Pick-A-Prez

raid517

Well that's just kind of tough JavaFox, because that's the way a lot of people see it. Denying it isn't going to change that. (Particularly not among an awful lot of Muslims in this world). Kuwait is significant, and America already has some influence there, though not as much as she would like. Weird though that America should supposedly be killing other Arabs in a war in the name of democracy when it props up dictatorships like Kuwait. The only reason that govenment still rule is because America fought a whole war in the name of dictatorship before, so that she could reinstall them. (oh and BTW that war wasn't about oil either).

America fighting for democracy and human rights in the world? Na... It just doesn't add up...

Mind you I never said it was all about oil. But that's an old story and most of the regulars here know my views on this.

Q

Smoothdrive

Well my humble little vote went to Clinton..only US president i can remember that i tough actually was doing a good job in international politics..and what i heard he was very good for the US itself as well.

Vampyromaniac

nobody is saying oil is the only reason for the war . . . you haven't noticed yet from all the times it's been said? But your responses still speak only of oil.

Btw, to clear it up, I'm not one who thinks oil is one of the reasons for the war.

raid517

Well what do you think its about then? I think oil is about a 50/50 consideration... The other reason being pure out and out American military expansionism. "Lets show these guys what will happen to their countries if they mess with us..." etc It is the polotics of thuggery, though thankfully I think that in the long term it would simply be too expensive to maintain... Empire building costs big bucks... The British found this out a long time ago...

Q

Vampyromaniac

Well, I certainly haven't seen anyone make a descriptive argument about the oil factor . . . .

What do you suppose? America will oust the dictatorship, set their own government in place, send Shell and the whole gang to take over the fields, pump the oil, ship it back to America for unbelievably low prices at the pump, while selling the rest to Europe and whoever for a tidy profit?

Please . . . I seriously doubt this would ever happen.
Or do you have another theory?

Falstaff

Imagine a politically stable democratic government in IRAQ that was economically stable, and friendly with the United States, a member of OPEC no less, that might be sympathetic to our needs in the future...Not to say, they might be the sole source of petroleum in the future, but a powerful member of a pro western arab coalition? assuming we don't really anger the other countries that have tolerated our methods..A country that might become a valuable ally in the future? It's a card we haven't played yet, I just hope we get a chance to shuffle the deck (so to speak), because we sure don't have any cards up our sleeves now...haha..

Smoothdrive

We will not need oil for much longer anyway..hydrogen cells are a reality already and are available for release..first cars on hydrogen cells are already being tested and expected to be commercially available around 2007.

Falstaff

saw them being used in Japan years ago, they sure must have greater potentiol now...how long do you think it would take amercians to adopt technology like that, it sure might take the rest of the world alot longer...

Oblivious

I have one major beef with that statment -- 'America' : America is perceived, by many, as some saint healing nations left and right. This may be true; but, America is a collection of individuals who by themselves will have no qualms with stomping on Iraq. Frequently the word America is misused for the word Americans and this leads to some confusion. (I certainly can't criticize America... why that would make me a 73rr0r157!! whoops i can see the police banging down my door already)

The problem arises here: "truth, justice, freedom and morality" will never do any of those things [that you listed above]. But it's not 'America' that is going to be in Iraq, it's going to be some military personell and some Bush loyalists e.g. 'Americans'.

So let me reiterate that statement as i see it (and maybe you will agree):
"What do you suppose? {American armed forces} will oust {Saddam and his supporters, many of whom whom would be industrialists tied to the oil fields}, set {some loyalist lapdogs (sorry for the language)} in place, send {Profit hungry Corporations} to take over the fields, pump the oil, ship it back to America for unbelievably low prices at the pump, while selling the rest to Europe and whoever for a tidy profit?"

Yeah thats just about right. Execpt its obvious that the corporations will flock there on their own - no encouragement necessary.

It all lies in how you perceive the individuals involved in these events. I certainly believe that whatever this war is for someone in America is going to profit off of oil in postwar Iraq.

--
Oh, and Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a good idea in my opinion

Vampyromaniac

I agree no further than that comma

Oblivious

Good show. Always good to know there is a different opinion.

purush

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Mr. Donald Rumsfeld for his admirable role in the Iraqi war.

Falstaff

shook Husseins hand..

JavaFox

BWX

Everyone makes such a big deal about that-- I say SO WHAT!
He was the lesser of two evils at the time- We did what we had to do- End of story-- (I hear bluelight's brain cogs spinning thinking up a way to bash the us for something that happend a decade ago)

BWX

HA!!!! Even though everyone already knew what buddies Chiroc and Saddam were and choose to dismiss it if it doesn't serve thier cause.

JavaFox

Exactly. If we hadn't supported Iraq then, Iran probably would have beat them. Tell me that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is a good thing.

Besides, the US was hardly alone in its support of Iraq (nor was our aid exclusive to Iraq). Even Kuwait supported Iraq.

Falstaff

Does anyone remember the reporter that worked for National Geographic that narrowly escaped with his life after he met Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan years ago, after he was banished from Saudi Arabia? Osama told this reporter he should kill him on the spot, but let him live to tell his tale...At that time Osama was fighting the russians, successfully I might add, with U.S. support, but dismissed any overtures of friendship from the U.S. except arms, he told the reporter that he was well aware of the CIA support for IRANIANs and IRAQIs, and he felt that both governments were corrupt, His for of Jihad made anyone an infidel unless they paid heed to the fundamentalism that was spread with an AK47 and an RPG....Yes, whoever is president next time will definitely have to deal with Bin Laden...he has recently successfuly eluded spys in Pakistan, he knows that we possess drones now armed with missles that can find him anywhere, just about...

bluelight

WEll there is nothing new about this.


The only new thing is your ridiculous and infantile and campaign against a country that has been doing the same thing as you but to a less level.

Do i sort the image of Donald creeping for saddam?...No i thought not,..



B

bluelight

3 million dead....in the war Saddam fought for you..where he regularly used nervegas,

Ok....ok....I understand...


Justified.....thge empire is justified...





Bluelight

Falstaff

Please clarify what your definition of Empire is? Afghanistan is not our puppet state, neither is IRAQ, nor Puerto Rico, or Vietnam, or S. Korea, or Kuwait, UAE, OMAN, SOMALIA, etc etc....American military doctrine hasn't been driven by imperialists, nor have we held any territory within our emminent domain long enough to call it ours. Where ever we are, we will have to give it back, even Guantanimo Bay...So are you taliking about the last 100 years, the recent 40 years, the last 20 years, etc etc....Where you get Imperialism from? If you want to take it to the edge of rational, lets just say the family of european oil consumers as the great "Empire" and the family of oil producers as the another great "empire"....because it seems to me to be about money and power....

bluelight

No your strategy hasnt geen driven by traditional imperialism (that is to expensive and too messy) instead you have seen to it (by military and economic force) that you have nations that do as they told.

At times wheh your interests have been threatened..(like in Chile or Vietnam Nicaragua Iran) then you have not hesitasted in using war as a means to protect your interests eeven though they really havent been your business..

If on top of this one reads about the global intentions of your current government in the documents they released about their future foreign politics it is obvious to see that they have ambitions similar to an empire.


I am not alone in interpreteing these documents like this.

In fact....most of the political leaders in the world agree to that your foreign politics has undergone a definitive and major change with this government.

There is in these documents a clearly phrased ambition to spread "american values" in general all over the globe.

The documents also says clearly that Usa will permitt itself to act by themselves on any issue whatsoever...in any way whatsoever.....that USA fells is appropriate....without the consent of anyone else...


You see today politicians in Europe that discusses a military and economic union between European countrys in order to balance the American influence which doers not allow us to voice our poinions without being run over...


How come??






This is a major change in global politics due to the course your government is taking and now im only waiting for that China does the same with the same arguments and immidietly occúpies Taiwan.I figure you would have serious problems telling China...that they can not....define their own secuity politics on their own like that...when you yourself take this right.

If they do....they will do it ...accordingly to the same logic your current government uses.



Thats ...why...empire


I actually beleieve4 that your current government ...wants to rule the world.

Yes i do.

Why?

Because they have written documents that says so and because they choose to act accordingly to these documents.


They have openly declared that International cooperation...is NOT gonna be their melody.

Such a thing can only be declared by a nation with somewhet obscure intentions.


Bluelight

Falstaff

Quote:

There is in these documents a clearly phrased ambition to spread "american values" in general all over the globe

What documents? I am not trying to difficult. Americans values, perhaps pro american, are defined within the constitution, the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, Codified Law of the supreme court, our religious roots, and the core values that sustain the high standards of the military. You can judge the character of the american people by the character of the military(G. Bush)

Quote:

In fact....most of the political leaders in the world agree to that your foreign politics has undergone a definitive and major change with this government.

I don't think our foriegn politics has changed, it's been re-written, what I mean is, we have a president that will go fu