OT: Interesting Read

[Randallw]

Originally posted by primitive:
OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Is a destabilized Iraq, and high oilprices in USAs best interest ?
As one of the most oildependend contries in the world, a sanctioned but stable Iraq would have been much better. The only Americans who profit from the current situation is the oil-mafia.

Donno why I keep *****ing about this. I live in a country that benefits gratly form high oilprices and I don't even own a SUV

Yes, A stable Iraq would be better. The US needs to crack down on the insurgents and eliminate any threat. I ponder the question, If the Iraqis have bad feelings against the US then why waste the time to "help" them. I can see that most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives and abhor part of their population causing chaos (eg. blowing up Iraqis, not American soldiers mind you, who are lining up to join their own police force to keep order). There exists though some part of the population that opposes the US. This is understandable what with Abu Ghraib (which is another example of retarded incompetence), but you have terrorists from other countries coming to Iraq to cause trouble. In this case a proportion of the liberated do not have the same mindset as the liberators.

US: "Congratulations we have freed you from tyranny and introduced democracy to Iraq"
Insurgents: "I spit on Democracy, Iraq needs a
shariast government"

Considering the oil, I for one look forward to the day when we no longer need oil (eg electric cars etc), then lets see the middle east survive without any useful resources.

[Katchoo]

Originally posted by Randallw:
Considering the oil, I for one look forward to the day when we no longer need oil (eg electric cars etc), then lets see the middle east survive without any useful resources.

None of us right now will live long enough to see that. There's just too much money being made off oil, too many people with great power & prestiege, for world dependancy, especially in the United States, of oil to go away.

The technologies exist right now to do away with oil. You can buy a car and heat your house without a drop of oil. Unfortunately those technologies are being kept at an especailly high price, making them virtually unatainable to all but the wealthiest people.

Does anyone here think that the people making their fortunes in oil would simply stand by and let their 'money tree' shrivel up and go away with the debut of cheap no-oil alternatives? HELL NO! There's so much money being made off oil, so much money being spread out, that we'll likely never see these better alternatives come into full bloom.

I for one am praying that the Republican Party is ousted in November, because if it's not, you can kiss the United States goodbye. Vice President Chaney, speaking at a rally yesterday or the day before, told the attending audience that Kerry & Edwards had the audacity to vote against a bill (proposed by the Republican Party) that would have helped clear the way towards prospecting, and eventually drilling, for oil in several natural reserve parks in the US, including the land in & around the Grand Canyon.

And that's not the worst that Bush & the Republican Party have done, or are trying to do.

I won't even go into how the Republican Party is trying to manipulate voters in Florida again...



Damn, and I'm not even American!

[Randallw]

Well I'm not American and I don't even live next door, but I hope the Republicans win.

Edit: I just need to add this bit. I am paraphrasing a bit, but you will hopefully get the gist.

President Bush was giving a speech, heres roughly what he said

Our enemies are driven and resourceful
just like us
They take every opportunity to do us and our country harm
just like us.

I've got to tell you, its a funny old world and youv'e got to laugh .

[ August 06, 2004, 05:19: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[primitive]

Originally posted by Randallw:
.
.
Yes, A stable Iraq would be better.
.
.

Sure, that would have been better. However; if the US government really wanted a stable Iraq, they would have done a better job. The war itself was executed perfectly, but the immediate post war period was blundered hopelessly beyond recovery.

Allowing the riots + creating a power vacuum by dissolving the Iraqi army and not having a new Iraqi government ready immediately, destroyed any chances the US ever had of creating a stable Iraq.

I just can’t believe GWB and his henchmen is that incompetent. Only logical conclusion I can see is that they wanted to turn Iraq into a new Lebanon.

Why ? beats me. It drives up the oil price for sure, but that can’t be the only reason. Hopefully it’s a well thought out scheme to keep the Saudis in place and not just a mad Texan on a powertrip.

[Atrocities]

Mistakes were made. But the loss of life now might well have paled the loss of life if Saddam had achieved his goal of becoming a nuclear power. Again something that I am thankful we will never know.

Begin Rant:
(Why we went to war.)
I would also like to note that by beating the **** out of the biggest meanest arse in the Middle East despite the anti sentiment in the world, we sent a message to the rest of that terrorist breeding SOB's that we will come after them regardless of world or liberal media opinion.

And I do not let the media or actors/singers tell me what I should and should not believe. I think I am independent enough to make up my own mind and do not need to be "protected" or fed heavily opinionated propaganda all wrapped up under the disguise of a documentary.

Hell this is something I would have expected from the Nazi party not the Democratic Party!

End rant.

[ August 06, 2004, 10:11: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[primitive]

Saddam ? Nuclear power ?
Thought everybody had understood by now that Saddams nuclear program was a joke.
If you wanted to go after rouge or borderline nations with real capabilities to make nuclear weapons, there would have been at least 10 nations more worthy of an intervention. North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Algeria and every former Soviet Central Asian republic to mention a few.

As for sending a message:
US armed forces have sent the message they have the capability to take whatever land they want. Kudos to them.
However; politically GWB has shown all his cards. Any rouge nation now knows that he/you won’t come if they can inflict losses of a few thousand and make it necessary with an expensive occupation afterwards. Mr Sung and the Ayatollahs probably sleeps much better now than they did a year and a half ago.

[ August 06, 2004, 11:01: Message edited by: primitive ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by primitive:
Saddam ? Nuclear power ?
Thought everybody had understood by now that Saddams nuclear program was a joke.
If you wanted to go after rouge or borderline nations with real capabilities to make nuclear weapons, there would have been at least 10 nations more worthy of an intervention. North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Algeria and every former Soviet Central Asian republic to mention a few.

As for sending a message:
US armed forces have sent the message they have the capability to take whatever land they want. Kudos to them.
However; politically GWB has shown all his cards. Any rouge nation now knows that he/you won’t come if they can inflict losses of a few thousand and make it necessary with an expensive occupation afterwards. Mr Sung and the Ayatollahs probably sleeps much better now than they did a year and a half ago.

I am sorry Primitive, but you missed my sarcastic point. I am far too tired to explain it to at the moment, but I will say is this. Mistakes were made, but in the end, what could have happened will most likely not happen. And whether or not it would have ever happened, well we will never know. And since we have taken on Iraq, terrorists have blown up no US main land buildings. Lets just hope that as time goes on, more and more people decide against terrorism and that the term and ideology that is terrorism fades into obscurity never to be heard from again. (Wishful thinking I know.)

Please don't take this to be mean, but I have to ask you, what would you have done if you were the leader of the US and you had to deal with the same info, situations, and people that Bush has had to contend with? I feel that the simple answer would have to be "I don't know." Why, well because both you and I would be second guessing someone who has information, insight, and choices to make that we will, thankfully, never have to face in our simple protected little lives. Bush was elected to do a job, he has done that job, and I honestly feel that if Gore had been in office instead of Bush, we still would have gone to war against Iraq. I just hope that the next president of the US has enough common sense to recall that appeasement of terrorism only breeds more terrorism. A sad, but true fact of the world we live in.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and we the arm chair warriors/diplomats of the world, will always second guess the decisions that are made by those that we elect into power. That is what it means to live in a free society, and for the first time in over 30 years, the Iraq people have that freedom as well. Albeit some of them choose hostile activities over PEACEFUL ONES!

The Last I looked, no allied force has beheaded anyone. And I do agree, he has shown all his cards, however in this kind of game, that sometimes has to be done.

(edit: spelling errors)

[ August 06, 2004, 11:26: Message edited by: Atrocities ]