Three things worth commenting on (IMHO, at least) about Dubya’s Excellent Adventure:
It was interesting to find out that Baghdad International Airport is apparently a US military airfield these days. I’d think that a nation trying to get its economy back on its feet would really need to have its main airport open to civilian flights on a regular basis. But maybe that’s just me.
I see Bush repeated his already-disproven line of “You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don’t have to face them in our own country.” (Text of speech to troops.) Surely morale-boosting and lying don’t have to go hand-in-hand.
After chowing down with the troops, Bush met with Chalabi. This is the diplomatic equivalent of masturbation: Chalabi’s only important in Iraq because we appointed him to the Iraqi “Governing” Council; we only appointed him to that body because he told us everything we wanted to hear, even if it turned out to be a crock of shit. He doesn’t represent the Iraqis; he represents Wolfowitz and Perle. Meeting with him sustains the notion that the Bushies believe he has legitimacy. He doesn’t. Bush meeting with him highlights the fact that our Iraq policy rests on a foundation of moonbeams.
No, we can’t cut and run from Iraq, even if staying doesn’t do Iraq much good either. We’ve got to do our best to leave Iraq with some sort of stable government that’s an improvement over Saddam. Hopefully that’s possible, but we can’t find out without trying. But lies, neocon fantasies, and Iraqi governments handpicked by the U.S.A. won’t be the basis of anything promising.
Y’know, the supporters of this war flat-out ridiculed those lefties who claimed this war was about oil. Even I thought that claim was over the top, despite being against this war from the beginning.
So not only were the bum-scratching lefties right all along, but you’re ridiculing them for not having taken the position they actually took. Meanwhile not having any problem with the Bushies for having sworn up one side and down the other that this was not about oil, noway nohow.
You mean it still hasn’t been shown to you that Iraq was not a “possible threat” in any way, shape, or form?
Good gravy, man, given what we know now about Iraq’s capabilities back in March, Canada, France, and the Virgin Islands were bigger threats to us than Iraq. The only threat Saddam posed to us was in keeping ownership of Iraq’s oil fields out of US hands.
You’ve got a “Fox News Faithful Viewer” certificate framed over your mantlepiece, don’t you?
Oh, one more thing about Bush’s adventure. It nicely overshadowed Hillary’s Thanksgiving visit to Afghanistan, once again pushing that country out of the discussion and into the shadows. Bush said we wouldn’t forget Afghanistan this time. Just one more Bush lie.
One reason I wanted us to wait a year to attack Iraq, even if everything the Bushies had said had been absolutely true, was to see how the aftermath of our Afghan war played out. I knew (not that that took much brains) that deposing Saddam would be somewhere between straightforward and easy; the real game was going to be the aftermath. So seeing how Afghanistan played out would have given us insight into our ability to handle the Iraq aftermath, if we’d waited.
In Afghanistan, as we know, things suck. The US-supported government, at last report, didn’t control very much beyond the Kabul city limits. Warlords run the rest of the country, which was exactly the situation that gave rise to the Taliban’s success in the first place. And on top of that, opium growth is increasing like gangbusters, pushing out more normal forms of economic activity.
So Beagle... you said Americans are more introspective than other nations in another post... now you say US haters have no critical thought. Do you think americans have more critical thought ? Do you think the invasion of Iraq was opposed even in a "lets think it out a bit more" stance by many americans ? Everything you say can be thrown on the Bushites too.
What do americans know about Iraq that makes them so good at governing it ? Why are americans better at deciding which way the world should go ? Invading Iraq was better than critical thinking about Terrorism ? Easier than fact checking and analysis of WHY these things happened... and how not to repeat the same mistakes ?
It's easy to smirk here at the vitriol and say we don't understand the US... when many of us foreigners have lived and studied in the US... we follow the news and maybe... just maybe have a different insight to the damage the US is doing... an insight which revenge and mission filled US conservatives are unable or unwilling to see.
You of course dismiss any possibility that the US can be wrong apparently... ?
Well, I have noticed that foreigners spend a lot more time analyzing the faults of the US than of their own nations. That would tend to indicate a lack of introspection.
For example, what do you think of Lula’s close relationship with Fidel Castro?
(Hijack?) “Close” ? Not at all. Its just for show. His own party loves the guy. In terms of politics… what has Lula done to support Cuba or Fidel ? Brazil has even criticized when Cuba hunted down dissedents a few months ago. ( I won’t defend Lula’s parties silly love for Cuba either. Love more than actions in fact.)
Now even if Lula was creating the "axis of good" with Cuba it would be very little relevant to worldwide affairs. (though relevant to US politics) Now the G-21 (or whatever number it is now) was a relevant thing for example.
Most of the dopers are americans and American politics are having a worldwide effect. That is why we analyze more american politics here than others. It's not due to lack of "introspection". You can start threads on Lula as much as one on Bush. I will be happy to give a pretty balanced input too. Do notice that most threads aren't started by foreigners either.
Now if you want to imply that foreigners have no right to talk about american politics ... that certainly would come across as pretty shallow.
I actually ridicule them for a totally different reason than the one you imply.
Maybe you should review my entire post and the post it was in response to. Of course it is about oil but NOT about profits for oil men and American SUV’s.
It’s about economic survival; and perhaps literal survival. If I ridicule anyone for any reason it’s for them not taking the long view or seeing the big picture.
May I explain? The entire world has gone up the petrochemical one way street. Name one thing, just one thing, that YOU need in order to survive in modern society that is NOT dependent on oil; from the manufacture of goods to transportation to distribution.
Now closely review the situation in Saudi. The royal family is on the brink with some of the younger ones embracing Islamic fundies ala Osama. Now what do you think would happen if the fundies take over in Saudi? No oil for anybody. They’ll sit there and cook their meals over camel dung fires and close down the oil rigs. Westerners will be thrown out at best and murdered most likely. Yeah we can get oil elsewhere… enough?.. in time? I doubt it!
What would the result be in other mid-east oil producing nations? Would the fundies there be caught up in the “impending victory for Allah”? The formation of a Pan Middle Eastern nation is not outside possibility. Look at a globe… One nation composed of Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Syria etc. Qatar and Kuwait would disappear like a camel fart in a sandstorm! What percentage of the world’s oil supply is now cut off?
What now happens in Europe? In America? In Asia? What happens when the trains, buses, ships and transfer trucks don’t run because they have no fuel? What about the plastics industry and other industries that depends on oil in order to make the products you have to have everyday? A hint: economic collaspe and Mad Max Thunderdome here we come! Israel can’t be supported by the US now, we can’t even run the tractor to plant the crops to feed ourselves! The Islamic extremists are going to sit back and browse the Koran right? Figure that out yourself.
Will this present war cast enough doubt on the Islamic fundies that they think they can’t pull this off? Will it secure oil for the use of future generations? Will Iraq become the new Saudi-friend-to-all-things-western? I don’t know!!
I DO know this… when butt scratching liberals claim that this this is ALL about PROFITS for oil men then they are no better than the money grubbing bastards they claim to expose.
I’ll take a moment to say a couple of things about the oil situation:
Perhaps it WAS all about the oil, however, oil is a national interest, and securing Iraq secured oil…it may be a shallow analysis, but I believe it also to be true. Personally, I don’t really have an issue with our securing a significant source of oil for the forseeable future.
Evil Captor mentioned that we need to develop less dependence on foreign oil, a position “liberals have been pushing since the 60s.” Uhhhhmmm…color me skeptical, but - we tried that, but we seem to be stymied by conflicting goals from the libs here, essentially:
“We need to be less dependent on foreign oil…but you can’t drill for it on our soil or in our oceans.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…ANWR, anyone???
Uh huh. Just like Iran stopped producing oil when fundamentalists took over that country.
Oops, they didn’t. Funny, that.
Is the sky falling where you live yet?
I see! So people who actively support ostensibly oppressive regimes for their personal financial stability are morally equivalent to people who indirectly profit from it. And I suppose also that taxpayers who fund an army that has individuals commiting war crimes should be put on trial right with them… You know, moral equivalency being what it is.
It’s not like the person closer to carrying out a specific act should bear more responsibility for that act or anything. That would be silly.
Remains to be seen what we’ve “secured” there, or if its value outweighs its costs. Note, also, that Iraq was selling oil already under the UN sanctions, that it is not at all clear that a higher flow is coming, or that it even matters given that oil is a global commodity.
Remember all that talk about conservation and efficiency and all that other crap that got dismissed as tree-hugging hippieness by the SUV buyers? Or Cheney, just after taking office, dismissing them as morally noble but impractical? Try again.
I consider it “secure.” Is our military position under any serious threat? Yes, I understand our troops are under attack daily, and that we are losing lives there, which is absolutely regrettable, but are you seriously proposing that our military force is in danger of being routed out by random, small-scale attacks? Somehow I doubt that even you could believe such to be true…
Taking pot-shots at SUV buyers and VP Cheney doesn’t address the question of competing objectives that are brought forth by the libs - “no foreign oil, but no domestic drilling, either.” Are you able to logically juxtapose those opposing goals? I can’t…
Now, if you mean that the libs are supporting leaner, meaner fuel efficient vehicles, or complete elimination of the need for fossil fuels, hey, I’m all for that, too - and who wouldn’t be?? (Be careful about “big oil” not supporting such initiatives - you could be treading into conspiracy theories there)…but I’m also realistic enough to realize that I’m NOT going to subject my family of 5 to squeezing into a Yugo/Kia/Econobox, and I’m not going to go live in a cave to be “environmentally sensitive.”
Oh, wait…I can’t live in a cave, either…I would need FIRE and for that I would have to cut down a tree…
I didn’t say what constitutes “secure”. The use of the word is yours - perhaps you can define it for us to prevent further misunderstanding and facilitate further discussion. So here goes: In what way have we “secured” Iraq’s oil, IYHO?
As to your other “point”, I mentioned the most prominent of the many of your excluded middles resulting from your strawman, but perhaps it would be better to assail the strawman itself. How do you conclude that the 6 months supply in an irreplaceable ANWR is the only available alternative course of action? Can you reply thoughtfully?
Anyone who thinks this is ‘all about oil’ doesn’t understand the oil market.
Here’s the thing - oil is a fungible resource. That means that once it’s on the market, it’s irrelevant where it came from. There is nothing special about ‘Iraqi’ oil.
So what is the scenario under which Saddam could have prevented the U.S. from benefitting from Iraqi oil? By not selling to the U.S.? Fine. If he sells it to someone else instead, then they will buy less oil from their other suppliers, freeing that oil up for U.S. purchase.
The bottom line: Any increase in the oil supply, regardless of the source, will lower the world price of oil.
The only way in which Iraq’s oil wouldn’t have come to market is if Saddam would have let the oil infrastructure degrade to the point where they couldn’t pump any more, and left it that way. But that wasn’t about to happen, because Iraq needed the oil revenue.
The bottom line is that the Middle Eastern nations survive on their oil sales. As a result, the one thing you can count on is that all of that oil will be pumped out of the ground and sold. And the U.S. will have as much access to that oil as anyone else, regardless of the political situation there.
Plus, it’s just ridiculous to say that the U.S. went to war for oil, when the U.S. fought for ten years to stop Iraq from selling its oil, and when the war itself cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That’s some damned expensive oil.
This war is not in any way about oil. It was about exactly what Bush says it was about - the Middle East being a very dangerous place for the world, and getting more dangerous by the day. Nuclear proliferation and the threat of weapons of mass destruction just made Saddam’s regime too dangerous to tolerate.
That might have been the case, if any of it were factual. Under the circumstances, a little more skepticism is warranted. Besides, the oil revenues were going to pay for it all anyway, remember?
If you want to claim that what I say “Isn’t factual”, I would like some cites or a counter-argument.
And yes, the oil revenue is supposed to pay for part of the war. That makes the war ‘about oil’ in the same way as saying that reparations after WWI means that the world went to war in order to get on the reparation gravy train.
Sam, you brought up nuclear weapons and other WMD’s, not I. If you can provide cites that those are factual, let’s have 'em. Or perhaps I just wasn’t clear about which parts of the fantasy you stated were least factual. Now, before you get in further as to the administration’s objectives, do you need yet another link to PNAC?
Further, you’re now mentioning “reparations” - well, reparations for what? Who started what in reality? You want the Iraqi people to pay for their own occupation?
cedric45, are you seriously connecting Iran with Al-Qaeda now? Or are all Muslims alike?
