Why war with Iraq is happening
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
you answered too quick.
madrin
New Member
The ToV was a recipe for disaster because at it's heart was the notion that Germany should never resolve it's finance issues completely, and would thus be under the yoke of the conquering parties.
...instead it fomented revolutions(most of which were communist based) which brought about an adoption of the "lesser evil" concept by the public in general.
...good and interesting history there if anyone cares to read about it....
as for Iraq and the "war on terrorism", there's NO doubt whatsoever that the Iraq part of it IS absolutely about oil...
...it's also about a multitude of other things...revenge figures in even..but oil is a major component...
...and there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with that.
SH threatens the status quo of the oil dynamic. He does so in order to manipulate his neighbors into doing his bidding via the marketplace. He uses the money he receives for his ONE viable product to actively destabilize the region....no one can argue with any of that...
This is NOT about ugly americans driving SUV's. It's NOT about a failure on the part of Americans to understand and embrace other faiths, and it is most certainly NOT about a desire to "steal" any other country's natural resources....
it's about eliminating a proven threat. That's the very heart of it....
MADrin
...instead it fomented revolutions(most of which were communist based) which brought about an adoption of the "lesser evil" concept by the public in general.
...good and interesting history there if anyone cares to read about it....
as for Iraq and the "war on terrorism", there's NO doubt whatsoever that the Iraq part of it IS absolutely about oil...
...it's also about a multitude of other things...revenge figures in even..but oil is a major component...
...and there's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with that.
SH threatens the status quo of the oil dynamic. He does so in order to manipulate his neighbors into doing his bidding via the marketplace. He uses the money he receives for his ONE viable product to actively destabilize the region....no one can argue with any of that...
This is NOT about ugly americans driving SUV's. It's NOT about a failure on the part of Americans to understand and embrace other faiths, and it is most certainly NOT about a desire to "steal" any other country's natural resources....
it's about eliminating a proven threat. That's the very heart of it....
MADrin
Squiggy
ThunderDick
madrin, You've confused me. One second I'm reading that its about oil and the next you're saying its NOT about stealing their rescources...
I believe taking them by use of force would qualify as stealing....
And to suggest that there is nothing wrong with risking American servicemen for revenge or oil is just offensive to me. Unless you are about to tell me that you ARE an American serviceman and you are THERE and willing to die for those 'causes', that was the wrong thing to say.....
I believe taking them by use of force would qualify as stealing....And to suggest that there is nothing wrong with risking American servicemen for revenge or oil is just offensive to me. Unless you are about to tell me that you ARE an American serviceman and you are THERE and willing to die for those 'causes', that was the wrong thing to say.....
madrin
New Member
Let me clarify it then, Squiggy....
perhaps I didn't word it correctly...
Being "about oil" doesn't necessarily mean "stealing" natural resources. What it DOES mean is that there is an oil market in the region, in which Iraq participates, and that market has been destabilized both in the past and now by Iraq and it's geo-political aspirations and schemes.
I also said that while this was definitely about oil, that was not the SOLE reason for being there, and anyone who suggests that's the case needs to re-do their ME primer class...because to suggest that is simply naive...
The situation is MUCH more complex and it includes dynamics that the media chosses to gloss over in the name of political correctness and other unsavory concerns that have no place in honest journalism...
To your last point..vis a vis American servicemen and women, and their "job".
I would grant you that sending our forces over there..or anywhere for that matter, simply to commandeer oil rigs for free....ie...as in "stealing" them outright would be a travesty, and Illegal to boot...
But the Armed forces DO exist to defend and preserve their country's ideals, political structure, and lifestyle(s), among other things. Thats what they do. Being a serviceperson is, by definition, risky to say the least...and there is an expectation that from time to time they will be deployed, and they will kill and BE killed...in this case it is my contention that the goal is noble....and ONLY a start....
...one thing many people mistake about armies is that they exist to "make peace". They do not..they exist to make war. Peace springs from elsewhere...
MADrin
perhaps I didn't word it correctly...
Being "about oil" doesn't necessarily mean "stealing" natural resources. What it DOES mean is that there is an oil market in the region, in which Iraq participates, and that market has been destabilized both in the past and now by Iraq and it's geo-political aspirations and schemes.
I also said that while this was definitely about oil, that was not the SOLE reason for being there, and anyone who suggests that's the case needs to re-do their ME primer class...because to suggest that is simply naive...
The situation is MUCH more complex and it includes dynamics that the media chosses to gloss over in the name of political correctness and other unsavory concerns that have no place in honest journalism...
To your last point..vis a vis American servicemen and women, and their "job".
I would grant you that sending our forces over there..or anywhere for that matter, simply to commandeer oil rigs for free....ie...as in "stealing" them outright would be a travesty, and Illegal to boot...
But the Armed forces DO exist to defend and preserve their country's ideals, political structure, and lifestyle(s), among other things. Thats what they do. Being a serviceperson is, by definition, risky to say the least...and there is an expectation that from time to time they will be deployed, and they will kill and BE killed...in this case it is my contention that the goal is noble....and ONLY a start....
...one thing many people mistake about armies is that they exist to "make peace". They do not..they exist to make war. Peace springs from elsewhere...
MADrin
Squiggy
ThunderDick
I sense by your quotes on "job" that you are not a serviceman, never have been a serviceman, and don't plan on risking your ass in this "noble" venture that you are so anxious for us to undertake. You should maybe find out the real purpose of our armed forces instead of making up a definition that fits your desires....Our lifestyles change constantly and I'll be damned if the army is allowed to shoot me for changing with it (or not). Our "ideals are as fragile as the next election but not subject to the deployment of armed forces...Our political structure is protected INTERNALLY by laws which can be adjusted as needed. Again, nothing to do with the military...
In short, The purpose of our military is to DEFEND American soil and our people from foriegn AGGRESSION....
In short, The purpose of our military is to DEFEND American soil and our people from foriegn AGGRESSION....
points are pointy...
madrin
New Member
Ease up, Squiggy.....and make a coherent argument. All you've done so far is flash the standard "Gosh darnit if you're not there in battle fatigues you got no business talking about it..." ...
..to EVERYONE who disagrees with your premise(s), which are unclear at this point in any case...it doesn't fly. It's simply a brush off used commonly when someone doesn't want to defend a position.
you said this:
.....and then went on to say this....
...no sir. Not so.....the US military hasn't defended US soil OR "our people" since the Spanish-American war. It is sent to fight for the causes approved by it's commander in chief and presumably in co-operation with the legislative branch under specific circumstances set out within our constitution. In fact, the purpose of the FEDERAL military forces, as opposed to state militia forces (national guard, etc.) is to wage war, and no specific theater is prescribed. I didn't make up any definition, that much is clear..........
you said :
...now after reading this, I had to seriously question whether your post was in response to mine, or to someone elses. This part,
..what I mean by it was the general lifestyle of the nation in question...in that we worship who we wish, pretty much go where we wish, buy what we wish....and on and on.....maybe that falls more under the "ideals" column....but I hardly thought anyone would make the leap that you did.
I guess I'm not sure where you get the idea that there's anything behind my post that indicates that I am "anxious" to undertake any venture. It's a situation which demands thought, vision, and debate....and we've had that. At some point there is consensus, and I believe that has been reached.
In this case you either believe SH and his regime are a threat, or you don't. if you don't then , yeah..I can dig your argument. I could see how you might then think this was just about getting free oil.
...my contention is that it's clearly about a LOT more, and my opinion is that the regime represents a threat not only to this country, the US, but also some of our allies, with whom we are treaty bound to defend. Pretty simple.
Finally, you know, you took offense to something I posted prior, along the lines that this conflict has, as components, oil concerns and vengeance....but you either quoted me out of context purposely or misunderstood what I was saying. I NEVER said those were the ONLY components. If they were then the whole thing would be despicable, but as with most conflicts and all modern wars there have been less than honorable components behind them that do not diminish the legitimacy of the conflict in general.
MADrin
..to EVERYONE who disagrees with your premise(s), which are unclear at this point in any case...it doesn't fly. It's simply a brush off used commonly when someone doesn't want to defend a position.
you said this:
.....and then went on to say this....
...no sir. Not so.....the US military hasn't defended US soil OR "our people" since the Spanish-American war. It is sent to fight for the causes approved by it's commander in chief and presumably in co-operation with the legislative branch under specific circumstances set out within our constitution. In fact, the purpose of the FEDERAL military forces, as opposed to state militia forces (national guard, etc.) is to wage war, and no specific theater is prescribed. I didn't make up any definition, that much is clear..........
you said :
...now after reading this, I had to seriously question whether your post was in response to mine, or to someone elses. This part,
...has nothing to do with anything I said. If you're referring to the tract about protecting "ideals, political structures, lifestyles...." then perhaps I was presumptuous in my belief that no one would take it to mean a PERSONAL lifestyle choice, such as the desire to wear hippe clothes and never shower.....
..what I mean by it was the general lifestyle of the nation in question...in that we worship who we wish, pretty much go where we wish, buy what we wish....and on and on.....maybe that falls more under the "ideals" column....but I hardly thought anyone would make the leap that you did.
I guess I'm not sure where you get the idea that there's anything behind my post that indicates that I am "anxious" to undertake any venture. It's a situation which demands thought, vision, and debate....and we've had that. At some point there is consensus, and I believe that has been reached.
In this case you either believe SH and his regime are a threat, or you don't. if you don't then , yeah..I can dig your argument. I could see how you might then think this was just about getting free oil.
...my contention is that it's clearly about a LOT more, and my opinion is that the regime represents a threat not only to this country, the US, but also some of our allies, with whom we are treaty bound to defend. Pretty simple.
Finally, you know, you took offense to something I posted prior, along the lines that this conflict has, as components, oil concerns and vengeance....but you either quoted me out of context purposely or misunderstood what I was saying. I NEVER said those were the ONLY components. If they were then the whole thing would be despicable, but as with most conflicts and all modern wars there have been less than honorable components behind them that do not diminish the legitimacy of the conflict in general.
MADrin
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Quoted you out of context? You specifically mentioned "oil" and "vengeance". Anything else was just elluded to. I get a little tired of people taking a pro war stand in this matter as long as its not them going. That boogeyman is not an excuse to waste American lives without any more thought than to keep him from upsetting your daily plans or making you feel uncomfortable. If you have reasons to justify risking one of those American lives that doesn't go back to that or some other speculation, PLEASE state it....
Every argument I've heard so far about "terrorism" dictates that we need to wipe out Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. If its all religious based terrorism then hit their capitol. And this bullshit about the UN resolutions is just as ridiculous. There arre a billion of them out there. Why are we so determined to take this one on? (hint) OIL
Every argument I've heard so far about "terrorism" dictates that we need to wipe out Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. If its all religious based terrorism then hit their capitol. And this bullshit about the UN resolutions is just as ridiculous. There arre a billion of them out there. Why are we so determined to take this one on? (hint) OIL