|
War in Afghanistan and Iraq (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
jesus christ. PNAC is indeed part of what put the US into iraq, but having actually read the signifcant PNAC document i dont remember a single reference to afghanistan. what does PNAC have to do with the question i asked about afghanistan? Do you even realise who these people are? they're the neocons that wanted to spead democracy in the middle east (you know, the idea you dismiss out of hand) and has nothing to do with US controlling iraqi oil, but of iraqi oil not being under the control of a despot hostile to the US.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Google that one line... over 10,000 results reference that letter written in 1998. The American government isn't stupid. That amount of oil can make the country that controls it the next super power, especially as we run into more and more difficulty getting it. Considering the U.S.A. has been bankrupt for nearly a century, and they love their power, it makes sense for them to want a hand in it.
There are thousands upon thousands of articles written suggesting that oil is the number one incentive to stick it out in the middle east. Google it and pick whichever one you think is a valid source. Like I said, maybe I am wrong, but I find this a lot easier to believe (since there is a very clear, and obvious incentive involved), than some bull about altruism or whatever. |
so, how do you explain that its the russian and chinese oil companies making out like bandits in iraq?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BB18Q20091212
your central thesis hinges on US raping and pillaging the oil from iraq, yet the US isn't getting anything, certainly nothing close to covering the cost of the war. how do you reconcile that fact with your opinion that the US is staying in iraq to secure oil?
edit: there's also the obvious point that even if the US was getting all the oil, it would still have to buy it from the oil company anyway. so, they've paid a trillion dollars so they can pay for oil they could've bought anyway?
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Unless someone can explain to me what the reason for staying is, and doesn't tell me it has something to do with us Westerners just being swell old people wanting to help out a pal, this seems the most logical. |
it has been explained to you in a number of different ways by a number of people in this thread. as above, it is amusing for you to use PNAC is a reference and then ignore some of the central theses of the PNAC doctrine (ie westerners helping out a pal). this is what happens when you google something 5 seconds before you regurgitate it into an argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
There is always a motive that in the end, benefits the person acting. There wouldn't have been an invasion, and it wouldn't have lasted so friggen long, if there wasn't some anticipated/hoped payout at the end of the day. |
your lack of appreciation for the complexities of foreign policy, the evolution of either war or the responsibilities of the US now they're stuck there is painful to read. |
|
|
| Theresa |
:stongue:
Like I said... we can talk about this in 10 years.
:) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
:stongue:
Like I said... we can talk about this in 10 years.
:) |
because politicians are known for planning 20-year strategies, right? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Saving face? Seriously?
Trillions of dollars and peoples lives simply to save face? That just sounds ridiculous to me. |
Never said it was a good motive. Just that it was there.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Guess it depends on how you define bankruptcy.
Bankrupt - at the end of one's resources; lacking, any person unable to discharge all his or her debts
Owing money to China and always at a deficit... I consider that bankrupt. |
Deficit spending is part of modern economics. Deal with it. :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Deficit spending is part of modern economics. Deal with it. :p |
oh god, i must have skipped over that nugget of stupidity.
bankruptcy is when someone is broke and cannot pay their bills. when was the US unable to pay its bills theresa? |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh god, i must have skipped over that nugget of stupidity.
bankruptcy is when someone is broke and cannot pay their bills. when was the US unable to pay its bills theresa? |
You seem to think Reuters is a reliable source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52C0JF20090313
| quote: | | The premier said Beijing expected to see results from President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan but expressed concern that massive U.S. deficit spending and near-zero interest rates would erode the value of China's huge U.S. bond holdings. China is the biggest holder of U.S. government debt and has invested an estimated 70 percent of its $2 trillion stockpile of foreign exchange reserves, the world's largest, in dollar assets. "We have lent a massive amount of capital to the United States, and of course we are concerned about the security of our assets. To speak truthfully, I do indeed have some worries. |
Do you consider paying back China a bill? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
You seem to think Reuters is a reliable source: |
most reputable news outlets will get basic when/where/who facts right. it has been widely reported, reuters would be as good as any.
sighs. what mr ching is saying here is that he is worried that the value of his US bonds will be eroded due to the pumping of money into economy and at near zero interest rates. essentially, inflation. the US pays china in US dollars, if the value of the dollar declines, the debts get relatively smaller (while you have more money). if your only concern is how much debt you have it is in your interest to devalue your currency.
mr ching is not worried about the US going bankrupt. technically the US can never go bankrupt- it can always print more money. if countries like china refuse to accept US dollars for payment of US debt, well kiss goodbye to 70% of your foreign currency & interest payments. it would take an extraordinary occurrence for other currencies to refuse to accept US dollars.
yes, the debt is pretty big and scary. no, you are full of and drowning in the shallow end. like, . im no expert or anything (and im sure lilith could correct me where she wants!) but jesus ing christ. either embrace the 'bad news' and stop avoiding whats going on in the world, or stfu.
oh, and china can go get ed. they with their currency more than anyone. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
most reputable news outlets will get basic when/where/who facts right. it has been widely reported, reuters would be as good as any.
sighs. what mr ching is saying here is that he is worried that the value of his US bonds will be eroded due to the pumping of money into economy and at near zero interest rates. essentially, inflation. the US pays china in US dollars, if the value of the dollar declines, the debts get relatively smaller (while you have more money). if your only concern is how much debt you have it is in your interest to devalue your currency.
mr ching is not worried about the US going bankrupt. technically the US can never go bankrupt- it can always print more money. if countries like china refuse to accept US dollars for payment of US debt, well kiss goodbye to 70% of your foreign currency & interest payments. it would take an extraordinary occurrence for other currencies to refuse to accept US dollars.
yes, the debt is pretty big and scary. no, you are full of and drowning in the shallow end. like, . im no expert or anything (and im sure lilith could correct me where she wants!) but jesus ing christ. either embrace the 'bad news' and stop avoiding whats going on in the world, or stfu.
oh, and china can go get ed. they with their currency more than anyone. |
I understood why he was worried, but thanks for the economics lesson :)
My point was that the U.S. owes a ton of money to China, and continues to have deficits every year. That in my definition = bankrupt.
Whatever word you want to use, bankrupt or desperate for some cash perhaps, the general point of the whole thing was that the U.S.A. would love to get its hands on some slick, oily gold. Excellent incentive.
Again, it does not make sense to stick around in the middle east, which costs so0o0o0o much money, when they are hurting for it pretty bad. So, it brings me back to my point of having some sort of motive to stick it out, and oil is good as any.
No matter how many resources I link you to that supports this, you will have equally as many that will refute it. There is a huge split on the whole thing (which is why I thought the thread would be interesting), but no one will know conclusively. However, when the U.S.A. starts getting oil from the middle east, I will argue that I was right. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I understood why he was worried, but thanks for the economics lesson :) |
no, you didn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
My point was that the U.S. owes a ton of money to China, and continues to have deficits every year. That in my definition = bankrupt. |
well, if we can just change the meaning of any word and make it mean anything we want, i'll come back when i've thought up a new definition for 'you're a stupid slut' :) |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, you didn't.
|
No, of course I didn't. I am just a complete moron.
Google illusory superiority. |
|
|
| Zewad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
You sure about that?
Sorry, but as one Republican TA has reminded me throughout the years, "You don't know Dick" |
I should have clarified. The COIN fight wasn't anticipated, they knew the deal with the gov. being dissolved.
And what Cheney just said wasn't what happened, so he didn't quite anticipate it either. |
|
|
|
|
