See? I try and say something mildly because it’s not the main point and I get insulted.
If you’d bother to pull your head out your ass, you would have noted that it wasn’t any of these other countries who put the final kibosh on hope for a diplomatic solution by saying that they were going to veto any resolution that contained language requiring Iraq to comply. Other countries opposed war, that is their right. Countries that support it have the duty to convince them of the merits of their position and vice versa. France wasn’t willing to play the game, they played the “We’re taking the ball and going home” card. That and only that is why they are the target of my scorn. Ask me why they got to that point, and you may be suprised by my answer. ( Short answer-Bush fucked the whole thing up with his arrogant version of “diplomacy”. )
Given current rates of petroleum consumption, within 30 years the United States will need to import over two-thirds of its oil.
Accomplishing #1 would require the U.S. buying oil from nations that may be hostile to us.
To avoid #2, the solution is to secure a foreign source of oil and maintain control of it.
The first candidate for #3 is Iraq, since it is currently held by a non-US-friendly government, and the Persianl Gulf War/UN resolution violations can be used as a pretext.
All of this was outlined in an energy policy report written by Dick Cheney back in 2001. Search the internet for “The Cheney Report” for lotsa links.
Also, invading Iraq and securing Iraqi oil would help reinforce America’s status as the world’s sole superpower for the forseeable future. This is a policy advocated by neo-conservative groups, such as the Project for a New American Century. The PNAC even wrote a letter to Bill Clinton back in 1998, advocating an Iraqi invasion for this purpose. Many of the signers of the letter are folks who are now serving in the Bush White House.
Finally, if the oil contracts for a post-war Iraq go to American petroleum companies, they’ll (naturally) reap the financial rewards.
The United States gets increased geopolitical power and control out of this war.
American (and British) petroleum companies get the money out of this war.
The citizens of the United States gets stuck with the bill of rebuilding a post-war Iraq and maintaining an American presence there.
Yea, given that the exact same thing could have been acomplished by simply proclaiming Saddam “rehabilitated” in our opinion and working to get the U.N. to lift sanctions,( which wouldn’t have been hard at all ) then sweetening the deal with Saddam himself by selling him prime U.S. weapons systems to replace the antique Soviet crap he has ( Gotta spend those petro dollars somewhere ), why in the blazes do you believe in such a complicated scenerio?( Hey, nobody actually cares about the Iraqi people, right? That’s all just a smokescreen so we can get our hands on their oil, right?) Is it just a good way to feed your conspirasy jones or is there something more? Why does your scenerio ignore the fact thet the U.S. can meet all of our oil need from non-Middle Eastern sources presently ( but Europe can’t ) and reasonable renewable and other energy sources should be able to take up the slack over the next 30 years? In short, why do you pick the most complicated, costliest scenerio and fixate on that one as the only correct one?
Oh, two other things. By the time this little dust up is over, many/most of Iraq’s oil fields will have been burned, requiring time consuming ( on the order of years ) and costly ( tens of Billions of dollars) repair to produce crude again. How does that fit into your little “we’ll have a war and then the oil will just flow into our tankers like water” scenerio? ( Right, right, that’s Cheney’s bribe, his old company gets the contracts to rebuild, I forgot that layer in the conspiracy)
Finally, The U.S. IS the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future, that needs no reinforcement. The Shrub’s attempt to use this as a club is what got us to this point in the first place, remember? A halfway competent President would have had U.N aproval months ago and the war would be over now.
Beats me. Maybe the Bush Administration made him an offer, and he told George W. to take a flying leap? I agree completely that Saddam Hussein could have easily avoided war if he’d simply tear up his existing contracts and gave exclusive rights to American petroleum companies; why he chose not to is something we don’t know.
And while you may find the scenario “complicated” (gee, just four steps is too much for you, eh?), the fact remains that Dick Cheney’s name is on the report. Similary, the PNAC letter to Clinton is signed by high-level Bush Administration people, in plain view. This isn’t some paranoid conspiracy theory, as you’d like to believe, but established facts.
Again, go read Cheney’s report, since he covers all that. Sure, the United States could avoid the problem by making a major push twords non-petroleum fuel sources, but for financial reasons, American energy companies don’t want to pla along.
Because they signed the fucking documents, you brain-dead asshole – it’s not a “conspiracy” when the fingerprints are on the plans.
Let’s say a future president decides to go to war against Canada… and then let’s suppose that you, as well as many others, think this is very bad public policy at best; unmitigated lunacy at worst.
Now you and all these other folks are greatly agitated and disturbed about the president’s warmongering—what should you do?
you could:
stay at home and hide under your covers
laugh the whole thing off as “a neighbourly feud”
start bombing busses and killing hostages to protest the war
go out on the street with a big sign and yell about how pissed off you are.
which would you pick?
(and don’t try and compare Canada and Iraq-- the point is that street marches and protests beat the heck out of many other things that could happen when people are pissed at their government.)
I think you lack an understanding of what such papers, written when the oposing party is in power, are supposed to acomplish and how common they are. Such things are written primarily to criticize what the party in power is doing( whatever it is) in an effort to make political hay. The same people were roundly criticizing Clinton when he did use force, now they’re launching 1/4 of a million men and billions of dollars of arms at Iraq. To quote Rob Lowe, “It’s St. Elmo’s fire”. Put it another way, if this is part of their Super-Secret™ plan, their hidden blueprint for World-Domination™, why are they printing it in the Washington Post?
I have a real problem with some of the direct action shit that’s going down. For instance this protest in Times Square today - it will create a general sense of chaos and draw security forces away from the terrorist threat. It’s a really bad time to take security personnel away from their jobs.
It was very hard to notice how it amounted to such.
But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is an unjust war, or one that cannot be won, or one that serves no purpose, then would it not be the best thing to realise the mistake in conducting the war and pull out sooner, rather than later?
Actually, fuck that, here’s my one word rebuttal of your “rebuttal” Vietnam.
Why are those that are opposed to the US violence not seemingly opposed to the death created by Saddam?
The war is not supposed to kill more than the prospect of doing nothing for about 2 1/2 months. - this comment was well supported with cites and links in another thread.
Why have the protesters not come up with a simple 4 step plan to stop Saddam?
Distaste for the protesters does not equal anti first Amendment.
Would the protesters believe it is wrong for a cop to shoot a bank robber that runs out of the bank with his gun blazing?
What are the chances of the war protests keeping the terrorists from taking action? If I were a terrorist (and I’m not), I would think about all of the people that are opposed to the war. I would consider that they may change their views about the war if we suddenly experienced a terrorist attack. The way it stands now, many people are opposed to this war. I believe those numbers would change significantly if there was a terrorist attack. These war protests may actually keep the “homeland” safer. Obviously this theory would only work if terrorists were rational. Just a thought.
Because that’s what we did in the LAST Gulf War, and look at all the good it did us that time.
And for another stupid protester question:
Why is it that thousands of protesters, blocking streets and taking over whole BLOCKS of major cities are NOT considered to be the true voice of the people, while 20 people standing on a highway overpass with flags and ‘support our troops’ signs ARE?
No, FUCK YOU for misrepresenting what I said. READ what I posted, numbnuts, get your mommy to help you with the big words. I clearly said ( see above )
Unlike you, I research what I comment on, and I said exactly what is the case: France will veto any resolution which requires the Iraqis to comply-that force will be used if they ignore it. France said you can pass all the resolutions condeming SH you want, but when you try to enforce them, we’ll veto. THAT stance killed hope for a diplomatic solution, I defy you to say differently if you look at facts and not just your happy little GWB is evil, America is bad, blah, blah, blah world. I don’t even like Shrub, if he told me the sky was blue I’d question it, but I’m going to base my opinions on facts, not on what my neato protest coordinator told me to think.
More empty-headed anti-Bush rhetoric… Get it through your empty little head, the Bush administration was “trumpeting” exactly what you yourself said, namely that people know France was going to veto any resolution that included an automatic trigger for use of force. That is exactly what people have a problem with you knee-jerk piece of shit. It doesn’t take a fucking rocket scientist to realize that France was making it deadly obvious that it was not serious about disarming Iraq. Of course that wouldn’t be such a huge shock if you realized that French and Russian pressure on the Security Council has prevented the inspection regime from operating effectively for years. Peddle your moronic strawman arguments elsewhere, you aren’t going to enlighten anyone who has ever directed an ounce of critical thought about the issue with this shit.
