So, if the US had gone ahead and taken out Saddam, the Madrid conference would not have happened, hence the Oslo Accord would have never happened, hence...
That's where you lose me, as it doesn't appear that the Oslo Accrd has accomplished anything.
Or the alternative... if the US had gone ahead and taken out Saddam, the Palestinian terrorists would have been deprived of an important financial backer, hence...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Lose you? I'm not sure how, though where ever it is that you ended up is a long way from anywhere I had intended.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Some things that I just have to note:
1) There are about 30 oil-well fires burning in Iraq right now. Why is the American government (as well as many American Oil Companies) so concerned about this? 2) Why was the government so concerned about Iraqis setting the oil wells on fire BEFORE the invasion started? Is GWB concerned about the riches of the Iraqi people, or mainly his own? 3) Why are oil companies predominant among applications to rebuild Iraq after the war?
I'd like to point out that Britain's position is less odious than the American position. After all, it would appear that Britain does not have as much at stake compared to what the Americans appear to be clamouring for.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
1) The last number I heard was three, but that was at least half an hour ago. Under any circumstances, we're concerned because, in no particular order, a) it's wasteful, b) it's veryveryveryvery hard to put these fires out, and c) it's horribly polluting.
2) We were concerned about Sadaam setting the wells on fire because he did it before in Kuwait, and it was thus likely that he'd do it again. This is a Bad Thing for the reasons stated above.
3) Oil companies are so predominant among applicants to help rebuild Iraq because, well, oil's a good chunk of their economy. Alpo can't very well do it.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe the number of burning oil wells was revised to seven.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
1) The last number I heard was three, but that was at least half an hour ago. Under any circumstances, we're concerned because, in no particular order, a) it's wasteful, b) it's veryveryveryvery hard to put these fires out, and c) it's horribly polluting.
Or is it because the American oil companies have a stake in it? Oil goes boom, no money for them, right? After all, Bush and Cheney basically headed up their own oil firms.
Again, why aren't we attacking North Korea, who also has a demented leader, and is definitely trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Is it because that North Korea doesn't have any valuable resources like Iraq does?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Or is it because the American oil companies have a stake in it? Oil goes boom, no money for them, right?
Um... well, yeah, that would be a true statement. But since all the other stated reasons are definitely valid, you have no reason to believe that yours is the sole reason, or even an important one in the minds of the policy-makers. The destruction of that oil is bad for everyone, from every possible perspective. (Always excepting the Amish, perhaps.) Sure, it's bad for the oil companies, they're a subset of "everyone", but... well, so what? That hardly makes it a conspiracy or something.
Again, why aren't we attacking North Korea, who also has a demented leader, and is definitely trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
You know, I bet you'd be saying the same thing about Iraq were we attacking North Korea.
Under any circumstances, good as we are, fighting major wars on multiple fronts is a Bad Idea, especially when North Korea's army is as big as it is. We can use overwhelming force, but not in two theatres at once. So it could simply be a flip of a coin. Two insane, dangerous dictators with grudges against us that are trying to obtain WMDs. Can't hit 'em both at the same time, so why NOT Iraq?
Further, Iraq helps establish precident, and displays the irrelevance of the UN in such matters. We can also, to some degree, count on China to keep N. Korea in line, at least for the time being.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, I really see everyone else on the same level as oil executives in access to Mr. Bush and in the policy making process of this administration.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, you can see the universe as you please, just don't expect the rest of us to believe that your views actually reflect reality without some evidence.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: a) it's wasteful, b) it's veryveryveryvery hard to put these fires out, and c) it's horribly polluting
Amen to that! Burning oil wells are very wasteful and horribly polluting. Burning oil is a horrible crime. The US's new found enthusiasm in fighting the Axis of Pollution is very admirable. The evil of combustion must be brought to an end, and God is on our side. Once this Middle Eastern adventure is over, the US will of course bring the same determination, morality, and environmental righteousness to the streets and highways of the western world. May God be with us, and our nation.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
You know, I bet you'd be saying the same thing about Iraq were we attacking North Korea.
No. The way I see it, we know North Korea is trying to obtain nukes. The burden of proof in North Korea is stronger than in Iraq. We have: - the banishment of UN inspectors fron NK, - the deactivation of UN monitoring equipment, - the startup of an illegal reactor that can make nuclear weapons (the abilities of Iraq are still somewhat circumstantial), - the staunch non-cooperation by Kim Jong Il (whereas there was at least some cooperation from Iraq, although disturbingly minimal), - the additional deployment of troops to the border with South Korea and recent military showcases.
I see more reason to "liberate" North Korea from a "treacherous dictator" who threatens to use "weapons of mass destruction" against "civilization".
And didn't GWB warn NK that it CAN fight two wars at once? So why isn't this happening. I'll only give little credit to Bush in the sense that he was blindsided by the defiance of Kim Jong Il while he was trying to keep a lid on Saddam.
But really, the only differences between SoDammed Insane and Kim with a Little-Dong Ill is that Iraq is more malnourished than NK is, and that Iraq has oil. NK doesn't. They are both insane dictators. But what NK does have that Iraq doesn't is the proven ability AND the resources to make WMDs. Can you say "Taepo Dong"? One of their missiles actually crossed Japan itself and smacked into the Pacific Ocean. Not the Sea of Japan, but the openness of the ocean itself.
Besides, the peaceniks are all over with the arguments "No Blood For Oil" and "Livelihood may cost money, but Lives are Priceless". They'd be fumbling over what argument to make if the U.S. attacked North Korea.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I already mentioned that N. Korea has China to keep it somewhat in check. There's the possibility that Sadaam was closer to developing a WMD than Korea is, but that's playing the "hidden information" card. It may also serve to force Iraq's neighbors to lighten up a bit, whereas invading North Korea probably isn't going to do much for China.
But even if we pretend the obvious differences don't exist, well, what's wrong with making the decision around oil, then? If the only difference is that rebuilding one country is going to help our economy and theirs, whereas rebuilding the other isn't going to help ours quite so much, and all other things are equal, of course we should pick the one that helps us more.
Come on, Eric, if you're gonna make a baseless argument, at least make one that holds together.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
One person's theory based on their analysis of facts is always another person's baseless argument.
"But even if we pretend the obvious differences don't exist, well, what's wrong with making the decision around oil, then?"
Because it is a decision based on (corporate) greed? Which would make it a BAD decision? And the fact that both Bush and Cheney could be influenced by this? Then the quest to liberate the people of Iraq appears to become secondary. Oil first, human lives second. It gives credence to the peacenik argument "No Blood for Oil". The U.S. becomes the conquerors rather than the liberators.
So do you agree that the decision for war was based on oil then? I guess we have nothing else to discuss, unless anyone has a beef with that.
Yes, maybe Saddam would have been closer to building a WMD before North Korea is. But surely the U.N. would have found something to signify this. AFAIK, the U.N. inspectors got zero help from the U.S. intelligence agency (unless someone corrects me).
"Well, I already mentioned that N. Korea has China to keep it somewhat in check."
A Communist nation to keep another Communist nation in check? Now that's interesting. Especially from a guy who dislikes (and distrusts) the Chinese government. Now THAT'S a baseless argument.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Well, you can see the universe as you please, just don't expect the rest of us to believe that your views actually reflect reality without some evidence.
Show me the list of people involved in the formation of energy policy by as headed up by Cheney.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
You mean he formulated an energy policy with the advice of people who knew something about energy!? How DARE he!
Just who do you suggest should have been on that committee, instead?
Because it is a decision based on (corporate) greed?
Again, baseless. This is all hypothetical, of course, seeing as there are many obvious differences between Korea and Iraq, but IF there weren't, and IF we operate on the false assumption that [trying to turn a profit == greed == bad], just what's wrong with corporations trying to make money? Just how do you think the vast majority of the people in this country get paid? How do you think this or any other economy, including the future Iraqi economy, exists? Because, horror of horrors, private companies organize peoples' skills in an efficient manner, use those skills to make money, and pay those employees for their services! What you call greed is actually legitimate economic activity. What alternative do you propose, anyway? That the oil goes forever undeveloped, and that all the potential increases in living standards it could bring to the Iraqi people never happen? 'Cause unless you have another option, that's exactly what's going to happen if you get what you seem to want.
Then the quest to liberate the people of Iraq appears to become secondary
Again, baseless, and increasingly absurd. We already control the oil, and we're still moving towards Baghdad. And before you ask the obvious dumb question, "Why did we save the oil first?", it's because the oil was under immediate threat from Hussein, and the civilians in Baghdad aren't.
So do you agree that the decision for war was based on oil then?
No. Only in a hypothetical universe that has nothing to do with reality, as I stated.
Yes, maybe Saddam would have been closer to building a WMD before North Korea is. But surely the U.N. would have found something to signify this.
Like all those SCUDs they found? The inspectors were utterly useless, and Sadaam himself proved it better than we ever could. Deal with it.
A Communist nation to keep another Communist nation in check? Now that's interesting. Especially from a guy who dislikes (and distrusts) the Chinese government. Now THAT'S a baseless argument.
And that was rather incoherant. If there's some great brotherhood among so-called communist governments, somebody'd better go back in time and tell the USSR and PRC that. And further, what does my trusting or liking the PRC have to do with anything? Of course I don't trust the Chinese government, to do what they say they'll do, to keep the peace, to just generally be a decent government from any possible perspective. But I trust them to be who they are, and they don't like North Korea. I thus trust their presence on Kim's ass to keep them in check to some degree.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
