Roland Deschain, I find it difficult to believe that you are a man with military experience, in light of your recent posts.
Your proposed plan, apart from having about as much moral justification as the Holocaust, would be very interesting to implement. You assume that " From a military perspective no nation could stop us.". Well the Iraqis are doing a pretty good job of it as we speak. Other middle eastern nations such as Iran and Egypt have far more capable and loyal armies than Saddam did, not to mention loyal populations that would be no less zealous than the Iraqis in defence of their homeland. So I would be curious to know how much of a military buildup would be required to “annex the entire middle east” . Perhaps it’s time to bring back the draft? How about rationing the use of gasoline and diesel for civillian use? I suppose it won’t matter to you much since you will presumably be fighting at the front already. Where do you propose this operation be staged from? Israel? Russia? The Indian Ocean? It took a decade of base bullding and stockpilling of material in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to make OIF possible.
That’s just what I came up with after 5 minutes of semi-focused thought, I am eager to hear how you were planning to overcome these small obstacles.
Great idea, Roland. Why don’t you enlist in the army and ask them to give you a front line position in Afghanistan so you can begin the annexation process?
Don’t worry about it, Tusculan. Most of us Yankees just ignore guys like this.
that no one seems to have a problem with the blatent price fixing that OPEC member states practice on a daily basis. That coupled with the fact that high oil prices have negative ramfications which reverberate throughout our economy (ie inflation). You mention agricultural price fixing. I will grant you that we subsidise farmers, but I know many personally who WISH we had price fixing for agriculture (just look at the price fluxuations on the Chicago Exchange to illustrate how this is not the case).
It is true that I would have no problem with the United States taking over the Middle East by what ever means is necessary. The ideology of that region which has resulted in attacks against the United States has resulted in the War on terrorism that we have today. I say remove all Islamic, fundamentalist governments and totalitarian monarchies and start with a clean slate. Oil is a COMPONENT of that war to the extent that if we deny our enemies their main source of funding, we diminish their ability to harm us. Personally, I believe that OPEC nations are deliberately seeking to increase oil prices in order to do their part in the effort to defeat George Bush.
Perhaps we could off a program of automatic citizenship for the person and FAMILIES of any eligable person from Mexico and South America who enlisted in the military to off set our man power problems. In addition, we could increase enlistment bonuses to attract new recruits. You mentioned Egypt, we currently give that nation almost a BILLION dollars in foreign aid each year.
I think our situation would be improved if we simply replaced the governments (and perhaps temporarily annexed) Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria (who doesn’t have oil, but who strongly supports terrorism). In addition, we would occupy Mecca and Medina, and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalam and allow no pilgrimages so long as significant state supported terrorism was occuring against our citizens or troops (and Israel).
were it not for medical issues. Perhaps, you will find my position less extreme after the next attack which involves weapons of mass destruction against our people.
Prices may not be fixed within the US by other means than subsidies, but there are tariffs on agricultural products that keep other nations that produce at lower prices from competing with US farmers and exporting their products to the US. The subsidized US products in turn are exported at low prices and ruin prices for goods that could be crucial for many third world nations. The situation in the EU is virtually the same. I don’t say that the US or EU have no right to do so, but I can’t see why this is so much better than anything the OPEC does.
Good God. An adequate response would have to be taken to the Pit, but I’ll allow myself three civil points.
First, every aspect of the course of action you’re suggesting here would make the problems you’re obsessing over worse, not better.
Second, OPEC doesn’t fix prices, and hasn’t nearly the control over the price of oil that they would like to have.
And third, in the long wrong, the more OPEC restrains its oil production, the easier on the world it’ll be in future decades when the reserves eventually run out, since higher oil prices now encourages R&D of alternative energy sources, which means we might actually be able to transition to those without too much pain down the road.
Just to be clear, the last attack on “our people”* involved weapons of mass transit, not weapons of mass destruction. We’re still looking for the WMDs. Or at least Bush is, they’re apparently not under his desk. They’ve put on weight and could no longer fit inside the box.
*I’m not sure “our people” are the same people.
When were the previous attacks? Not only have we not found any WMD’s in Iraq, but there is no evidence that that they were even trying to make any. The only thing that we ever found is one or two rusty old shells that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, and even these didn’t actually contain any chemical weapons. And in any event, even Bush has admitted that there’s no reason to believe that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Any further responses would not be appropriate for General Questions.
There have been numerous reports linking Iraq to SUPPORT of various terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Al Quida. Granted there has been no direct link between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. However, does anyone question that Iraq supported terrorists (and tried to kill the former President of the United States George Bush Sr.)? To those who say well does that mean we should remove EVERY tyrant that supports terrorism or represses their people. My answer to that question is YES. In certain cases like China, it’s just not possible right now because they can NUKE us. However, had this policy been followed in the 1990’s we would not have had almost a million slaughtered Tootsies in Rawanda.
Sure, reports from the same people who reported the WMD.
You have very little idea what you’re talking about. Hezbollah is a Shia group (Saddam had a negative profile among Shias for some crazy reason), largely funded by Iran (remember the 8 year war just a decade and half ago between these two? Of course you don’t) Al-Qaida (Note transliteration) is a Islamist group that is dedicated, among other things to the overthrow of secular governments, explicitly including Iraq. Saddam was a paranoid dictator who feared Islamist groups like al-Qaida and killed many of their associates whenever he could. Yes, people question that Iraq supported terrorists, beyond their acknowledged support of some Palestinian terrorist groups eg payments to families of suicide bombers.
The Rwandans who were the victims of genocide were Tutsis. Don’t post in GQ when you really want to have a misinformed rant. Hell, don’t post at all until you get enough facts to differentiate between mass slaughter and movies featuring Dustin Hoffman in drag, because there’s the odd chance you might offend someone that way.
There is considerable evidence that Iraq supported terrorism to various degrees over the years.
There is no dispute, but that a slaughter in Rwanda occured in the 1990’s which might have been prevented or at least lessened had the United States intervened.
