one available to keep them out. This turning over the power to a new Iraqi army smells just like Nixon's Viewnameseation (Or yellowing) as an excuse to get out.

If the Kurds rebel for their own state, Turkey will step in and occupy the northern part of the country.

Partitioning of the country into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish states or sectors may be inevitable and from a practical standpoint may not be all that bad of a solution as long as the other powers in the area don't try to take over their part. This may likely happen because the oil fields are such a prize.

In short, my opinion "Looks dismal."
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
I've been gone for awhile, but there's nothing like a little war talk to bring me back into the fold.

I think El Guapo's right, to a point. We really only have three choices -- 1) pull out (the absolute worst thing to do), 2) build a bigger and stronger coalition, with troops, that includes Russia, Germany and even France (the trickiest diplomatic move), or 3) amp up the firepower, force the resistance into submission and commence with nation building again.

The more I think of it, the more I see parallels between Iraq and the Phillipines of 100 years ago. In the Phillipines, we fought the resistance from 1899-1902, we lost about 6,000 soldiers (to maybe 200,000 Filipino casualties) and the US administered the country until 1917.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
P-R, I've often thought of the Phillipines Parallel. What we need now is to find this generation's Arthur MacArthur and Pershing. I think we will, and I think we'll win.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
What other country will Bush pick to go on a war against "terrorism" so the media forgets about Iraq, just like what happened with Afghanistan? See this is why I support multi-lateralism with support of the UN, I never said that Saddam shouldn't be disturbed and overthrown, I said that there should have been a multi-lateral effort to thrown him out. Actually, he should have been overthrown back in '91.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
SkeLeton said:
What other country will Bush pick to go on a war against "terrorism" so the media forgets about Iraq, just like what happened with Afghanistan? See this is why I support multi-lateralism with support of the UN, I never said that Saddam shouldn't be disturbed and overthrown, I said that there should have been a multi-lateral effort to thrown him out. Actually, he should have been overthrown back in '91.
I heard Bolivia was next, but in order to forget about that one they're going to invade Chile after.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
SkeLeton said:
What other country will Bush pick to go on a war against "terrorism" so the media forgets about Iraq, just like what happened with Afghanistan? See this is why I support multi-lateralism with support of the UN, I never said that Saddam shouldn't be disturbed and overthrown, I said that there should have been a multi-lateral effort to thrown him out. Actually, he should have been overthrown back in '91.
Your real bitch is then with France Germany, Russia and the Arab world. How many resoultions, how many last chances, how many strong statements of comdemination were there? They had their chance for multi-lateral action 12 years ago. Sorry Skel. The argument is hollow. If we had not acted the UN would still be playing Lacross and countless Iraqis would be still under the regime of terror. No matter how shitty they have it now during rebuilding, at least they have the possibility of a future. Your path is to wait while the gutless wonders of the UN jerk off as people die. I would wager that less people are dieing in Iraq today than died daily under Saddam. That number will also go down as we rebuild the country and stop the flow of terrorists into the country.

Why is there no condemnation of Syria and Iran who are stiring the pot from you? Uncle Sam is putting money and lives in to the country at great expense. We fought under the rule of law and spent lives and money to keep from damaging the infrastructure. Does anyone else you know do that?

Syria and Iran are putting terrorists in to the country daily. We on the other hand have promised to leave entirely when they establish home rule. Syria and Iran want to set up client states. So does Turkey but we are using our pull to keep Iraq whole. Who eles would do that? Russia, China, France? No way!

What is the Iranian version of Haliburton? You know I bet it could bleed Iraq dry quicker than the US Haliburton could under the watchful eye of the free press. We are the best solution whether we like it or not.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
Is the Vietnam parallel wrong? I think so.

I think a better analogy for what we are facing is the Soviet experience with Afghanistan. Ten years, 25,000 dead, truckloads of wackos and religious extremists slipping into the country.

And, don't forget that Afghanistan is rapidly falling apart, too.

El Guapo: given your earlier postings on the gun control topic, why would you expect an Iraqi opposed to our invasion to just give up? If we were invaded by, say, Germany, (just for kicks and grins-I'm not saying Germany is an exemplary state in any way) to liberate us from some oppressive Ashcroftian/Handmaidens' Tale type state, I bet you or your descendents would fight the invaders, too. Even if the invasion was for "our own good." Keep in mind that this a tribal culture obsessed with honor and manliness and all the other values we in the soft west de-emphasize.

El Feo: You are frightening me here. The Phillipine example is an example of terrible fascist thinking (200,000 dead to allow us to civilize them). What is your goal, 400,000 Iraqi dead?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
What multi-lateralism is needed now? The UN passed another resolution supporting the US let rebuilding effort.

How is a democratic president going to get France or Russia to the table?

Skeleton, you make no sense.

I admit things are not going so well there and there is no way for the media to be positive when the incidents of terrorism get larger and more Bold.

And yes I feel comfortable saying terrorism when the antagonists have designs on disrupting the development of a free-society.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
BKM. Wrong, i think with the Soviet example. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in order to expand their empire and attempt to further control the muslim republics in the south of the USSR.

Say what you will buy, No one can reasonable suggest that our presence in Iraq is hegemonistic in any way.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
BKM said:
...El Guapo: given your earlier postings on the gun control topic, why would you expect an Iraqi opposed to our invasion to just give up? If we were invaded by, say, Germany, (just for kicks and grins-I'm not saying Germany is an exemplary state in any way) to liberate us from some oppressive Ashcroftian/Handmaidens' Tale type state, I bet you or your descendents would fight the invaders, too. Even if the invasion was for "our own good." Keep in mind that this a tribal culture obsessed with honor and manliness and all the other values we in the soft west de-emphasize.
We are fighting Iranians, Syrians, and other zealots that are largely non-natives from what I am hearing outside of the Peter Jennings style mainstream news. The press wishes to exert influence and set policy to maintain relevance. Understand that and you understand the nightly news. They report what they need to report for financial and power base maintenance reasons. There is abundant intel stating the idiots we are killing every day over there are hard-core Baathist and auslanders.

(Sorry Australians)

Under the right circumstances I'd fight an outside invasion. If it was to liberate us from the Democrats I'd join up faster than you can say President Hillary. Not all invaders are bad. France didn't mind us invading twice. Even Germany thought it was a good thing they lost after cooler heads prevailed. We need to make sure the average Iraqi knows we want to get the hell out as soon as they are on their own.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
EG... The UN may be slow and inefficient, but that's the main reason why it needs a serious reformation.

About Iraq, why is multi-lateralism bad? Your coalition surely isn't capable of controlling the country, so troops are needed, hence a multi-lateral effort to rebuild the country must be made. I wouldn't suggest that if you got into it you solve it, because it'll just end like Afghanistan now. So, the US should stand down a bit to let others work at it too, but the US needs to stay as the main contributor of troops.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
Skel if we let France have a chunk of Iraq to "rebuild" you can damn well bet the farm that it would be a terrorist stronghold inside of a week. The Ho-Chi-Minh trail of Arabia would lead through the French sector. Remember the French letting how many people get slaughtered under their protection in Africa? Sorry. Your plan would result in more Americans dieing for multilateraism. We can't ask our boys and girls to die so the French can save face. We need real allies like the British at our side and watching our back.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Skel--I think you are missing it---we welcome any troops the UN would offer, French, German, Russian, even Chilean...

They refuse to help.

Now what would you have us do?
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
W

Ole Dubya needs to find the reverse lever on the washing machine wringer.
The worst part of it is we've given the radical Muslems just the cause they needed. We did away with the local power broker, moved our troops into a very vulnerable situation where they can get at them and put the US in a lose-lose situation.

With Sadam, at least he was a tangible enemy capable of being vaporized when we felt like it. These Muslem wackos WANT to die for their cause. That's a tough enemy to fight.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Tom, we gave radical muslims just the cause they needed--to do what, like drive planes into office buildings?

seems to me they had a casue well before we did anything to upset them.

Never forget.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
gkmo62u said:
Skel--I think you are missing it---we welcome any troops the UN would offer, French, German, Russian, even Chilean...

They refuse to help.

Now what would you have us do?
Do you blame them because the don't want to help? You didn't want their help in the first place, and now you want others to clean up the mess...
So in short, I doubt you can make many countries help you now...
Even if the US could get foreign help, it'll be better than if the US troops continue alone. I doubt the US can rebuild Iraq alone.

The US isn't International Police, if it should exist it should be the UN, since it's an international police for everyone, rather than one big country kickin' small countries asses. :)

Fundamentalists (of any religion) and extremists are the enemy in this war against terrorism, since they're the breeders of terrorism. The world should do a serious effort to erradicate them.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
But how has the war on Iraq improved our security one whit?

1. I generally supported the invasion in Afghanistan. Iraq interferes with an already fiendishly difficult administration process. The Taliban are back, folks. Iraq was a pre-determined course of action well before 9-11. "Remember September 11 indeed"-this whole debacle has done nothing but remove our eyes from the focal points of terror-Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, where the situation is degenerating rapidly. Are we really goign to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (a nuclear-armed country of 100 million people, next? Why not-that is the real locus of terrorism in the world.)

2. Can we even afford it anymore? 100 billion dollars a year current account deficits. No manufacturing industry to speak of (those benighted GERMANS own the factory that manufactures the M1 Abrams tank) What if the Chinese stop buying our bonds? We should be paying attention to THIS aspect of our security, not mythical yellowcake and proxy states gone bad like Iraq. But of course, the Bushites simply want to make it easier to sell off our economy-so the Masters of the Universe and a few finanicers can get rich. Who are the real patriots, here?

2. The claim that we are not acting to expand our hegemony-that we did this for the good of the Iraqi people et al. You've been reading too much Friedman in the New York Times (what a ridiculous column!).

3. I don't know what alternative press you've been reading, El Guapo, but MINE thinks that the "mainstream press" (owned by such left wingers as Rupert Murdoch and Disney) have been soft peddling the disaster for months. Only now when they are blowing helicopters out of the air is it becoming a big enough story.

4. As for Germany and France welcoming the invasion-maybe so. France was "liberated" from an unwanted foreign invasion-I don't see the parallel here. I don't think France or Germany would have welcomed an invasion that occurred at the tail end of a decade-long policy of starvation, though.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
gkmo62-when you encounter a hornet's nest, do you run off looking for other nests, combine them all in a pile, then bash the entire mess with a big stick? THAT'S what we have done.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,270
Points
30
SkeLeton said:
Fundamentalists (of any religion) and extremists are the enemy in this war against terrorism, since they're the breeders of terrorism.
Does this include home grown extremists in the US that unconditionally support U.S. preemptive aggression?
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
Let's start with the assumption that we had more time. There were no WMD. Iraq was not a terrorist state threatening the U.S.

And it is my belief that the administration knew that there was no real threat.

So we had time. There was no immediate threat to the United States. The invasion, at the time it was done, was a "war of choice" not a war to protect the United States and its citizens.

We don't know what the road not taken would have been. Perhaps we would have needed to invade at a later date. Perhaps we would have found another solution through diplomacy and coalition building.

I know, it's hard to build coalitions, but, hey. Maybe the American soldiers didn't need to die. Maybe they wouldn't have had to kill thousands of Iraqis. Maybe we could have gotten out of this for a few billion, rather than a few hundred billion dollars.

That was probably worth the effort of dealing with the United Nations, France, Germany, etc. using diplomacy. It's tough and takes some brilliance. But that's what I expect of my government.

Remember, we had time. We were not directly threatened.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
w

gkmo62u said:
Tom, we gave radical muslims just the cause they needed--to do what, like drive planes into office buildings?

seems to me they had a casue well before we did anything to upset them.

Never forget.
Right, and I think they were getting their collective asses kicked in Afghanistan. After Sept. 11, we had the most of the whole reasonable world with us. What happened with the invasion of Iraq is that we alienated a lot of friends (Before whom we're currently grovelling for help.) and we made it easier for the extremeists, a new jihad ralleying cry. We threw gasoline on the still hot coals when we should have thrown water (or piss).
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
BKM said:
El Feo: You are frightening me here. The Phillipine example is an example of terrible fascist thinking (200,000 dead to allow us to civilize them). What is your goal, 400,000 Iraqi dead?
I'm not surprised, since it seems you're easily frightened, BKM. The Phillipine analogy is not literal - it's just that it will take a similar degree of brains and will - and yes, steel - to win. I think we, and those Iraqi people that want a non-theocratic future, will demonstrate that we have adequate reserves of both.

400,000 Iraqi dead? I don't think it will come to that, since we aren't fighting many Iraqis in Iraq - mostly Syrians, Saudis, Jordians, Iranians, and other assorted Wahabbi nutjobs. I think you're being melodramatic, but, tragic as it is, you'd do well to remember that the allies had to kill far more than 400,000 Germans to "civilize" them in the middle of the last century - and since they left the free world no other choice I can assure you I don't regret it.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,270
Points
30
El Feo said:
400,000 Iraqi dead? I don't think it will come to that, since we aren't fighting many Iraqis in Iraq - mostly Syrians, Saudis, Jordians, Iranians, and other assorted Wahabbi nutjobs
The more hornets you hit, the more will swarm, so where will it end? The longer we stay and the more people we hit in the region the more hitting we'll have to do.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
since we aren't fighting many Iraqis in Iraq - mostly Syrians, Saudis, Jordians, Iranians, and other assorted Wahabbi nutjobs
I tend to think the foreign presence is larger than we think but I think the same about Iraqi opposition as well. It don't think Iraqi opposition is strictly from Saddam loyalist but from a lot of nationalist. I have no idea what the real numbers are. To those who say we're not fighting as many Iraqi's as Foreigners, where do you get this specific information from?
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
I'm not surprised, since it seems you're easily frightened, BKM. The
But my fear, El Feo, does not lead immediately to preemptive invasions that worsen my country's security and national health. The fear of a Wolfowitz or his ilk, when combined with their religious zealotry (thank you Budgie!) and greed (boy, the flies have gathered quickly. It was done purely to bring DEMOCRACY to Iraq, right?) make for an even nastier world than it already is.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
BKM I think you make legitimate points, particularly the cost question. However, If the hornets attack without provocation, and are a threat to do it again, we are foolish, if not suicidal NOT to take the Raid, so to speak, to them.

I'd love to spend a day talking about just Thomas Friedman with you. He is a complete jeckyll/hyde for me. I cannot figure him out.

But if you didn't like todays column, ...well let me go read it, my wife is watching Joe Millionaire...
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
BKm--I'd say Friedman has it right on. Of note is his frame of reference, he is a liberal, generally speaking who by and large supported the war.

He is also an expert of middle east politics and mostly without an agenda, I find.

So an conservative like me trusts him.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
El Feo said:
we aren't fighting many Iraqis in Iraq - mostly Syrians, Saudis, Jordians, Iranians, and other assorted Wahabbi nutjobs.
Interesting. In today's Asia Times, there is an article which says there are very few foreigners fighting in Iraq. They cite European intelligence and Iranian sources for their information. The article claims that the U.S. is fabricating information in order to sell the war back home.

Who knows which information is right. However, European intelligence was right about WMD, and the U.S. administration fabricated information to sell the war back home. Given the history of disinformation about the war, I would tend to trust the non-U.S. sources.
 

Rem

Cyburbian
Messages
1,523
Points
23
el Guapo said:
There is abundant intel stating the idiots we are killing every day over there are hard-core Baathist and auslanders.

(Sorry Australians)
If I knew what the insult was I'd respond. Consider this a pad.

Australia's involvement in Iraq has been reduced since the main conflict ended. The current commitment is outlined here. We do have other ongoing problems we are involved in militarily such as East Timor, the Solomons, Bouganville, and Afghanistan. We have small numbers of personnel involved in UN operations in Europe and Africa. These committments are very small by US standards but our population and economy are also much smaller. The greatest concern at home is whether our meagre defence resources have been spread too thinly to respond to terrorist threats at home. There is a concerted opposition to the original war but I believe that is a minority position.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
BKM said:
....No manufacturing industry to speak of (those benighted GERMANS own the factory that manufactures the M1 Abrams tank)



Verrrrrrrrry interesting.

General Dynamics Land Systems Division, a wholy owned part of General Dynamics Inc. (NYSE: GD) is a publicly traded company. Some Germans may own some of GD, but I'll wager they have a hell of a time producing Stuka Dive Bombers in Lima Ohio or smuggling the tank plant in Warren Michigan into Badem Wurtemburg. :)
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Wulf9 said:
Interesting. In today's Asia Times, there is an article which says there are very few foreigners fighting in Iraq. They cite European intelligence and Iranian sources for their information. The article claims that the U.S. is fabricating information in order to sell the war back home.
To me, Shazad is like a broken watch - guaranteed to be right twice a day, but wrong, wrong, wrong the rest of the time. I can't help but wonder, though - would these be the same European intelligence sources that agreed with the "lie" (har har) that Saddam had a stockpile of WMD and an active program antebellum? And that increasingly appear to have been fighting a proxy war against us and propping up Saddam before the war as well? Would these be the same Iranian sources that have a vested interest in deflecting the notion that they are importing fighters to do the job non-Sunni, non-Baathist Iraqis don't seem to want to, as evidenced by the relative calm outside the Sunni Triangle?

My source is primary, she's a relative, and she is in Iraq processing captured jihadis from everywhere but, with few exceptions, Iraq. Feel free to dismiss that if you'd like, because I won't go any farther than that - even though I don't think she'd be in any trouble for sharing what she's shared (nor do I think she would have shared it if it were "sensitive"). I know it's not the Asia Times, and it does you no good, but it is good enough for me.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,623
Points
34
Wait. We're still in Afghanistan too. The media seems to forget that, burying its related news on page 20. Iraq is just more sexy apparently. Afghanistan still has its upstarts and insurgents, the difference is we have a stronger coalition there, sharing responsibility and power. Iraq is YEARS away from stability people. The sooner we can make this a world issue and not a US of A issue, the better off it'll be.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
BKM said:
and greed (boy, the flies have gathered quickly. It was done purely to bring DEMOCRACY to Iraq, right?) make for an even nastier world than it already is.
Nobody ever claimed it was purely to bring democracy to Iraq - that was secondary - the primary reason was to knock the hell out of the most threatening middle eastern country, and create a base of operations against all those other nasty countries everyone thinks should have been first - Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Freeing a people from oppression and creating the chance for restoring Iraqi democracy is a nice side benefit, no? As for the "greed" angle, what the heck are you talking about?

I'm glad you agree it's a nasty world. I'm sorry we can't agree on the way we deal with that fact, though.
 
Top