I still don’t get what the supposed loot to be gained from Iraq is. I am not an economist, but considering Bush has said that all oil wealth will go to the Iraqi people, all you have left is the question of who the Iraqi people will sell to. And even if they don’t sell all of it to the US, global oil price should still drop along with the supply, meaning that the effect of not getting to buy it all should be rather small. I haven’t researched the numbers, but I can’t imagine that a such small economic gain could even come close to the costs of nationbuilding. I’d expect rebuilding Iraq to be a long and painful process. The more people who are a part of it, the better, right?
It’s a “What if”-reasoning, Dryga.
“What happens if Saddam, being the evil US-hating dictator that he is, decides -for whatever reason- to incapacitate, destroy, or render useless his oil supply?”
The answer is: with the knowledge that all Iraqi oil is no longer available, oild prices would go through the roof. Add to that the fact that ending the uncertainty about the Iraqi oil makes prices drop, and Big Oil has a slightly increased profit margin, while even lowering prices at the pump, so to speak.
Now, I’m not going to say anything about the importance of that reasoning to the Bush administration, as I have no desire to debate it. But that’s the reasoning in a nutshell: a treasure is useless if it’s buried too deeply.
So “what if” means that if Hussein had destroyed his oil, no one benefits.
Because of this war, many people benefit. First and foremost, the Iraqi people. They are no longer under a dictatorship, they will be free for the first time in over twenty years. They get to sell their oil, there by increasing their wealth & standard of living. The oil using countries benefit by getting lower oil prices.
Who doesn’t benefit. Well, the other oil producing countries & anyone who had a sweetheard deal with the old Iraqi regime.
Things that make you go hhhmmmmm.
It’s a beautiful thing.
Fugazi, you seem to suggest that my point of view translates into Saddam’s fall in itself not being a good thing. If that’s your point, then it’s a fairly idiotic one.
Jeez, Coldy you must be getting real sensitive or something. I never said anything like that. You said “what if” Hussein destroys Iraqs oil, & sort of used that to point out yet another possible reason for the war.
I just expanded on your “what if” and said I think it is a good reason (among many) to go to war. It wouldn’t be a good reason all by itself, but added amongst many things, it is.
Fair enough: I apologise for reading too much into your words.
Admittedly, I may be a little more sensitive than normal. I contribute that to reading more bullshit than normal, personally. Not referring to your post here, Fugazi, but the polarising half-truths (if that) thrown around these days are enough to get even the most stoic among us on edge. Since I’m certainly not the most stoic…
I agree with you there. It’s almost painful reading the boards now-a-days. People on both sides of the issue are throwing around rhetoric like it’s going out of style.
I’m sure Saddam’s torture victims understood this while they were being tortured. Or, were they more likely hoping that some Captain America like vigilante was going to kick the door down and shove the torturer’s head through a wall?
So, if in order to stop a violent mugging I would need to jaywalk, do I do it? I would be breaking a law by doing so and as you say the ends don’t justify the means. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me, but maybe it works for you.
Now if I saw someone in front of me jaywalking, I wouldn’t run after him to tell him is was illegal. Not much justification there in doing that action, IMHO.
Maybe I’ll just keep on deciding things on a case by case basis after all, not have the moral high ground, and keep on being evil.:rolleyes:
When you believe a crime is being committed and you call the authorities and you do not like what they do, you are not allowed to take justice into your hands. No matter what, you are not allowed to do that. Under any circumstances. And that is the way it should be.
Now, the USA goes to UN and says terrible things are happening in Iraq and then the USA does not like what the UN says and so the USA decides to act unilaterally. Wrong thing to do. Especially since the arguments of the USA that people are being tortured in Iraq are seriously undermined by several facts:
1- People are being tortured much worse in other countries and the USA does not seem to care much.
2- Iraq has been doing that for a long time and the USA did not seem to care until now
3- In fact, the USA has helped the government of Iraq use nerve gas in ther war against Iran
4- In fact, the USA encouraged the souther shiites to revolt only to let Saddam massacre them and the USA stood by and did not lift a finger when it had the obligation to act
5- The USA has been an accomplice to many regimes which did the same kind of stuff with the help and blessings of the USA
6- The USA is presently trampling over the human rights of certain prisoners of war and is ignoring multiple international agreements and conventions.
It seems to me like the neigborhood bully was caught stealing from the neighbor and tries to justify it by saying the neighbor jaywalked the day before. Not very convincing.
An “all or nothing” strategy would be simultaneously simplistic and deceptive.
Complete bullshit. Has not the entire UN process since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 been prodded along by the lone insistence of the US? Don’t confuse the Clinton gap with nonchalance.
Cite? I have no patience for anyone who claims the US to be the sole villain in this play. We certainly don’t have clean hands, but others share the dirt. It behooves our government to finally clean up it’s act and deal with tyrants retaining power through even our benign neglect.
Damn right. It infuriated and disgusted me at the time. So much for honoring UN resolutions. Had Saddam been dealt with then, we’d not be doing so now.
See above. Note especially the part about international “dirty hands”.
Armed non-military combatants are treated as such, not POW’s by this country. A new series of laws will undoubtedly begin to develop dealing with terrorism as a ultra-legal matter falling somewhere between acts of war and lawbreaking.
[aside]
Coldfire said “I know of no other nation in the world (barring particular lower classes in England and Germany) that has such a strong patriotic populace as the U.S.” sailor said “Intelligent people around the world have rejected US actions by a great majority.”
bolding mine
Nice to see the elitist attitudes represented by you two. Of course the sophisticates of Europe wouldn’t deign to such coarse behavior as the common rabble of the U.S. (and certain “undesirables” of England and Germany). And of course the intellectuals all distinctly denounce US actions, here and abroad. Geez, the snobbery inherent in such comments.
Oh, fuck that “sophisticates of Europe” shit. I commented on the level of patriotism in the US, and how it is unparalelled in European nations (barring the exceptions cited) with the express and stated purpose of explaining why a flag burning would trigger a more moderate response in the Netherlands than it would in the USA. In no way did I deem this patriotism inferior. I was making a cultural observation to illustrate my point.
Your apology would be appreciated.
Chirac missed an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
You made a direct comparison between the ‘lower classes’ of Germany and England with the US. I was initially offended myself about your comment. But, then I thought about it a bit and realized you are correct. The US is made up of the lower classes of those and many other countries. Most of whom fled to the US to escape elitists like yourself who always insist that you know better than they do how they should live their lives and base a person’s worth on what class they were born into. So, if Americans are proud of their flag, and through it their country, it is for good reason. It is because they know that no matter who they are today, they can change it for the better tomorrow inspite of ‘upper class’ types like you.
Listen, shithead, I’m going to repeat it in little words so you, lower class as you are ( :rolleyes: ), can understand.
I NAMED THE U.S. AS A COUNTRY WHERE PATRIOTISM SEEMS TO BE MORE PREDOMINANT THAN IN MOST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE LATTER GROUP (“MOST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES”, FOR THE GRAMMATICALLY IMPAIRED), I STATED THAT CERTAIN LOWER CLASSES IN GERMANY AND ENGLAND (NOT NECESSARILY THE UK) SHARE THIS CHARACTERISTIC IN MY OPINION. THE TERM “LOWER CLASSES” REFERS TO EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT LEVELS HERE.
I was making a cultural observation without judgment. Those of you who choose to read a judgmental attitude into my remarks, and call me “Elitist”, are hereby summarily invited to suck my left nut.
Now, fuck off.
FTR, I didn’t take Coldfires comment as being elitist. In fact he prefaced it with “Let me put it this way, and trust me when I say I mean no offense.” I didn’t think he was infering that the US was of a lower class of people either. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to extrapolate that from his comment.
Well, count me in also as someone who knew what Coldfire meant and was not offended.
But if I may make a slight hijack, let me say our patriotism is one of our chief strengths as a nation. A country this diverse, ethnically, geographically, religiously, and culturally, could never survive if the people felt only a casual allegiance to it. So what Uzi said (in part; I have edited out the personal references) really does explain part of the American psyche:
I think a lot of Americans themselves fail to realize the binding force of their nation is not a common culture, language, religion, et. al., but an idea. And the power of that idea is easyily realized by considering the sheer numbers of people desperately trying to immigrate here every year.
End of hijack. As you were.
I mean no offense, but you are an idiot. Does saying I mean no offense make the statement any less offensive?
I think when you say a behavior in group A is only observed in group B’s ‘lower classes’ then the implication is that group A and the subset of B are the same. In this case ‘less educated and employed’ as recently defined by Coldfire. This was not countered by stating something like this is odd because the US isn’t made up of less educated and employed people, or a similar statement. The reference was left as it was with no clarification.
He goes on to say ‘stupid flag’ which again implies if you value the flag then you are stupid. And thus only stupid people would get upset if a ‘stupid flag’ was burned. Again only the 'lower classes of the countries stated and people in the US get upset by this, so…
Coldfire says he didn’t mean anything by it, so be it. I’m willing to not belabour the point anymore.
To Coldfire: A hearty ‘Fuck you’ right back at ya!
Uzi, you’re a fucking idiot. That’s all I have to say to you at this point.
If one is looking for offense, one will always find it somewhere. So, if you feel unchanged about my comments about patriotism in the US, if you still feel inclined to label me “elitist”, then so be it. I’m willing to bet you’re in the minority.
Yo, Americans. All of you who were offended by my patriotism remarks, raise your right flag.
NaSultainne, I am not going to waste my time with you but I want to address a couple of things. I said "In fact, the USA has helped the government of Iraq use nerve gas in ther war against Iran"to which you replied
The fact is well known and has been reported widely and I am not going to waste my time finding cites. You can find them easily in my posts of some months ago as I remember providing those cites in at least a couple of threads in GD. The USA is acting like a righteous and sanctimonious teacher who is above the rest of the world when, in fact it is as bad as anyone else, and sometimes worse.
And you are distorting the meaning of my words. When I said “Intelligent people around the world have rejected US actions by a great majority” I never said or implied the intelligent people are only outside the USA or even tat only intelligent people have rejected the war. What a said was a response to this:
which implied no intelligent people agreed with my position. In fact, plenty of intelligent people around the world (including the USA in the concept “world”) agree with my position. In fact, around the world there are many more people who oppose the war than people who support it. Your taking offense at what I said is just distorting it in an attempt to distract.
The fact is that many intelligent people inside and outside the USA have serious problems with this war. It has pretty much zero support abroad and only a few governments have reluctantly expressed what I would call “non-opposition” after much arm twisting by the USA. There is plenty of opposition inside the USA as well and the fact is that a lot of the support is just plain “my country right or wrong” type of patriotism which I certainly despise. I would never support anyone or any country “right or wrong”, I will always support right and whoever is right. As some journalist put it: "saying ‘my country, right or wrong’ is like saying ‘my mother, drunk or sober’, not very flattering.
A century ago Mark Twain saw the same thing happening when the jingoists wanted war with Spain over some trumped up excuses and were doing their best to get it and anyone who did not support it was labeled unpatriotic. He wrote
That is what has happened in America now. Empty rhetoric is the justification for this war.
Other than that I can only say you and I disagree.