minx Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 as a nation, why do we feel the need to "liberate" Iraq? There are countless other countries being ruled by dictators...why Iraq? I desperately want to believe that there is a more altruistic reason than oil and economics. It just doesn't add up though. Quote
RobBob Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 minx, read the lead article in today's Wall Street Journal on Bush's goals. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it describes what his motivations are. The subject of oil keeps coming up, even tho there have been assurances that oil belongs to Iraq and the $ will be used to rebuild. The thing that most people have forgotten is that prior to the Arab oilfield 'nationalization' that Kadaffi started back in the '70s, the oil companies owned the oil rights. This transfer of wealth was the single largest in history. Quote
minx Posted March 21, 2003 Author Posted March 21, 2003 read the article, but thanks it was a good one but it still left me questioning. i never presumed we'd be attempting to keep the oil. there are economic benefits beyond actually "owning"the oil. A friendlier regime would suffice. We had no problem working and instilling sadam as the leader of Iraq when he suited us. The question is much simpler....why Iraq instead of anyone of a number of countries led by dictators? Quote
RobBob Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 minx I think that you are looking for someone to 'defend' what's being done. I think the current admin sees Iraq as serving as a "platform" in the area---a democratic 'seed state,' a military base platform, etc. Quote
iain Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 RobBob said: minx I think that you are looking for someone to 'defend' what's being done. I think the current admin sees Iraq as serving as a "platform" in the area---a democratic 'seed state,' a military base platform, etc. yes for further strategy, consider the campaigns of 1095-1101, 1145-47, 1188-92, Constantinople 1204, Damietta, 1217, 1228-29,1239, 1249-52, 1270. Worked for those guys! Quote
Jim Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Good question but a complicated answer is needed. There is a strong trail of stradegy from the first Bush admin to the current one. Paul Wolfiwitz, now second in command of the Pentagon, prepared a strategy paper in the first Bush admin that called for the US to use more of it muscle around the world and conduct preemptive strikes as needed. The Bush Sr. admin squashed that draft and it sat on the shelf until recently. George W. selected a team of throwbacks, all major hawks for his team: Rumsfield, Cheney, Wolfiwitz, Pearl (w/the Heritage Foundation but an adviser), and his cheif of staff whose name I forgot. All of these guys were pushing for Bush Sr. to crush Saddam the first time. Politics reigned, and the Bush Sr. admin decided that a brutal strongman was needed to hold Iraq together. Heavens, you would not want any democracy in place, that could be harder to control. So -fast forward to the present. Last year the Bush jr admin comes out with their stratetic policy paper (each admin puts one out) and lo and behold - Wolfiwitz's document has arisen - peemptive strikes are in there, the first time this has been America's official policy. Cheny, Wolfiwitz, Pearl, Rumsfield and company have been pushing this policy from the get go. Add to the mix Carl Rove, the master political strategist, with a weak economy, no Bin Laden captured, and Bush's admin generally adrift his ratings headed down, and you have a volitle mix. Oh yea - and add that you have a president who doesn't like to read, was generally a frat boy in school, had barely been out of Texas before he was elected, and you have someone illinformed about the world and without the intellectual capacity to critically challenge the drivel he is being spoon fed. Oh - did I mention the ties to the oil industy of Cheney and Bush. The country runs on oil so why not have oil men run the country. Quote
minx Posted March 21, 2003 Author Posted March 21, 2003 Jim said: Oh yea - and add that you have a president who doesn't like to read, was generally a frat boy in school, had barely been out of Texas before he was elected, and you have someone illinformed about the world and without the intellectual capacity to critically challenge the drivel he is being spoon fed. Oh - did I mention the ties to the oil industy of Cheney and Bush. The country runs on oil so why not have oil men run the country. yeah this is the part that scares me...someone w/no international experience making these decisions ok- lets maket his easier, why not quit running this country on oil. the advantages are endless! Quote
RobBob Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Iain, I ain't defending the quagmire...and I'm not going to voice criticisms while the conflict is on. From a war standpoint, the protests only take away from the image of a determined adversary, and thus can only serve to drag the conflict out because Iraqis hold out some hope that it will stop. True, the tv coverage of the protests may not have much effect, but any is bad. Quote
Bronco Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Jim said: Good question but a complicated answer is needed. There is a strong trail of stradegy...blah blah blah Get it right Jim, it's "strategery". Your liberal inaccuracies make me want to puke! Quote
iain Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 I agree with you RobBob from a conflict logistics standpoint. I believe many of those protestors were not helpful. I was particularly disappointed to see some american flag burning in Portland. In fact I feel I am being a true American by protesting this disgusting change in global relations our out-of-control executive branch has developed, and would in fact be waving the flag in opposition to this unprovoked offensive, as grotesque and nauseating as that might seem to some "patriots etc etc" this board. Yes, the protests weaken our international cause. But to tell you the truth, I'm ashamed to be linked to this conflict as a so-called American and I see the protests as a way of making that clear. Quote
Jim Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 RobBob said: From a war standpoint, the protests only take away from the image of a determined adversary I look at the demonstrations as a sign of what we suupposedly stand for, the ability to voice an opinion in a democratic society. Passivity in a society is not a good thing. Democracy is supposed to be a mix of voices, not a sing-a-long. Quote
To_The_Top Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 yeah this is the part that scares me...someone w/no international experience making these decisions The part that scares me is it isn't REALLY GWB who is making the decisions, rather he almost reports them after they happen. Quote
PullinFool Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 minx said: ok- lets maket his easier, why not quit running this country on oil. the advantages are endless! How do you propose to deal with the distribution of goods, air travel, heating, lawnmowing, etc? Not to mention OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BURN RUBBER!!! Quote
iain Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 remember you would have to give up all nylon and polyester fleece materials, goretex jackets, milk jugs, etc, etc, etc, etc Quote
erik Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 iain said: remember you would have to give up all nylon and polyester fleece materials, goretex jackets, milk jugs, etc, etc, etc, etc but iain what about recycling? Quote
PullinFool Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 Yes, indeed, a long and slow process. It feels like we are getting started with the hybrid vehicles, and Shell (the oil company) now makes the best commercial solar panels on the market, according to some. So it seems like the oil lockdown is dissipating somewhat... Quote
PullinFool Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 (edited) Damn it, I can't figure this pagetop thing out... Edited March 21, 2003 by PullinFool Quote
allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 iain said: I agree with you RobBob from a conflict logistics standpoint. I believe many of those protestors were not helpful. I was particularly disappointed to see some american flag burning in Portland. In fact I feel I am being a true American by protesting this disgusting change in global relations our out-of-control executive branch has developed, and would in fact be waving the flag in opposition to this unprovoked offensive, as grotesque and nauseating as that might seem to some "patriots etc etc" this board. Yes, the protests weaken our international cause. But to tell you the truth, I'm ashamed to be linked to this conflict as a so-called American and I see the protests as a way of making that clear. it's not too late to grab a flight to raghdad Quote
iain Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 erik said: iain said: remember you would have to give up all nylon and polyester fleece materials, goretex jackets, milk jugs, etc, etc, etc, etc but iain what about recycling? I've been recycling paper here at work, at least I thought so when I caught the cleaning people dumping my paper stuff into the main trashcan that ticks me off more because I know that crap is going on behind the scenes in offices all over the place. recycling is not a choice, it's a f'ing requirement. Quote
iain Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 trask said: it's not too late to grab a flight to raghdad ah refreshing new material. Jefferson would be proud. Quote
allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 iain said: erik said: iain said: remember you would have to give up all nylon and polyester fleece materials, goretex jackets, milk jugs, etc, etc, etc, etc but iain what about recycling? I've been recycling paper here at work, at least I thought so when I caught the cleaning people dumping my paper stuff into the main trashcan that ticks me off more because I know that crap is going on behind the scenes in offices all over the place. recycling is not a choice, it's a f'ing requirement. I recycle nothing - the world is my garbage can Quote
erik Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 trask said: iain said: erik said: iain said: remember you would have to give up all nylon and polyester fleece materials, goretex jackets, milk jugs, etc, etc, etc, etc but iain what about recycling? I've been recycling paper here at work, at least I thought so when I caught the cleaning people dumping my paper stuff into the main trashcan that ticks me off more because I know that crap is going on behind the scenes in offices all over the place. recycling is not a choice, it's a f'ing requirement. I recycle nothing - the world is my garbage can does that mean your mouth is the toliet? Quote
Greg_W Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 minx said: yeah this is the part that scares me...someone w/no international experience making these decisions Gotta call bullshit on this one, poptart. At least Bush ran a state with a good-sized economy prior to his election. You liberals who thought Clinton was all that seem to forget what cornfed backwater he came from. Arkansas is a shithole and he did nothing to improve it, yet all those now bitching about Bush's "lack of international experience" weren't saying the same about Clinton. Quote
iain Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 trask said: I recycle nothing - the world is my garbage can A worthy troll, but I'll take it. How bold of you to have such convictions. You truly are a dinosaur. Quote
allthumbs Posted March 21, 2003 Posted March 21, 2003 iain said: trask said: I recycle nothing - the world is my garbage can A worthy troll, but I'll take it. How bold of you to have such convictions. You truly are a dinosaur. I love bombs, bullits and bullshit Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.