Now, I know it is a bit bombastic for some, and I’m sure there are some “We are the World” types that are going to get peeved, but I thought my friends post in his LJ summed it up nicely.
Have at it. I’m of course sending him the link to this thread, as I told him I would.
Oy. Your friend has a way with words, but his clarity ends there.
For starters, if the US and UK will invade Iraq, and progress too close to Baghdad, Saddam will most likely set fire to every refinery and excavation site in the country - like he did whilst retreating from Kuwait. If anything, the war will (at least in the time span of the next 3 years) lead to a decline in the oil supply coming out of Iraq, and it will cost billions and billions of dollars to restore the infrastructure to get it up to par again. In short, an SUV owner with an anti-war sticker on his car is probably a lot more realistic than your friend.
Secondly, if the US has a moral duty to overthrow tyrants, then why does it only appear to be doing so when the tyrant at hand interferes with either US political interests, or economical interests? Why didn’t the US free Tibet? Why aren’t there any US troops putting pressure on North Korea? Where were the US when Ruanda exploded?
I realise damn well that one can substitute just about any other nation in the questions above, but it IS the US leading the attack now. So, kindly provide (or have your friend provide) ONE example of the US (single-handedly, not as part of a UN mission) overthrowing a tyrant in a situation where there wasn’t any demonstrable political or economic gain for the US. Just a regime change for the sake of the people. One. Name one. Please.
First off, no country on Earth does anything without getting a political or economic bonus from it.
The US campaign against Japan didn’t really net us any gains. Peace, that would have been about it.
We took out Noriega, and gained nothing but a black eye politically for it.
We tried to take out warlords in Somalia, but weak willed politicians flaked on the cause.
I’ll try to get back to the rest of this… you do ask some good questions, although I think you’re asking loaded questions.
Somalia. Mohammed Farah Aideed (albeit that didn’t go very well).
“First off, no country on Earth does anything without getting a political or economic bonus from it.”
Then don’t suggest that the US is attacking Iraq because of some vague moral duty.
“The US campaign against Japan didn’t really net us any gains. Peace, that would have been about it.”
When Iraq bombs Pearl Harbor, I’ll be the first waving the US flag and cheering for every bomb that hits Saddam’s palace.
“We took out Noriega, and gained nothing but a black eye politically for it.”
Yes, of course. But the point it that Noriega had to be taken out because the US had an interest. Not because of some altruistic reason.
“We tried to take out warlords in Somalia, but weak willed politicians flaked on the cause.”
UN mission. Disqualified.
Wrong. The Somalia mission was a US endeavor. According to this site the entire operation in Somalia was composed of 3 parts.
1- UN mission, utilizing 3000 men.
2- Later, a seperate US mission that seized key points in and around Somalia. And later…
3- A return of humanitarian work to the UN.
No, no, no.
While the US was the only nation providing safety for humanitarian convoys (kudos for that, BTW, I don’t want to belittle the effort in any way), it did so at the request of the UN.
Had there not been a UN mission in Somalia, the US would not have sent troups there to overthrow Aideed. In fact, they weren’t even there to overthrow Aideed, initially.
Certain members of the country may benefit. The populace as whole, not so much. Some folks (and companies) will make big dollars. The rest of us will take it in the ass.
The cost of gas has been going up, partly because of the international tension. IMO, this is not an unavoidable byproduct, but one of the goals of the Administration. Gas is now hovering around $2.20 a gallon in Los Angeles and will climb much higher, as it will in the rest of the country. And it’s not gonna come down, even after we take Iraq.
Unless we put them there in the first place.
Were the US beating a path to liberate Spain after Franco went to town?
Oddly enough, according to the news, Oil prices are starting to drop. Consequently, gas prices will also start to drop.
And, even though Saddam had assistance from the US 20 years ago, that has little bearing on what’s happening now.
I don’t see why. I buy home heating oil 100 gallons at a time. A .50 cent jump per gallon is an extra 50 bucks per delivery, and this being the winter that it was, deliveries were frequent…you have people in the cold states taking on an additional $100 - 200 or more monthly bill. A planned price increase would also cause a planned humanitarian crisis, because people on fixed incomes can’t easily absorb that cost nor switch easily to some other form of heat.
The goal of any US administration would be to keep oil and gas affordable. This one is no different.
It has a LOT of bearing on it, Tristan. Namely that SH wouldn’t be in fucking power if it wasn’t for the US.
Sure, gas prices drop now. There is less uncertainty (i.e.: there WILL be war), so oil prices reflect the true value more accurately. However, if SH burns Iraq as he retreats, rest assured you’ll be wishing for 2.20 a gallon.
Actually, oil prices dropped because non-Iraqi sources increased production. Still, I think the live journal thing is way off base except for the fact that diplomacy is an extremely limited tool against military dictatorships. And Coldfire is right that Saddam owes his tyrannical existence to the US. I reckon what giveth can taketh away, eh?
According to the news, we will see gas hit $3.00 a gallon by summer. It was reported last week that LA will see it hit $2.50 in a couple of weeks, the momentary drop in crude oil price not withstanding…
And some people will make HUGE sums of money. Bush and Cheney know some of them personally.
Do people really still believe that the US goes around fighting tyranny whenever it rears its ugly head? How quaint.
So, how much blood of their non-Japanese captors/guards should the interned Japanese/Japenese-Americans have spilled to gain their liberty in WWII America?
We seem to do a lot of things that come around and bite us in the ass 20 years later.
The U.S. removal of Noriega was no noble pursuit. He was one of the last holdouts from the CIA’s* Iranian Shah/ Nicaraguan Contra/ Argentine junta/ Colombian drug cartel / Cuban exile/ worldwide arms trafficking/ Central American anticommunist/ etc. network, and represented a serious liability as such, or at the very least an expendable asset with high maintenance cost.
Gass hitting $3 a gallon is a scandal to you people? Come and live in Europe!
This is a decade or to outdated, most of latin americas countries are now democracies. Granted not the most perfect ones but after Dubya administration your friend can’t criticize us 
I hope that the next target in Bush hard on is not colombia, that is near, do me a favour if you participate in a poll please answer that the greatest danger to U.S. is Canada (not that bush care about polls, but you never know)