|
And yet Another Bush & Saddam Thread.. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| phyrest0rm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nadi
No, he's not a threat "all of a sudden", he has been one for years, and its amazing how long the international community has gone without taking any sort of action. |
Ok, so if he's been a threat for years, why is there all the sudden an uprise for the need to go after him, and why is it that the UN doesn't support the US in going after him right now?
| quote: | Originally posted by Nadi
And yes oil is a factor, but one that could deter people from war. You can't go and start fighting someone and continue to do buisness with them. It doesnt make sense. And by destroying oil feilds I didnt mean intentionally, I meant if there is air strikes there will probably be some in area's near the feilds that could slow down the production of oil at the very least. |
Very true that it will cut our access to their oil DURING the war, but think about wars in the past where the US was involved in overthrows? Who decides the successor of the dictator that is overthrown? He who overthrows, in this case, the US, or UN in general, if they go in as well. They will obviously stir up propaganda in the country in order to get the people to back the person that they want/put in power. In the end, there's a new guy in charge of Iraq, and we're getting our oil for half the price we're paying now. |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
| *NEWSFLASH* We're not getting our oil from Iraq */NEWSFLASH* ;) |
|
|
| phyrest0rm |
| quote: | Originally posted by ABTsportsline
man, listen to yourself. who's side are you on? and tell me, how does what the US government is doing make YOUR life worse? give me a specific reference. FYI the US does not get oil from Iraq as of present. i can guarantee you, if it is a reason, it is NOT one of the main reasons. (I.E. if saddam wasn't in power and violating a load of rules and treatises, we would not be attacking them "just for oil.")
|
I think the term for this would be "opening new markets."
Obviously, Iraq doesn't currently supply us with oil, but if we go in and set up a government that we're happy with, we will have a country that is willing to supply us with oil...
As for the second part of your statement, about how we wouldn't attack them "just for oil," this is true, but the fact that Saddam is evil and has violated the rules and treaties leaves the door wide open for us to go in and seize power, and it is thus "JUSTIFIED" to the populus.
Think back to Vietnam, sure the US said it was to stop the threat of Communism, but if we were only interested in Communism, we should have attacked every communist country in the world. The truth of the matter is that our country at the time was built on a war-driven economy. The reason why Vietnam was picked out of the bunch was because it was a battle we thought we could win. We were concerned with that country because they had a market in rubber, rice, and other things. The market was something that we were very interested in. Obviously we couldn't just walk in there and take over, but the whole dispute with the fear of Communism and the Domino theory, coupled with North Vietnam attacking opened the door for us to step in and protect, in turn supplying ourself with the market we needed.
Another example of this... go back to the Civil War. Sure as a kid you're taught that it's all about slavery. They say this to justify the fact that so many people were killed. Truth is that it had little to do with slavery. It was an economic war. The Southern states had tobacco, cotton, etc markets that the North did not want to loose access to. If the Civil War was about slavery, as we're taught, then why were the Amendments that were a result of the War so weak? The are full of loopholes which everyone exploited the hell out of for years after the war was over in order to keep blacks in a submissive role in the US. The reason for this, Lincoln was more concerned about getting the states to rejoin the union than he was about giving blacks equal rights. |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
ok i like this guy ^^^^
at least he has some reasoning to his arguements.
let me elaborate something... you are part-correct and part incorrect... in the vietnam example, you say we "picked" vietnam randomly... that we were fighting "communism".. part-true... we didn't do it BECAUSE we wanted to fight communism, we used that label b/c it is something everyone can appreciate.... we decided to jump in that war b/c they invaded south korea, and (as you said), we have a lot of interests in south vietnam.... their market provides a lot of things for us, and it wasn't so we can take over their economy or even necessarily help ours, it was to preserve what we had. granted, there were other countries that were communist, (i.e. China), but they weren't invading people with plans for dominating continents..... North Vietnam on the other hand was.... And this goes just the same for the North/South Korea conflict.
Now, as far as your assumptions about what the US plans to do with the oil of Iraq when the war is over, i disagree.... what you are failing to realize that this isn't the dark ages and feudalism... When Iraq is conquered, we are not going to seize all of its assets for themselves.... We will restore a government that is democratic in nature (or possibly aristocratic... whatever they prefer - this is what they are debating right now actually), and let THEM decide and control their own markets and economy... they will already have their wealth, we will not confiscate this.
Now, if they choose to sell us oil they will have to do it VERY cheap, b/c we are already getting our oil at pretty decent prices from South America, Saudi, & Kuwait. So yes, they would have to sell oil very cheap (if they want our business), but this is not something we can or cannot tell them to do.
The US is not unreasonable... we are fair, and in this case which so many people here on TA have a problem with, your complaints are not with the USA, but rather, with the free market economy.... that unfortunately for you, the rest of the world operates on.
cheers
-ABT- |
|
|
| phyrest0rm |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
Just curious, who do you think that the US couldn't go after if they wanted to?
BTW, i completely agree with your opinions about oil and bush's motivations in the middle east. |
Theoretically, they COULD go after anyone. But the case with Iraq is that they have justifiable cause to go after him. Right now, I don't think they could go after Ayatollah Kohmeini, even if there was evidence that he was harboring terrorist sects in his country. He's not a direct threat to the world right now.
I don't have a problem with people saying Saddam shouldn't be in power. I would like to see him removed, but I would like to see him removed for the right reasons. He should be removed because he is a bad man, not because the US wants to cut down the cost of oil. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| The strong preserve themselves by means of the destruction of the weak. It is the way of the world. To believe anything else is foolish idealism. |
|
|
| phyrest0rm |
As for the picking Vietnam randomly, I didn't mean to make it sound as though they were picking them out of a hat. The point I was trying to get at is, as you clarify, we chose them because we could justify to the country why we were there. (North Vietnam invading, we're there to help our market)
As far as my statements regarding oil in Iraq post-Saddam overthrow. I know that we aren't going to steal their assets,wealth etc, a la Hitler did to the Jews type thing. What I was trying to convey is that using propaganda etc, we would "help" them set up a government that the country was happy with, but in the end it would be a government that we were also happy with. (ie someone willing to export oil to the US.) I wasn't trying to say that we would take over the country, throw an american flag into the middle of Baghdad, and rename it Ameraq or anything. See Afghanistan's new government for example. We went in, helped remove the Taliban, and we helped implement a government for them to continue their country.
Cheers ABT, having fun with this conversation. Nice to see someone else who is willing to sit down and listen/see other people's perspectives for what they're worth. Not just "You're wrong because I say so" like half these threads turn out to be. |
|
|
| Nadi |
| quote: | Originally posted by phyrest0rm
Ok, so if he's been a threat for years, why is there all the sudden an uprise for the need to go after him, and why is it that the UN doesn't support the US in going after him right now?
|
Do 2 wrongs make a right? Just because Sadamn and his regime wern't removed earlier, doesnt mean they shouldnt be removed now. |
|
|
| phyrest0rm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nadi
Do 2 wrongs make a right? Just because Sadamn and his regime wern't removed earlier, doesnt mean they shouldnt be removed now. |
I'm not saying that the regime shouldn't be taken out. Just asking people to say why think it all the sudden became an issue with the US government again. Not just an issue, but one that Bush is willing to push even without the help of the UN.. |
|
|
| fastmp3 |
i hate what the US are currently doing : YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US ...
no thanks i'm not with us , and no thanks i'm not against you , so just leave us in peace |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
Taha,
i understand what you mean, but on the same token, none of us want it that way either... unfortunately, with the majority of the UN against us, THEY are turning it into "you are either with us or against us" kinda thing for us... i can assure you we'd rather have a lot of countries just be neutral than flat out say "NO!" (like France & Germany).... but its unfortunate.
The bottom line is many countries don't approve of this war we are fighting b/c its the first war that america is fighting where it wasn't attacked first - this is preventative warfare. Now, its unfortunate that the other world leaders fail to see the preventative measure how we do - they'd rather wait until some poor country was attacked and hundreds or possibly thousands of lives lost... i can guarantee you that Iraq isn't building up its weapons depots just for its own defense!
Right now Bush is trying to convince the other countries that this is not just an uncalled-for attack, but rather an extension of the Gulf War, in that we terminated the war based on a guarantee by Saddam that he was going to change some things, and in the last ten years, he hasn't changed anything or kept his part of the promise.
Now, Iraq is trying to claim Jihad (much like bin laden did) to garner support from the rest of the Arab nations... I don't know what the leaders are exactly talking about, but all i can hope is that the Arab leaders do not see this as an attack on their religion, but rather to oust a foul dictator. There are plenty of Arab countries that we do not quarrel with, and get along with fine. Its not about religion, but the fact that Iraq and the previous Afghani leaders were trying to claim that should show you who is in the right here.
In closing, i'd like to quote one of America's greatest generals, General Patton....
America's military is Liberators, not Conquerors!
-ABT- |
|
|
| Trance-Canada |
| and yet another post i cant give to s about. |
|
|
|
|
