Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RLV · 07-02-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cheiron
No offense but I think you might be over estimating the importance of what the pope says to a fair chunk of catholics. I know that I have met few if any catholics that take the pope as anything more than an old guy in rome who happens to be the head of the church.

Among the hierarchy, no overestimation: he's the boss.

Among the rank and file, it might be. In Spain he's got influence (more than here in Catalonia, although he's heard here too), but it varies from place to place and from person to person, true.

RLV

Blixy Sticks · 07-02-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jman0904
Apparently at a Bilderberg conference a couple of years ago (Right before Afghan/Iraq wars), Kissinger at the conference discussed the need for a stabilised western influence in the middle east, preferebly by the installation of a western power as the head government of an unpopular country, and also for issues of securing oil interests as to bypass OPEC or to secure a supply.
Someone smuggled a copy out of the transcripts out of the conference. My friend has the link and a copy of the transcripts, but he just went to the beach. I'll try to find them.

I knew it. This son of a bitch is the Anti-Christ. He's the one in charge....not all of these stumbling dinkledorfs known as the Bush Administration.

Godless Dave · 07-03-2003, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Perhaps some Catholics are afraid that, after Bushcroft finishes off the Moslems, they may target them next.

They should be. I get really annoyed at Catholics and Jews who don't support the establishment clause, because if the Christian right has its way, they're going to round people up in the following order:

Atheists
Pagans
Muslims
Jews
Mormons
Catholics

I hope to survive the concentration camp long enough to say "I told you so" to the Knights of Columbus.

The SwampThing · 07-03-2003, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blixy Sticks
I knew it. This son of a bitch is the Anti-Christ. He's the one in charge....not all of these stumbling dinkledorfs known as the Bush Administration.

Didn�t Bush invite Kissinger to direct the investigations on Iraq or something??
You know, Kissinger is running out of places where he can go without fear of getting sent to jail for his past deeds!! The guy had his hand on most of the coups that took place since the sixties! From Pinochet to the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia!
The man�s a real crook! He must have invented that famous Nixon expression "I am not a crook!"!!

Godless Dave · 07-03-2003, 06:39 AM

I don't think Kissinger is a crook. I think he sincerely believed that right-wing dictators would protect the US from Communist expansion. He didn't see the welfare of the people living under those dictators as being his concern. Amoral? Yes, but his theory of foreign policy is based on amorality. Unfortunately even on that basis it failed: people living under US-sponsored dictators were even more likely to hate the US and gravitate towards the USSR. Plus oppressive dicatators lead to more refugees, who put a strain on the resources of wealthy countires. And oppressive dictators tend to mess up the economies of their countries, leading to even more refugees and discontent. Poor, oppressed, discontented people are ripe for recruitment by terrorists and other violent types. So fighting Communism by supporting warlords, dictators, and thugs resulted in less global stabilty, not more. IMHO.

Personally I think by the late 60s Communism didn't need to be fought. It was starting to collapse under its own weight.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2003, 06:39 AM	#15
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	I don't think Kissinger is a crook. I think he sincerely believed that right-wing dictators would protect the US from Communist expansion. He didn't see the welfare of the people living under those dictators as being his concern. Amoral? Yes, but his theory of foreign policy is based on amorality. Unfortunately even on that basis it failed: people living under US-sponsored dictators were even more likely to hate the US and gravitate towards the USSR. Plus oppressive dicatators lead to more refugees, who put a strain on the resources of wealthy countires. And oppressive dictators tend to mess up the economies of their countries, leading to even more refugees and discontent. Poor, oppressed, discontented people are ripe for recruitment by terrorists and other violent types. So fighting Communism by supporting warlords, dictators, and thugs resulted in less global stabilty, not more. IMHO. Personally I think by the late 60s Communism didn't need to be fought. It was starting to collapse under its own weight.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.