OT: Why is Bush ransoming our troops?

[rogue]

Back in the 40-50. American government was like okay this is Palestine land but since Germany killed so many JEWS, we are going to give this land to the Jews. That is messed up.. its like coming in to your house and say well this is our house now.

Say what?

But why did US Government took a piece of land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews?

The US? Better go look at the Balfour Declaration and brush up on your history.

[Black Jack II]

Why have any understanding of factual history rogue when its soooo much easier for some to have there own heads buried in the fat and funny smelling realm of fantasy band camp.

Such a waste of good air, one of you undereducated cranks please stick your zit covered head in a bag so I can breath better, if you do it I swear a tree will live longer.

Digits crossed.

[rogue]

Good point Black Jack.

We now return you to the usual I Hate the USA/GWB is a Nazi circle jerk already in progress.

[Merryprankster]

wind draft now has zero credibility.

For the umpteenthousandth time, "Iraq is all about the oil," doesn't make any ****ing sense.

Go learn something about the oil market, something about refining, etc, and it's something you'll quickly realize.

[Mega-Foot]

Merryprankster is right. Our presence in the Middle East has to do with many interests outside of oil. Did you know, you skeptics, that Iraq is the world's foremost leader in importing large quantities of grains, meat, poultry, and dairy products? Their international Oil-for-Food program has been a key component in studying the usage of petroleum in food distillates, so that fossil fuels can be used for human consumption.

I'm not even going to mention that Iraq’s mining industry has been a superb resource for collecting relatively small amounts of phosphates (at Akashat), salt, and sulfur (near Mosul).

Oil, schmoil.....

Iraq is our friend, and a nation on the rise due to its booming agricultural revolution, and its fantastically optimistic mining industry.

[Mega-Foot]

Here's my take on the war:

Look, no proposed program for economic conversion to disarmament and democritization in Iraq sufficiently takes into account the unique magnitude of the required adjustments it would entail. Proposals to transform public dissent into a beneficent scheme of public works are more the products of wishful thinking than of realistic understanding of the limits of Iraq's existing economic system. Fiscal and monetary measures are inadequate as controls for the process of transition to a terrorist threat-free economy. Insufficient attention has been paid to the political acceptability of the objectives of the proposed conversion models, as well as of the political means to be employed in effectuating a transition. No serious consideration has been given, in any proposed conversion plan, to the fundamental nonmilitary function of war and armaments in modern society, nor has any explicit attempt been made to devise a viable substitute for it.


It is the incorrect assumption that war, as an institution, is subordinate to the social systems it is believed to serve.

The point is that the cliche is not true, and the problems of transition are indeed substantive rather than merely procedural. Although war is "used" as an instrument of national and social policy, such as we saw manifest in the trial of Sadaam, or even in the Kurdistan standoffs, the fact that a society is organized for any degree of readiness for war supersedes its political and economic structure. War itself is the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. It is the system which has governed most human societies of record, as it is today. "It is," to quote George W. Bush, "the governance of the United States, and the former modus operandi of a more actionable UN." (taken from the Bush v. Gore debate).

Wars are not "caused" by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies require - and thus bring about - such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social control. It should therefore hardly be surprising that the military institutions in each society claim its highest priorities.

It will be necessary for our government to plan in depth for two general contingencies to achieve its platform in Iraq. The first, and lesser, is the possibility of a viable general peace; the second is the successful continuation of the war system. In our view, careful preparation for the possibility of peace should be extended, not because we take the position that the end of war would necessarily be desirable, if it is in fact possible, but because it may be thrust upon us in some form whether we are ready for it or not. Planning for rationalizing and quantifying the war system, on the other hand, to ensure the effectiveness of its major stabilizing functions, is not only more promising in respect to anticipated results, but is essential; we can no longer take for granted that it will continue to serve our purposes well merely because it always has. The objective of government policy in regard to war and peace, in this period of uncertainty, must be to preserve maximum options. The recommendations which follow are directed to this end.

I think, as a result, the reinstatement of the draft is vital in transutilizing the bilateral unification of Iraq, and the utilitarian support of the UN is vital to the monosaturation of our ideals.

[Merryprankster]

My point, Mega-Fist, which you seem to have misconstrued, is two-fold:


1. There are far simpler ways to get and secure oil supplies than going to war in a country wracked by sectarian divisions that we were WELL aware of prior to invasion, especially when that country is stuck in the middle of a region that is at best hostile to US policy.

2. Having control of the oil doesn't do **** for price and availability because oil is a commodity and behaves like one in the international market place.


Neither of these two points excludes the understanding that without oil in the ME, the politics of this would be much much simpler (the ME is still geo-stragically important, even without oil), and our interest would be lower.

Of course, since your primary purpose is to troll about things you have next to zero expertise on, I'm really making this post for people who aren't completely mental twats.

Incidentally, I believe you or somebody else used the post-modern essay generator to build that essay you posted.

[Mega-Foot]

My point, Mega-Fist, which you seem to have misconstrued, is two-fold:


1. There are far simpler ways to get and secure oil supplies than going to war in a country wracked by sectarian divisions that we were WELL aware of prior to invasion, especially when that country is stuck in the middle of a region that is at best hostile to US policy.

I agree. It's a shame that the region surrounding Iraq is so hostile to US presence and policy. They think we're there for the oil, when clearly we are not. The legitimate presence of a nuclear threat, although not yet legitimized, and publicly announced by the US Government, alhough not yet legitimized as a public announcemnt, and often discouraged by Bush's cabinetry, is enough to convince me. Case closed.

You're right. It would be much easier to attack Alaska and take its oil resources. And they wouldn't even see it coming.

2. Having control of the oil doesn't do **** for price and availability because oil is a commodity and behaves like one in the international market place.

I've said this so many times in public debate, I can't even count the times I've done so. Oil is a commodity. It's not a natural resource. It's all supply and demand. I'd only differ on your classification of the "international marketplace" and substitute "transnational marketplace," simply because it crosses economic lines in manufacture and production, rather than acting as a free-for-all, in the manner of a flea market.

Neither of these two points excludes the understanding that without oil in the ME, the politics of this would be much much simpler (the ME is still geo-stragically important, even without oil), and our interest would be lower.

The nuclear threat in Pakistan; the hositlity in Iran. It certainly has a lot to do with Iraq, I agree. I don't know why you're so hostile towards me. (I excerpted the rant you so uneloquently tagged onto your reply). Is it because my partner owns a BP station, and you think I have possession of precious oil resources?

[Merryprankster]

You've just made my point about trolling. Totally incapable of actually constructing an argument, just a sarcastic *****. Done with you.

[Mega-Foot]

Why bother trying to reason with people who don't believe in facts?
Later

Why bother trying to argue with people who have no reason to believe in facts?
Later.

[jo]

Iraq is our friend, and a nation on the rise due to its booming agricultural revolution, and its fantastically optimistic mining industry.

What are you smoking?

Do you actually believe that that Iraqi's like us for blowing the crap out of thier country, bringing chaos and death around every corner?

-jo

[cruz]

this is a kung fu forum not a gov forum the hell with bush and the goverment they are trash they are the most worst and worthless

[BoulderDawg]

Iraq is our friend, and a nation on the rise due to its booming agricultural revolution, and its fantastically optimistic mining industry.

The puppet government that Bush set up in Iraq is our friend. The people see us as oppressors and terrorists in our own right.

Also "A nation on the rise"?.............. Do you mean all that smoke that rises from the bombs the Americans drop on the people?

********************

A political side note: Bode Miller has been making the news a lot this week. We all know that Bode (and his family) are all free spirits and extremely liberal. This has resulted in the death of Bode's cousin. It appears the cousin was defending himself against a cop that he had had trouble with before. The man was simply defending himself in fear for his life against this cop when he was shot by a third party.

I guess if you're a liberal you're not even suppose to drive down the street.

[Sang Feng Fan]

But why did US Government took a piece of land from Palestine and gave it to the Jews?

Never happened, try again. Britain created Palestine. The UN declared Israel legit.

Before that Palestine was an informal name for the hotly contested area, the tribes referred to as Palestinian are actually low level tribes of the Arab social order, exploited mostly for labor and not ethnically Arab.

The area has never been under Palestinian control, never. The British turned it over to Israel because they were the best qualified and because at the time it seemed like no one could possibly treat the tribes worse than the Arabs had.

The fight over the area is funded by Arabian countries which do not themselves afford equal rights to Palestinians in their own countries. Arab nations have committed crimes against them a on a far greater scale than Israel has ever been accused of. Including but not limited to extermination, internment, slavery, assassination of tribal leaders and exile. Syria has a very long history of exploiting these peoples that goes back before the Ottoman rule, which pre-dates the British by a long shot.

[wind draft]

Merrypranker: What is it that I said made me lose credibilty?

I never said oil was the reason why we are in IRAQ.

Refining oil cost major money.. Oil supply limited, the thought of limited supplies bring prices up. There way many reasons...

But I never said oil is the reason why we are in IRAQ.


Sang Feng Fan: Thanks for proving me wrong.