Why I think we are at war (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 07:12:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Why I think we are at war (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why I think we are at war  (Read 8501 times)
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

« on: May 07, 2004, 11:45:42 AM »

Hey, all... i've been too busy to post for a long time, but just so you know, I am alive Smiley

The subject of the repressed photos of flag-draped coffins came up on another site I participate in, and I thought I'd post this little essay here as well:

People on both sides of the political isle don't understand what this war is really about.

This is not a war for oil. If our prime interest was really to secure Iraq's oil fields, US Big Oil could have just visited Iraq with several dumptrucks full of cash and said "you play nice, 'k?" Win-win situation all around.

This is not a war to protect the American people from terrorism. In a world in which our true threat is from Islamist extremists, a secular dictator is the least of our worries. If anything, it keeps us more safe, since Saddam was very good as tearing out all religious extremism at the root. Furthermore, Saddam was smart enough not to try anything stupid, as the world was watching him like a hawk. He was no immediate threat to us.

What this is really about is the neo-conservative ideology that American military might is the solution to the world's ills. The philosophy goes something along the lines of "Hey, we have the most powerful and advanced military in the history of mankind. Why aren't we f-ing using it?" The neo-cons honestly believe that we can make the world a Better Place through force. They have a grand vision that we can democratize and stabilize the world's trouble spots with a few F-14s and Bradley fighting vehicles. That decades- and centruies-old conflicts will be dropped once everyone has freedom and democracy. The intentions are good, but somewhere along line they have forgotten the consequences of invading an occupying a foriegn land, and that war, even with the best of intentions, is hell.

This is why our friends and loved ones are dying.

Now, to cover their asses, because they've gotten themselves tangled up in something they never really thoroughly thought through, they are trying to do as much PR damage control as they possibly can. They think that they are always one or two successful offensives away from ending the conflict, and if they can just candy-coat the war, they'll keep the American public on their side just long enough to finish operations. THAT is why the Bush administration is adamant about keeping these pictures from the public.

Maybe my analysis is incorrect, but things sure look that way with each passing month.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2004, 02:15:26 PM »
« Edited: May 07, 2004, 02:16:11 PM by Beef »


nice to see your green wisconson icon again, and to know I'm not the only butcher-shop afficionado at the forum.  

Smiley

yes, I think that's an interesting analysis.  I have always said that if scientists and engineers are going to be pawns of the military, then we'd at least like to have the internal gratification of knowing the toys we create will be taken out of the package and played with just a bit.  

One thing that I leave out of that analysis is that there is also the neo-con doctrine of pre-emption.  "Saddam's not necessarily a threat now, but he could be in the nebulous future, so we better take him out now before he builds a big, badass arsenal of ICMBs and launches his Orbital Mind-Control Lasers."  But it's all part and parcel of the same mindset, that we should use the US military to solve problems.  And, hey, if we get to play with our cool toys in the process, all the better!

I think you may be underestimating the attraction of that country's vast natural resources, though.

Oh, I'm not denying that Iraq's 100 billion barells of oil is a tremendous asset, but I don't think we're in Iraq to plunder it.  There are much easier ways to secure this resource than war.  Besides, look at things from the perspective of the US oil companies: A hostile regime in Iraq limits the supply of oil to the US.  When supply runs low, prices stay high.  More profit.  A friendly, non-OPEC Iraq?  The last thing oil companies want is free-flowing oil out of the world's second-largest reserve.  The natural price of oil, without the cartel's meddling, is probably around $10/barrel.  With the price-fixing: over $30.  Which do you think is more profitable?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 13 queries.