Kommentarer til: E-mail to Dick Cheney: Guest commentary by Samuel Rachlin

Af: Cosmic Duck

Cosmic Duck — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:48:54 +0000

Esbern David.That is not fair. You also make empty phrases and false accusations, for instance that I’m a pacifist. The fact that I’m against the Coalition of the Willing’s war in Iraq does not make me a pacifist. However, for me to accept a war, which I’m reluctant to do, but it may be necessary in some cases, that war should be based on other motives than the coalition’s war in Iraq. Can you mention one, or a few, good reasons why Denmark should participate in this war? I think the Haditha case is fairly well established. The case against the war, however, does not only rest on that case. Serious war crimes have been committed, for instance in Falujah and other places.The war is illegal according to international law. Resolution 1481 in the UN Security Council is not sufficient basis for starting a war against Iraq.Therefore Denmark should have kept out of it. It is a war of aggression against a poor people in a country that was poor and which has got even poorer because of this unfortunate war. The sooner Denmark gets out the better.

Af: stud.scient.soc. et stud.cepos. Esbern David Pontoppidan

stud.scient.soc. et stud.cepos. Esbern David Pontoppidan — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:17:25 +0000

For us to have a serious debate on the subject you would need to lay down your empty frases and unestablished presumptions. Id est the polemic oil and SUV-accusations and the unestablished Haditha-case.I have nothing but pure understandig, however, of your reluctance to do present a viable argument in the case. I have always seen pacifism as based on pure hogwash, which has been confirmed with splendid clarity in the debate preceding and following the Iraq war. Sincerely

Af: Cosmic Duck

Cosmic Duck — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:17:20 +0000

Esbern David.It is not a question of rainbow politics. It is rather a question of realism. It is not realist to expect that there is so much oil left in the world that you can occupy a country in the Middle East in order to secure oil in abundance for your thirtsy SUV’s that are constantly stuck in traffic gridlock. The present foreign policy of the US is rather idealist. Bush is a crusader for the Western idea of “freedom and democracy”, even though it is quite difficult to see where that freedom is now for children who have been shot by marines in Haditha. For Denmark to go along in that adventure is simple stupidity. Denmark is antagonizing countries in the Middle East that used to be very friendly to Denmark.

Af: stud.scient.soc. et stud.cepos. Esbern David Pontoppidan

stud.scient.soc. et stud.cepos. Esbern David Pontoppidan — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:14:12 +0000

Cosmic Duck wrote:”It proves that the Danish Left has been right all along in its criticism of the US policies of world domination.”I find that to be a somewhat dubious conclusion. What it does prove is that Mr. Rachlin and Vice President Cheney have tremendously different views on the US’ international relations. Cheney is, has always been, and has never tried to hide, that he is a pragmatic realist in foreign policy. Mr. Rachlin on the other hand seems to be a political idealist.I do not have sufficient knowledge to judge which position is preferable in this case. Pragmatic realism opened trade relations with China and westernized South Korea. It also installed the Taleban in Afghanistan.Cosmic Duck wrote: “the Danish Left has been right”However I am not shy to be blunt. Frankly I find your deduction that the leading country of the free world is faulty in its foreign policies, because George Bush doesn’t drape himself in a rainbow-coloured flag and “save the world”, to be nothing but average pacifist run-off-the-mill buffonery.Sincerely,

Af: Mr.Moonlight

Mr.Moonlight — Wed, 31 May 2006 23:16:33 +0000

Man må vel forvente at e-mails til Bush og Cheney normalt besvares af deres “staff”, eftersom de sikkert modtager flere tusinde om dagen. Imidlertid kunne noget tyde på, at det virklig er Cheney, der har svaret Samuel. En staffmember ville vel copy-paste nogen selvfølgeligheder ind og ikke give sig af med et så kort og arrogant svar. Er Samuel mon i besiddelse af Cheneys private hotmail?

Af: Cosmic Duck

Cosmic Duck — Wed, 31 May 2006 06:00:41 +0000

Isn’t it funny that Dick Ch. only gives an answer to the last couple of lines of the Samuel’s mail? It is perhaps understandable because the mail is a heavy criticism of US policy, not only double standards in the democracy and freedom rhetoric, but also criticism of the erratic economic policies of the Bush administration. It proves that the Danish Left has been right all along in its criticism of the US policies of world domination.

Af: Niels

Niels — Tue, 30 May 2006 07:51:21 +0000

… og det 100% statsejede DONG som for øvrigt efter politisk pres opkøbte de danske el-producenter. I resten af EU prøver staten også at opkøbe energiselskaberne. Men det er naturligvis ikke det samme, vel?

Af: MrSoprano

MrSoprano — Mon, 29 May 2006 04:40:04 +0000

Ruslands opjustering af priserne havde en klar politisk slagside: det Moskva-tro diktatur i Hviderusland blev eksempelvis ikke pålagt de samme massive prisstigninger som udløste en øjeblikkelig krise i de stadigt mere vestligt orienterede stater Ukraine, Georgien og Moldova.Ruslands energiressourcer er nu totalt underlagt den russiske stat, og Putin har flere gange gjort det klart, at han ikke viger tilbage for at bruge den russiske oliedominans som et politisk våben. Rationalet er klart: hvis olie effektivt kan afskærme lande som Saudi-Arabien fra vestlig kritik, kan Putin også bruge olien til at lukke munden på vestlige kritikere af de stadigt mere diktatoriske tilstande i Rusland. And it just might work.Alt i alt må man sige, at verdens energiressourcer er i hænderne på meget farlige mennesker. Saud-familien, Chavez, Ahmadinejad og så selvfølgelig Putin, for at nævne nogle af de værste.

Af: Rune

Rune — Mon, 29 May 2006 00:21:10 +0000

Nogle af Ruslands naboer er sure fordi Rusland, der nu i mange år har solgt olie og gas til dem til under markedsprisen, nu er begyndt at hæve prisen til hvad markedet kan bære. Dette kalder de så afpresning, som en person der har vænnet sig til at leve på kredit, kan finde på at kalde det afpresning hvis der pludseligt bliver krævet betaling (læs Hamas). Men dette har naturligvis intet med afpresning (blackmail) at gøre, det er blot kapitalisme. Hvis landende ikke syntes om Ruslands betingelser, står det dem frit at søge deres energibehov opfyldt andetsteds. Jeg ser i hvert fald ikke USA eller Danmark eller noget andet land tilbyde Ukranie eller noget andet land olie eller gas til under markedsprisen.