Is it about oil?

:eek6: I don't know how to feel. I've argued those points for months and been met with almost total resistance from most. Its always been obvious to me that things weren't right with the chosen direction of our efforts. But now, its actually disheartening to see others drifting toward my side of this debate. We are days from war and American lives are soon to be spent in this cause. Unfortunately, the time for this debate has expired and we must now support our troops.
I recall saying, in one of our discussions that, in the end, the oil companies would make a lot of money, and American mothers would be told that their sons and daughters died honorably. The right to say "I told you so" is a very empty consolation.....
 
i think oils a major part but power as prof said, and also bush following his fathers footsteps and such.
 
To me, the only way oil plays into this is that it has provided all manner of whacked out countries with mounds of easy cash to societies that never would have crawled up past a hardscrabble thrid world existence. Oil money has allowed them to buy weapons to be able to take clannish squabbles and turn them into international slobberknockers.
 
If it isn't about oil then why push a war against Iraq and try diplomacy with North Korea?? :rolleyes:

Squiggy, i know the feeling, i've been telling for months that it is all about oil.
 
Because Korea was the bastard stepchild of both Red China and the Soviet Union. The Russians always gave them as much equipment as they could handle ... and the Chinese inavded and reinforced the North Koreans just as they were about to fall. The whole Asia costal rim was the standoff zone between Imperialist group A (communists) and Imperial group B (capitalists). Korea was given all of the best equipment that they could hope to ever use in battle and a dual security council level member veto to cover for it. At least thats the way it was from 1950-1995. Thats when the Soviets and Chinese walked away from Korea. As long as they kept to their own borders and affairs, noone was ever going to press a military solution against them. The N Koreans were never ones to use the type of terrorists that we are concerned with today. Now they have nuclear weapons. That changes things.
 
unc, isn't that scenerio a bit like the lone gunman standing in the middle of the freeway surrounded by 2 or 3 dozen cops each with a gun aimed at him.
 
Im thinking OK corral. We certainly wern't alone on our side of the fence. The Brits, Turks, Australians, and even the French were on our sides at the time. The French were still too mired in post war reconstruction and the growing problem in the soon to be Vietnam area to offer more than diplomatic support. The other major fighting powers of Japan, Germany, Italy were quite absent from the world scene at the time for obvious reasons. The only countries that are in a position to be grand chest thumpers are the ones with a force projectable navy or long range missiles. There are very few nations that fit that bill... or did during that era.

But then who is the lone gunman in your theory? I may just be reading you wrong.
 
I was speaking in current tense. Korea stands as a lone gunman with little more than encouragement from spectators. They would have to know that even the attempt to strike with nukes would be suicide. I assure you, now, if you weren't aware, that we have strategically placed nukes trained on them. Many more than they have. And much more advanced. The gunman can shoot and die or surrender. All else is moot.
 
Indeed. Since it all falls back to the place being run by a small handfull of fat, dumb, and happy dictators who make all of the decisions... perhaps we can just let them keep their ill gotten cash and set them up on Tahiti for life if they will just give it up and let Korea merge.

Funny thing is.. I don't think the south wants the north anymore. The infrastructure of the North is so utterly fried that it would cripple the Souths economy for 20 years just trying to deal with the plumbing, electricity, food, and toxic waste streaming out of the woodwork .. sorta like germany absorbing the east. They still haven't gotten off their knees over that one.
 
I love how this idea of good old American plea bargaining has found its place in the world arena. I know there is an argument for it. But its just so hard to stomach the thought of paying alquaeda soldiers 27 million for info when the families of the 9/11 victims have had to fight so hard to get compensated. That said, I would have to support the Tahitian getaway plan if, in fact, it would solve the problem...
 
If that 27 million dollar payoff stood to save us several times that amount for not having to use other methods .. then it was a good plan.

The WTC payouts are another issue altogether.
 
unclehobart said:
If that 27 million dollar payoff stood to save us several times that amount for not having to use other methods .. then it was a good plan.

The WTC payouts are another issue altogether.


27 million out of the billions of dollars of taxes spent on military intelligence that did nothing to stop 2 airplanes from flying out of course for a long time.
 
I see the benefit of spending the $27M. Its just gut wrenching to think of handing it to one of them and knowing the WTC survivor's plight. Its like we've said goodbye to integrity forever....
 
Luis G said:
27 million out of the billions of dollars of taxes spent on military intelligence that did nothing to stop 2 airplanes from flying out of course for a long time.

We were accused of not connecting the dots, which was true. Now, we connect the dots & we're accused of being imperialists with oil on the brain. Pick one.
 
Gonz said:
We were accused of not connecting the dots, which was true. Now, we connect the dots & we're accused of being imperialists with oil on the brain. Pick one.

None of them, i'd pick not connecting the dots and being imperialists with oil on the brain :p

j/k :D
 
Back
Top