??? about Patriotism in the U.S.A

[FuXnDajenariht]

thats not part of our deal unko. atleast try not to play as stupid as you are.

[unkokusai]

Answer the question.

[FuXnDajenariht]

why should i? your just being a contrarian d!ck as usual. if i was from another country you would say it isn't my place to criticize your country. if im from America and i criticize, you say im unpatriotic. its lose-lose with people like you.


what exactly are you with me disagreeing on? you saying we're doing things to be proud of in Iraq?

[unkokusai]

Oh, so you are not a citizen of the United States?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Merry:
The oil in the Gulf was discovered long after the war had started and, despite militant attacks and tribal/ethnic/religious tensions, isn't oil still being successfully extracted in Nigeria and Papua New Guinea? And Nigeria's reserves aren't nearly as large as the one in Iraq (Iraq has 115.0 billion barrels proved as opposed to Nigeria's 35.9) and don't U.S. and western oil companies now have control of both? Also, American oil companies weren't able exploit Iraq's reserves like they are now, so in the long run, I'm sure all parties involved thought it would be worth it, even if it did result in a maelstrom of death and destruction (personally, I think the U.S. might be planning on splitting the region up).

No. I think it was about a personal grudge against Saddam Hussein and an administration bloated by its own sense of power, plus an absolute, ideological conviction that Iraq was a threat, despite all evidence to the contrary. Reality goes out the window when you are convinced of truth, instead of fact.

So you're saying they actually thought Iraq was a threat, and a personal grudge factored in more than ensuring direct control and exploitation of the world's second largest oil reserve by people who made all of their money in oil and gas and who obviously cater to those industries? I'm sorry, I still can't entirely agree with that. Come on dude, how could anyone possibly think Iraq was a "threat"? His main assault vehicles were Toyota pick-up trucks with 50-caliber machine guns mounted on them?!? I'll admit that the Administration does seem to have a bloated sense of power, plus crazy ideological convictions, but I think oil should still rank a little higher up on that list.

However, let's posit a question. Assume the ME was exactly, and I mean EXACTLY the same, except for the oil. Would we have invaded? I think the answer, based on Bush's neo-con admin, is yes. The Bush Doctrine and the Cheney doctrine have made it quite clear that they have a unilateral, aggressive stance on foreign policy, and that they believe that preventative war is appropriate, in-line with the 1% doctrine. Oil doesn't really factor into that, unless of course you just want to INSIST that it does, but then you're giving in to straight up "capitalist imperialism," and flat out conspiracy.

I suppose if you really believe that, that's fine. Stupid - and I don't mind saying so - but fine.

To be quite honest, I too think we still would have invaded if oil wasn't a factor and, yes, it doesn't have anything to do with all the previously mentioned aspects of the Administration's ideologies or those particular reasons for the invasion. But I still can't help but think it's a major factor. At least, as far as the Bushies and their friends are concerned. I do believe there is the possibility of a MUCH BIGGER conflict with countries like China and Russia that could be directly or indirectly caused by a U.S. attack on Iran. Who knows, maybe in the long run that's their whole motivation behind all of this. After all, Bush and the totally loony Christian Right fundamentalists he's friends with seem to want nothing more than for the end of days to be upon us.

[unkokusai]

Come on dude, how could anyone possibly think Iraq was a "threat"? .

Don't try to "come on dude" your way out of ignorance of relatively recent history.

[unkokusai]

After all, Bush and the loony Christian Right fundamentalists he's friends with seem to want nothing more than for the end of days to be upon us.

Ah, now President Bush wants to destroy the world and usher in Armageddon. What a rational, clear-thinking interlocutor you are. You really should be taken seriously.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Oh, so you are not a citizen of the United States?

"i have more of right to this country than most. my great grand parents helped to build it just as much as yours did. with blood and sweat at the end of a whip."


do you actually read posts before making assinine replies? i dont see how i can make this more clear sh!t for brains.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

unkokusai:
George W. Bush has actually said that he "heard God" telling him to attack Al-Qaeda and invade Iraq. It is also alleged that Bush said: "I’m driven with a mission from God." It was one thing when the Blues Brothers said it, but this is the pesident and he actually believes it. Also, some of the same people GW indentifies with have said things like, "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil," and they actually want the battle of Armageddon to happen in order for Christ to return. NOW THAT'S LOONEY!!
http://www.progressiveshandbook.com/...=article&sid=2
http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic...rovidence.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4930.htm
and just for fun...
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture...n_Taliban.html
Fine, if you want to take them more seriously, be my guest dillhole.

Don't try to "come on dude" your way out of ignorance of relatively recent history.

How recent?? Like I was saying, the only pre-invasion weapons Saddam could use to any great affect were Toyota pick-ups with 50 calibers mounted on them. He didn't use the chemical weapons that he supposedly had so what other "threats" are we talking about here? Harsh language?

[golden arhat]

BTW, you know Greenspan is a Jew, right? And Bernanke is a Jew, right?

dude i thought u were being sarcastic about a jew media monopoly

but now ur just scaring me

[golden arhat]

unkokusai:
George W. Bush has actually said that he "heard God" telling him to attack Al-Qaeda and invade Iraq. It is also alleged that Bush said: "I’m driven with a mission from God." It was one thing when the Blues Brothers said it, but this is the pesident and he actually believes it. Also, some of the same people GW indentifies with have said things like, "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil," and they actually want the battle of Armageddon to happen in order for Christ to return. NOW THAT'S LOONEY!!
http://www.progressiveshandbook.com/...=article&sid=2
http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic...rovidence.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4930.htm
and just for fun...
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture...n_Taliban.html
Fine, if you want to take them more seriously, be my guest dillhole.
How recent?? Like I was saying, the only pre-invasion weapons Saddam could use to any great affect were Toyota pick-ups with 50 calibers mounted on them. He didn't use the chemical weapons that he supposedly had so what other "threats" are we talking about here? Harsh language?

yes this is true

he had a rather large army during the first gulf war
they all sh!t themselves when we started using cruise missiles and what not

and saddam did not rebuild much after that because he did not want to p!ss us off any more

saying he was an active military threat is just absurd

[Black Jack II]

and they actually want the battle of Armageddon to happen in order for Christ to return.

Dude, you have f@cking mental problems if you believe that.

Run for the prozac hippy boy.

[unkokusai]

" i dont see how i can make this more clear.

You could say 'yes' or 'no.'

[Merryprankster]

But I still can't help but think it's a major factor.

SL Fighter,

I do believe it's a major factor, but not in the direct way that a lot of people seem to. Rather, I believe it's a major factor in the sense that we care a great deal about the Middle East because they have oil (and also because of the tremendous historical and religious pull).

Nobody in the Bush administration, IMO, sat down and said "add oil to the list of reasons to invade Iraq." It doesn't make any sense at all, when you look at where the US got the majority of its oil from before we invaded (only one ME country was in the top 5, and I think only 2 in the top 10.).

And the consequences of invading without a good reason - or being wrong about that reason - had to have been apparent even to this administration. They are incompetent, not idiots. Invading for the oil makes no sense.

In short, I'm suggesting that oil makes the ME geo-strategically important, and thus contributes to our general interest in the region. But in the final analysis, you couldn't even call it the major reason - not any more. This isn't the late sixties, early seventies. The ME doesn't even supply most of our oil - Canada and Mexico do and those supplies are so not threatened.

OPEC may produce about 40% of the world's oil, but what that means is that 60%of the oil DOESN'T come from OPEC Nations. Additionally, most of the ME nations are tapped out in terms of production capacity - they're already rolling out as many barrels as they can, without risking over-production in their fields (which leads to reduced yields in the long run).

They could improve their production capacity by upgrading their methods and equipment, but the countries are all trapped by their single-sector economies and need to pacify their populace through huge social spending. If they divert oil revenue to modernize, they will have the rumblings of revolution on their hands. Most of those countries have huge young, overeducated populaces, with great expectations and no work (and a lot of work that many of them find "beneath them."). The leaders of those states know that. They are invested in keeping the oil flowing because if they don't it spells ruin for them. They can't shut off the tap anymore - their growing populaces since the 60's ensures that. It would be their own downfall.

Sooo... oil... important? Yeah - but WAY more important to the ME than to us. We have other options to purchase oil, and most of our oil doesn't come from the ME anyway...and the ME countries in OPEC can't exercise their leverage the way they did without risking revolution. So the actual threat to the oil supply is more from instability, than from not controlling it. And, if more members join OPEC, it won't be a sheiks' club anymore...

So, like I said, it basically just doesn't make much sense, unless you think we're going to invade the rest of the ME, and adopt a mercantilist, colonial empire framework.

Getting back to the original point, I think Dubya held a personal grudge against Hussein, and I think that grudge, coupled with the attitude of his administration and their doctrines, made it very very easy for him to ignore contrary evidence, and believe that Iraq had WMDs, and that that consituted a threat. I don't believe there was a "moral" issue in the sense that they outright lied. I think that their starting set of assumptions was so flawed, with respect to Hussein, Iraq, the Iraqi people and American power, that it blinded them to the facts.

It was a complete and utter failure of competence, built around a subjective, personally held, "truth," rather than objective reality.

I think the reason many anti-Bushies don't like my interpretation is because it doesn't ascribe "evil" to him or a moral failing. Well, in the first place, to me a lack of competence is egregious. In the second, while the initial decision was not born of malice, the pig-headed stubbornness of the administration, in the face of such difficulty in Iraq AFTER the decision was made certainly borders on immoral, and the cherry picking of intelligence, coupled with clear indications that the assessment in the NIE on Iraq was heavily politicized, and significant dissenting opinion ignored, occupies a gray area of morality.

Of course, if Bush had been RIGHT about the WMDs, or if Iraq weren't a cesspool of violence, this really would all be a moot issue, IMO.

[FuXnDajenariht]

You could say 'yes' or 'no.'

you always see what you wanna see. or edit out what you dont.