It appears Bush was right after all...

[lummox]

so horny for ann coulter

[Jim]

Well, according to our president and Tony Blair it's not the reason we're taking hits over there and spending $4 billion a month.

[Jim]

lummox said:

so horny for ann coulter

 

[RobBob]

Well, according to our president and Tony Blair it's not the reason we're taking hits over there and spending $4 billion a month.

 

You'll not hear me defend those two "true believers."

 

I believe the real villain is

[Ratboy]

lummox said:

so horny for ann coulter

 

Oh man, she's such a babe. If she would just SHUT UP! Someone needs to put Arianna Huffington's brain in Ann Coulter's body. Now that's a pundette!

[JayB]

Billygoat said:

I'll have a crack at it. Let's see... Haiti was because of the Marshall plan; Grenada the same; Panama offshore banking, money laundering (and cover-up) for Iran Contra, as well as the Marshall plan; Kosovo oil pipeline; Somalia was because of huge oil and mining leases recently obtained by American interests...See, even Clinton services the rich.

I think that it is simply disingenuous for our government to claim that we do these things purely out of the goodness of our hearts, for the suffering masses of the world. If so, why did we not "help out" in Rwanda, surely no more compelling case could be made there, what with some six million dead in the period of a year from tribal genocide....

 

Worldwide, this behavior just makes us look like assholes who can't be up front. Actually, looking at our short but colourful history, we are assholes who are not forthcoming, break treaties and participate in genocide if it serves our "national interests".

 

Ha Ha! There you go fuck face

 

By Marshall Plan, I assume you are referring to the WWII era program for the reconstruction of Europe. You are quite the historian. Better not argue with the likes of you anymore. Now tell me that we entered WWII because of the Monroe Doctrine. Or maybe the Treaty of Tordesilla.

 

Oil and mining contracts in Somalia? Are you joking? With what legal entity would an oil company negotiate a binding legal agreement? The dudes motoring around Mogadishu on their Technicals?

 

Here's a concise summary of what actually happened:

 

Somalia is indeed an interesting case. After the coup in 1969 that put Siad Barre in power, the revolutionaries attempted to administer the Somali economy with "Scientific Socialism." In an utterly unsurprising development, the country soon began to have trouble feeding itself and began the long descent into chaos that we observe at the present. This situation was actually exacerbated by foreign aid, as the various warring factions obtained significant funding for their efforts through contracting their services to the UN and NGOs and embezzling money from them. Perhaps most significant was the disruptive effect of food aid, which the warring parties promptly stole and distributed amongst their loyalists. They sold the food in local markets, and in the process continously undercut the local farmers until they themselves became dependent on the food aid, and effectively under control of whichever faction controlled it. The situation ultimately became so chaotic and hopeless that the UN and the NGOs began to talk openly of pulling out, which would have effectively meant disaster for the factions, as they would be deprived of most of their funding. At this point they began to deliberately starve the population, and provide false information concerning the number of people that would perish without an immediate surge in international aid. As the humanitarian situation deteriorated, the images of the Somalis suffering under these conditions saturated the airwaves, and the world looked to America to do something. In the process of doing something the American millitary began to undermine both the economic lifeline, and the political control of the various factions, and the debacle commenced. There's a full account of this calamity in the Road to Hell" by Michael Maren.

 

Somalia did have a modest refining capacity at one time, and may have petroleum reserves, but they have never been developed to any degree. There are plenty of other places with both proven reserves, a minimally viable infrastructure, and a functioning state with which to do business elsewhere in the world. Any oil or mining concern which is actually out to make money, which is all of them, will invest anywhere where the political risk is such that they risk losing their entire investment before turning a net profit on the operation.

 

Strategic geopolitical considerations, which come in a variety of shapes and sizes, provide the rationale for most wars. To pretend otherwise is silly, but to pretend that every single US intervention can be explained in purely economic terms shows a positive disinclination to aquaint oneself with history, and a staggering disregard for the facts.

 

For those that do read try "I Am Writing to Inform You that Tomorrow we Shall Be Killed Along with Our Families." By Phillip Gourevitch for the authoritative account of the slaughter in Rwanda.

[Jim]

Strategic geopolitical considerations, which come in a variety of shapes and sizes, provide the rationale for most wars. To pretend otherwise is silly, but to pretend that every single US intervention can be explained in purely economic terms shows a positive disinclination to aquaint oneself with history, and a staggering disregard for the facts.

 

Good summary of the Somlia debacle, "Road to Hell" is a good read about the mess. This may be an example of a number of entities, NGOs, and the US trying to do good in a bad place, and entropy just took over.

 

However, our interventions throughout the world have often been, and continue to be (mid east) driven by "national interests". Be careful of that phrase. It was the reason to institute the Shah in Iran and the Bath Party and Saddam in Iraq. The people in those countries have suffered because we felt inclined to "fix" things according to our "national interest". And now we're spending billons "re-fixing" a mess for which we're greatly responsible.

[RobBob]

Jim, if you feel so strongly that everything that the US touches abroad turns to shit, why don't you catch the next humanitarian relief plane over there? Don't include me and the rest of the US in your need to engage in self-flagellation. THEY nationalized their oil, WE didn't. The ME should have known that there would be repercussions from that move. The ME started this ball rolling by destabilizing the oil industry structure---western nations didn't. Western nations understandably reacted by trying to stabilize their interests the best they knew how.

 

[Jim]

RobBob said:

Jim, if you feel so strongly that everything that the US touches abroad turns to shit, why don't you catch the next humanitarian relief plane over there? Don't include me and the rest of the US in your need to engage in self-flagellation. THEY nationalized their oil, WE didn't. The ME should have known that there would be repercussions from that move. The ME started this ball by destabilizing the oil industry structure---western nations didn't. Western nations understandably reacted by trying to stabilize their interests the best they knew how.

 

Ouch! Bad hair day?

 

I think most reasonable people would agree that the US is a great place, based on solid democratic values. If your advice is to just sit on your hands and shut up, it's unenlightened. If you don't work at it, speak up, nothing will change.

 

Not clear on what the nationalization of the oil fields has to do with it. I guess you think that the British should still run the show there. And so the US putting the Shah in power as a dictator and him brutalizing his own people was justified? You're not making any clear arguments here.

[RobBob]

I am saying that since the Middle East seized oil assets back in the 1970s, western nations in the Middle East have been scrambling to put stability back into that industry. Some may argue that Western nations made huge profits by matching Western know-how and investment capital with Middle Eastern raw materials. But we also made the governments of those nations in the Middle East rich at the same time.

 

But they got greedy, wanted more, and re-structured the deal for themselves. The industrial world has been dealing with the fallout ever since. So I am saying that the US and the Western world aren't the deceitful parties when it comes to the Middle Eastern oil scene. The MIddle Eastern nations all reneged on the deal with us that made them wealthy.

[j_b]

JayB said:

This reminds me of a Monty Python skit in which no matter what the question the host presented to the contestants, the correct answer was always "pork." Swap pork for oil and you've got the functional equivalent of a debate with this representative of the far left.

 

typical. labeling the oppositon as being extremist is much easier than making a cogent argument. this is reminicent of the 50's witch hunts and points to the glasses you are wearing. i consider myself center left and my opinions are, in general, shared by many others if not the majority. which i could not say about yours. just ask yourself: once the spin dust settled (and prior to the current period) what was the generally accepted popular reason for intervening in the gulf in 1991?

 

I'm looking forward to the identification of the commodities we sent our troops in to control in Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo, and our subsequent exploitation of them. Triple bonus points if you use the terms "cabal," "multinational," "neoconservative," and "corporate interests" and one verb of your choice from the "Not in Our Name" homepage in the first sentence.

 

did i ever say that commodities or resources were the only immediate reasons for having entered all conflicts? i said that our policy in the middle east is about control of a most important resource. i am not sure where you got that other reasons for other parts of the world do not exist. in general the caribbeans are about backyard and dominoes (easy targets anyway), southern europe about geopolitical control vis a vis the strengthening european union in the vacuum left by the collapse of the soviet block (note no ground troops), in somalia the UN finally responded to a 20year messy combination of warlords, dictatorship, and famine. i am not too sure what motivated the unsanctioned US operation there except may be it was the desire of a democrat adminstration for a quick resolution and bring the boys home in the face of mounting criticism by isolationists.

[Jim]

RobBob said:

I am saying that since the Middle East seized oil assets back in the 1970s, western nations in the Middle East have been scrambling to put stability back into that industry. Some may argue that Western nations made huge profits by matching Western know-how and investment capital with Middle Eastern raw materials. But we also made the governments of those nations in the Middle East rich at the same time.

 

But they got greedy, wanted more, and re-structured the deal for themselves. The industrial world has been dealing with the fallout ever since. So I am saying that the US and the Western world aren't the deceitful parties when it comes to the Middle Eastern oil scene. The MIddle Eastern nations all reneged on the deal with us that made them wealthy.

 

Again, you don't have the facts correct. If you're still talking about Iran - the Majlis party nationalized the oil fields in 1951. Pressure had been building for a couple years, in part due to the reluctance of the AIOC, the British oil group, to cut a fair deal. Most of the other Persian Gulf nations were getting a 50/50 split of oil revenue. The AIOC offered some crumbs, which lead to the nationalists gaining in the 1949 elections.

 

When Iran nationalized the oil fields the British technicians pulled out and England siezed Iranian assets in British banks. Iran went to the Court of International Justice at The Hague - and won. A fact often misplaced. Under US pressure the AIOC improved their offer but the political climate was too hot now.

 

Under fear of the Soviets and the oil game the Brits and the US (Eisenhower admin) set in motion Operation Ajax to overthrow Mosaddeq and institute the Shah.

 

So you could argue it was the British who were too greedy. And so we put a dictator in place and that's OK? The ends justifies the means is a slippery slope.

[RobBob]

Jim, I said the Middle East. When did the majority of the oil reserves in the Middle East get nationalized? You'll do anything to convince yourself that you won an argument. I got no facts incorrect whatsoever. Western nations provided the market, the technology, and the capital for Middle Eastern nations to get wealthy on oil. Those nations welched on the arrangement. As I have said before, the Western nations' methods may have been crude, but our actions since nationalization have been in an effort to stabilize and mitigate the ransom that the Middle East has extorted through OPEC for oil. You like to believe we meddle in the Middle East for sadistic pleasure, I think.

 

The nationalization of Middle Eastern oil constitutes the largest transfer of wealth in history.

 

Let's move on to another topic.

[allthumbs]

RobBob said:

Let's move on to another topic.

"What? Were you two saying something?"

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

This thread blows bento chunks like Trask in Japan on a sake binge.

 

Talk about something fun or funny or perhaps remotely interesting.

 

Like how Howard Dean's gonna kick George Bush Jr's lying, scheming, thieving ass right out of the White house, from where he will then proceed to fix the economy, stop blowing shit up, and stop pretending that the only people that matter in this country are the ones who own huge corporations.

 

Howie fer Amer'ca!

 

[allthumbs]

comedy central

[Jim]

RobBob said:

but our actions since nationalization have been in an effort to stabilize

 

And that's worked well

[Billygoat]

JayB said:

Billygoat said:

I'll have a crack at it. Let's see... Haiti was because of the Marshall plan; Grenada the same; Panama offshore banking, money laundering (and cover-up) for Iran Contra, as well as the Marshall plan; Kosovo oil pipeline; Somalia was because of huge oil and mining leases recently obtained by American interests...See, even Clinton services the rich.

I think that it is simply disingenuous for our government to claim that we do these things purely out of the goodness of our hearts, for the suffering masses of the world. If so, why did we not "help out" in Rwanda, surely no more compelling case could be made there, what with some six million dead in the period of a year from tribal genocide....

 

Worldwide, this behavior just makes us look like assholes who can't be up front. Actually, looking at our short but colourful history, we are assholes who are not forthcoming, break treaties and participate in genocide if it serves our "national interests".

 

Ha Ha! There you go fuck face

 

By Marshall Plan, I assume you are referring to the WWII era program for the reconstruction of Europe. You are quite the historian. Better not argue with the likes of you anymore. Now tell me that we entered WWII because of the Monroe Doctrine. Or maybe the Treaty of Tordesilla.

 

Oil and mining contracts in Somalia? Are you joking? With what legal entity would an oil company negotiate a binding legal agreement? The dudes motoring around Mogadishu on their Technicals?

 

Here's a concise summary of what actually happened:

 

Somalia is indeed an interesting case. After the coup in 1969 that put Siad Barre in power, the revolutionaries attempted to administer the Somali economy with "Scientific Socialism." In an utterly unsurprising development, the country soon began to have trouble feeding itself and began the long descent into chaos that we observe at the present. This situation was actually exacerbated by foreign aid, as the various warring factions obtained significant funding for their efforts through contracting their services to the UN and NGOs and embezzling money from them. Perhaps most significant was the disruptive effect of food aid, which the warring parties promptly stole and distributed amongst their loyalists. They sold the food in local markets, and in the process continously undercut the local farmers until they themselves became dependent on the food aid, and effectively under control of whichever faction controlled it. The situation ultimately became so chaotic and hopeless that the UN and the NGOs began to talk openly of pulling out, which would have effectively meant disaster for the factions, as they would be deprived of most of their funding. At this point they began to deliberately starve the population, and provide false information concerning the number of people that would perish without an immediate surge in international aid. As the humanitarian situation deteriorated, the images of the Somalis suffering under these conditions saturated the airwaves, and the world looked to America to do something. In the process of doing something the American millitary began to undermine both the economic lifeline, and the political control of the various factions, and the debacle commenced. There's a full account of this calamity in the Road to Hell" by Michael Maren.

 

Somalia did have a modest refining capacity at one time, and may have petroleum reserves, but they have never been developed to any degree. There are plenty of other places with both proven reserves, a minimally viable infrastructure, and a functioning state with which to do business elsewhere in the world. Any oil or mining concern which is actually out to make money, which is all of them, will invest anywhere where the political risk is such that they risk losing their entire investment before turning a net profit on the operation.

 

Strategic geopolitical considerations, which come in a variety of shapes and sizes, provide the rationale for most wars. To pretend otherwise is silly, but to pretend that every single US intervention can be explained in purely economic terms shows a positive disinclination to aquaint oneself with history, and a staggering disregard for the facts.

 

For those that do read try "I Am Writing to Inform You that Tomorrow we Shall Be Killed Along with Our Families." By Phillip Gourevitch for the authoritative account of the slaughter in Rwanda.

 

 

Made you look!

 

didn't have any time to google anything this morn.

Was the Monroe doctrine the one that established our dominance of this hemisphere o learned one?

[Fairweather]

Billygoat said:

 

I think that it is simply disingenuous for our government to claim that we do these things purely out of the goodness of our hearts, for the suffering masses of the world. If so, why did we not "help out" in Rwanda, surely no more compelling case could be made there, what with some six million dead in the period of a year from tribal genocide....

 

.

 

Ha Ha! There you go fuck face

 

Hey Billy,

 

Maybe you could explain how "some six million dead in one year" took place in Rwanda, when the total population of that nation then was only 5.1 million. I believe the best estimate is about 500,000 dead (800,000 according to CIA World Fact Book), mostly Tutsi minorities killed by the Hutu majority. Still a horror to be sure, and I do believe this is a case where the UN really dropped the ball with tragic consequences.

 

How about checking your #'s a little better before you present them next time. But then exagerration of "American crimes" is a cornerstone of most leftist arguments.

[Fence_Sitter]

Fairweather said:

Billygoat said:

 

I think that it is simply disingenuous for our government to claim that we do these things purely out of the goodness of our hearts, for the suffering masses of the world. If so, why did we not "help out" in Rwanda, surely no more compelling case could be made there, what with some six million dead in the period of a year from tribal genocide....

 

.

 

Ha Ha! There you go fuck face

 

Hey Billy,

 

Maybe you could explain how "some six million dead in one year" took place in Rwanda, when the total population of that nation then was only 5.1 million. I believe the best estimate is about 500,000 dead (800,000 according to CIA World Fact Book), mostly Tutsi minorities killed by the Hutu majority. Still a horror to be sure, and I do believe this is a case where the UN really dropped the ball with tragic consequences.

 

How about checking your #'s a little better before you present them next time. But then exagerration of "American crimes" is a cornerstone of most leftist arguments.

 

sems similar to the estimates of deaths in kosovo... 100,000 deaths turned into a couple hundred?

[Billygoat]

You guys are actually still reading this thread?!

That's the last time I post before I have my morning tea and hit Google....

[mikeadam]

Glad to see the left and right keyboard ninja's are still quarterbacking everything from the rear. Keep up the good work!

 

Tools.

 

P.S. A few days ago the airport took 30 mortar rounds and several large engagements occur frequently. You are only hearing of the casualties.

[Dru]

hey mike if you find saddam do you get the 25 million or is that offer only good to iraqi?

[Fence_Sitter]

Dru said:

hey mike if you find saddam do you get the 25 million or is that offer only good to iraqi?

 

fer real! how many of you CC.com vigilantes wanna head to iraq and take care of some business 5 guys.... $5 mill each... must supply own firepower... PM me!

[RobBob]

Lessee, you can take Jim, j_b, ....