|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
|
Honestly, your rambling flame fest isn't even worth my time.
More US troops died as a result of terror attacks in January than in December.
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the fact that people who have benefited from institutions like public schools, public libraries, and public universities favor eviscerating and decapitating these same institutions from which they have benefited after they are no longer in need of them. 
Another thing that amazes me is how many people who support this war don't have friends or family fighting it. It's easy to say you support a war when you don't have a personal stake in it, and the people fighting and dying for it are completely foreign to your existence. Remember, we were not told we were getting rid of Saddam because he was a "bad guy." Roll tape if you don't believe me.
If you think the US has such a broad-based "coalition" then why are we shouldering most of the burden in troop's lives and money for reconstruction? The US military is now stretched so thin, they are having to send old middle-aged men in the National Guard and Reserve to Iraq.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Ah, the Halliburton conspiracy saga continues.
See, now I could conceivably believe that a war could be for oil-somewhat in the sense of a Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome sort of way(He who controls the oil has the power/he who rules makes the rules). I mean if you look at the world from a super objective point of view and see humans acting for their survival, and energy(oil being one of the more efficient energy sources available), being the key to existence, was scarce and vital. If a culture is compelled to wage a war for energy for the sake of it's survival...see, now that actually makes sense if you think humans are nothing more than smart monkeys. But that would likely be a grounds up revolt starting on the streets due to inavailability than from the central office, and that would also make the assumption that the U.S. is somehow really desparate for more oil.
But the U.S. isn't that desparate for more oil...at least not yet, and not anytime in the immediate future for all I can tell. Alaska is sitting on a huge oil reserve that we currently don't use because PETA and Greenpeace are much more formidable foes than Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention waging a war on yourself never got anyone reelected. We have a Strategic Petroleum reserve that was built up in the 70's, though it's meant more as a supplemental source than a primary source. There are large proven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico around Louisiana and out in the deeper water. Not to mention new technologies which are now being used to extract hydrocarbons from sources that previously weren't considered to have any energy related purpose (like clay). I remember reading recently that one of the largest proven oil reserves had been recently discovered in South America, I think. It was sizeable enough to make Iraq's supply look less dominating. I remember that this reserve was found in clay mines or something--a relatively new source of hydrocarbons at the time--the technologies involved have gotten much more advanced. Don't worry, there is plenty of oil out there--it's just a matter of how quickly it can be extracted, and how quickly we transition away from a dependence on it as more alternative fuels are being developed.
But to say a war was wagered for the primary purpose of making Halliburton shareholders filthy rich? Yeah, a guy who used to run a successful Fortune 500 Company, then sold all of his interests in order to serve his country, is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes to manipulate intelligence agencies, the travel industry, and the global community in order to put a few more greenbacks in his pocket which he ironically doesn't even need more of in the first place? I find this argument to be high-risk.
But then again, Iraq does have the world's largest proven oil reserve, which makes for some great conspiracy theories. |
Thank you for not being an asshole in your response like some others. I apologize also if I came across that way.
You're right; I don't honestly believe it was entirely for oil. That's only a side benefit. 
I don’t agree with Kucinich on his Iraq plan to pull troops out ASAP, because it’s frankly unworkable. It’s hard for me to see even a leader less hell-bent on unilateralist tendencies be able to persuade other countries to put their young lives in the shooting gallery so that ours can go home. I just wanted people to see the cost of the war to the Iraqi people, so that a few of us may feel “safer.”
The current US leaders are implementing an idealistic plan to try and "democratize" the Middle East by forcibly deposing leaders they find unsuitable. Of course Iraq won't be, in all likelihood, a true democracy because as long as this "plan" is under US control, the Iraqis will not be allowed to elect the leaders they'd truly wish to elect. They will likely be forced to choose from a handful of US handpicked leaders.
Anyways, if the “one man one vote” model is implemented, the Shi’ah will win a majority in whatever new democratic government model is set up. It’s hard for me to see the Kurds and Sunnis bowing to Shi’ah control after being used to near autonomy (Kurds), and decades of dominance (Sunni). I think for the Kurdish situation, it would be easy to give them an independent nation, but I worry more about the other two ethnic groups’ coexistence. Like I’ve said, this is a very risky plan from the outset, but one can only hope that things will improve.
I also worry about the women of Iraq and how they will fare under a non-secular Islamic government. Nobody is disputing Saddam was a brutal leader, but under his secular Iraq, women had among the most rights of any other Middle Eastern country.
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
|
