Iflyme 0 #101 October 31, 2002 QuoteWhat a bunch of hooie! Hooie to your hooie!!! Nobody is demeaning the lives lost on 9-11 ... how do you figure that? But think about it... the people of Iraq didn't attack the WTC ... and I agree totally with whoever made the point about Rwanda ... nothing for the US to gain there, so they stayed away. And I'd say N Korea is much more of a threat, with a REAL nuclear weapons program, but they also have a real army, and aren't afraid to use it, so the US is laying low on that one, too. Of course it's all about oil. Why do you think George the first went to help out when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Because he loves the Kuwaiti people? NO -- he loves their resources! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #102 October 31, 2002 Bill - my turn: I know you are a pacifist, and I respect your opinions. I am a conservative and ex-military so we are probably at the ends of the political spectrum. That just means we have different opinions. My main objection to the start of this thread was the implication that any American president today would conspire to start a war under such a weak pretense. The excuse for the Spanish-American war, we now know, was started because of a boiler explosion. The Vietnam war was probably started over a "fictional" attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. But the world is significantly different today than it was then. Information flows almost unrestricted between general populations, and I believe a lot of the middle class is a lot better informed today. The govt cannot keep a secret because everyone involved with govt wants to be the source for the next big news item. We have woven this elaborate fiction that "off the record" absolves us of responsibility and legal obligation. However Iraq is involved in terrorism against the US by supporting Al Queda, against Israel by paying Palestinian martyrs families, funding terrorist operations in other countries, etc. I never said Iraq was "responsible" for the WTC attack, but they are as culpable as Saudi Arabia. At least we know where Iraq stands which is better than we can say about some of our "friends". We can do without Iraqi oil! We export a lot more refined products than the equivalent of 200,000 Bbls a day in crude imports. We have found it more convenient to import oil from the middle east and sell the Alaskan crude to Japan. I price oil for a major oil company and see the buyers and sellers on both ends. And why is it up to the govt to mandate more fuel efficient cars, or the color of the car, or the number of passengers? Govt mandated controls usually don't do much except cost you and me more money without achieving whatever the hell the original goal was. If the price gets high enough for fuel, Joe Citizen will demand alternatives and better mileage. If a company producing fuel cells cannot make a profit under the current $ per BTU rates, they will not market the product. They may continue to research and refine the idea, but we won't see it till it makes economic sense. Don't get me wrong. Wars have started over oil before (just ask the Japanese). And war regardless of the reason or size of confict should always be a last resort. But you cannot blindly put your head in the sand and hope that the bad guys go away. Sometimes you have to go on the offensive to defend yourself. The problem with Iraq is Saddam's unrelenting desire to obtain bigger and better weapons at the expense of the Iraqis and the entire Middle East. After all he was willing to destroy the Kuwaiti oil fields at an enormous ecological cost without a second thought. I was in Vietnam in 1968-1969. Believe me, I do not want anyone to go through what we did. The loss of one soldier is a heavy burden to bear by a commander. But we will not and can not stand idly by and wait for Iraq or North Korea to strike us first. How many lives will it take before you say enough is enough? If you knew someone was targeting your family, what would you do? Thanks for listening, Jim Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fastmartin2002 0 #103 October 31, 2002 there is no question that the issues that the united states has with iraq and thus economically generated. why else would the u.s. put so much emphasis on controlling a tyrant who lives out in the middle of the desert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #104 October 31, 2002 Quote However Iraq is involved in terrorism against the US by supporting Al Queda, Where are you getting this from? I read something in the Wall Street Journal that said the Iraq- Al Quaeda connection was bullshit, but I can't get to it on their website without shelling out the $79 they charge to subscribers (the bastards!! ) But anyway, I have not heard any credible connection that there is a Saddam -Osama connection...in fact I heard they hate each other, contrary to what Dubya tells us. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
