Browsing these discussions, it is apparent that there are, as is often the case in political forums, a number of people who see this as a black and white issue, in other words, "either you're for us, or you're against us".
Stop and take a minute to think about what it means to be Anti-War and what it means to be Anti-US.
To think that George W. Bush did not do the right thing in entering this war against international consensus is neither anti-war, nor anti-US.
To think that war in general is wrong is Anti-war, but it not anti-US.
Some of you can't even put the idea in your minds that one can oppose the war but still support the troops, including the actions they take in the line of duty. That's just plain silly.
This is not a black and white issue. As a CEO, I'd love to have some of you blind supporters on my team, if I had my personal interests in mind. But with the company's interests in mind, I see value in dissent from my own recommendations, and I would never allow myself to be surrounded by "yes men" because that can stifle progress and leave the company at risk of damage due to any mistakes I might make.
So I wouldn't have a Groverat or a Eugene or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine) in a decision-making position. Likewise I wouldn't want a Sammi Jo on my team either. There's just no room on my team for blind loyalty, in either direction. It's just too dangerous.
People, start thinking for yourselves! That's what leads to progress.
You've said it all here. There's nothing left to talk about. It's comforting to know that at least some people like you exist. Not many people these days can hold two seemingly opposing thoughts in their heads at the same time these days. Huzzah to you, my friend. Huzzah to you.
So I suppose you'll support the idea that we should set an example by not seizing any oil from Iraq, right, Scott? If the Bush Administration does this then I'll believe it.
Oh yea the US will be all like "this is our oil to pay us back for freeing you". You know this is such a dumb notion that the US will somehow "take" the oil by edict or shady "business" deal. Did we take Kuwaits oil? Why would we take Iraqs?
Does an open Iraq actually help Bush's oil buddies?
While I'm sure they would not mind seeing gas prices go up another dollar a gallon, I'm equally sure they don't want to revisit the 1970's gas station lines.
Supply/demand/price dynamics are pretty tricky in the petrol business...
You've said it all here. There's nothing left to talk about. It's comforting to know that at least some people like you exist. Not many people these days can hold two seemingly opposing thoughts in their heads at the same time these days. Huzzah to you, my friend. Huzzah to you.
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -former UNOCAL exec) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline for UNOCAL from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02).
So any rumors about all of the post 9/11 being about oil is not so far fetch. How many former Oil execs get to run countries. ( 1 - US, 2 - Afghanistan, 3 - ? Iraq ? )
Yawn. I'm sure in 5 years you'll be pissed that the US didn't take the oil to pay for the war.
The best idea is to take Saddam's money, he has billions, and pay for all this shit. Iraq first and then if there's any left over free powerbooks for everyone at AI!
I still haven't seen anyone make the case how this is "for oil".
Bush, Powell and Blair have repeatedly said their oil is their resource and will be used for their people. Plenty of articles from sources like the BBC show that oil production can only get to half-US levels in 3 years at best (Bush has 5 more in office at most).
Could that not have been achieved by simply removing the economic sanctions?
Quote:
1. Pipelines from and through Iraq, facilitating oil trade to friendly countries.
Couldn't this have been doing quite easily without war?
Quote:
2. An "incentive" to keep other oil countries, like Saudi Arabia, in line with our interests.
This is just BS. Plenty of our allies screw us over all the time with no repercussions.
Quote:
Can't you see it? It can be about oil and not be about "stealing" oil.
Earlier on in this thing I was much more receptive to the idea that oil was a big deal. But as time goes on and I think about how that works in reality it becomes less and less a factor.
To me it is starting to seem like such a minor and obscure part of it I wonder why it's mentioned so much. Especially when you take into account how huge the payoff the anti-war movement tries to make it seem with their "blood for oil" crap.
To me it seems like making weapons manufacturers richer has more real economic potential than anything to do with oil.
Earlier on in this thing I was much more receptive to the idea that oil was a big deal. But as time goes on and I think about how that works in reality it becomes less and less a factor.
To me it is starting to seem like such a minor and obscure part of it I wonder why it's mentioned so much. Especially when you take into account how huge the payoff the anti-war movement tries to make it seem with their "blood for oil" crap.
To me it seems like making weapons manufacturers richer has more real economic potential than anything to do with oil.
Well, what do you want to bet that we wouldn't even be engaged in this (or the previous) conflict if Iraq had NO oil whatsoever. There are loads of nasty military dictators out there, and we're not going around arguing for regime change. It's not about UN sanctions, either. Isn't Israel in violation of more UN sanctions than Iraq? Didn't I read that somewhere?
My point is that you can't just dismiss oil as a factor here. Yes, the anti-war protestors drive me nuts because tend to be too reductive and/or naive about the entire mess, but that doesn't mean that oil isn't a factor.
At any rate. Anti-war. Anti-the current admin. And the last one. And the one before that. And the one before that.
So I wouldn't have a Groverat or a Eugene or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine) in a decision-making position. Likewise I wouldn't want a Sammi Jo on my team either. There's just no room on my team for blind loyalty, in either direction. It's just too dangerous.
Get over yourself, buddy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
For example if you willingly spread lies about the US ... that's anti-american. What else could it be?
If you are against the war and make excuses for Saddam and deny the horrible things he's done. That's pro-saddam. I think I've only called one member here pro-saddam.
If the "anti-war" group that sponsors a march is a front group for an anti-american anti-democratic "workers party" then you have to wonder what they are for. Peace? Or opposing the US?
Very true, Scott. Very True.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I mean think about the loaded phrase you threw into this discussion yourself. Anti-war, as if there were just a large majority of people sitting around hoping for thousands of their sons, daughters, neighbors and fellow citizens to go off and possibly be killed. There are those who acknowledge the need for war against a serious threat and who wish to use it as a last resort. Are those people simply labled "pro-war" by you and your own limited understanding?
Maybe I am so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine like so many of us pro-war Americans, but I for one sincerely believe that this war is about security. If, by bringing democracy to Iraq, we can in the short-term get rid of their ability to produce and distribute WMD, and in the long-term, promote peace in the region (specifically the palestinian/israel conflict) by having a model of middle-eastern democracy, then I think we would be absolutely lowering the risk for terrorism in the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by AsLan^
Our goodwill (speaking as an American) can not be so great that we will readily invade another country without significant benefit for ourselves.
Now I definitely believe that the prospect of an ending to terrorism and the prosperity created as a result, as I spoke of above, beyond all other considerations, is what is driving this war. And that is the significant benefit to ourselves.
Now I definitely believe that the prospect of an ending to terrorism and the prosperity created as a result, as I spoke of above, beyond all other considerations, is what is driving this war. And that is the significant benefit to ourselves.
I'm curious: how, precisely, are we going to end terrorism? Considering that it's a tactic and not an ideology, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on diplomacy. And we seem to be waging one of those, as well.
Well, what do you want to bet that we wouldn't even be engaged in this (or the previous) conflict if Iraq had NO oil whatsoever.
That puts Iraqi into the international spotlight, yes, because it made them rich and gave them the ability to even afford weapons of mass destruction.
And all the "blood for oil" insinuations cause an inertial effect. When there is a murky and unproven conspiracy you cannot disprove it because there were no facts to begin with. Kind of like international political hype.
In Gulf War 1.0 you could see a clear oil connection. Iraq stole Kuwait's oil supply and that threatened production. But we've been used to 12 years of Iraqi economic sanction and their small role in the world oil game and oil barons make shitloads of cash anyway. Why try to flood the market with Iraqi oil and lower oil prices if the goal is to make oil barons happy?
Quote:
There are loads of nasty military dictators out there, and we're not going around arguing for regime change.
Say it with me, kids:
Not all situations are the same. Not all situations require the same tactics.
Quote:
It's not about UN sanctions, either.
The sanctions against Iraq address a problem that exists outside of the text of the sanctions. Iraq has naughty weapons and an insane leader, it is in the interest of our national security to remove that threat. So it is about the sanctions and it isn't.
The whole discussion "is it ABOUT resolutions" is semantic anyway.
I'm curious: how, precisely, are we going to end terrorism? Considering that it's a tactic and not an ideology, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on diplomacy. And we seem to be waging one of those, as well.
How do you end terrorism? Is that a Joke? It is not some abstract concept. IT is a crime.
By saying that you can't end terrorism because it is a tactic is like saying the same about war. Which would make all the war protestors cry, and who would want to do that?
By that notion, you can't end anything. Why did you assume that terrorism, in the form of the "war on terrorism," was meant as some form of ideology? That makes no sense. You can definitely have wars against things that are not ideologies. Why would you argue this?
[B]How do you end terrorism? Is that a Joke? It is not some abstract concept. IT is a crime.[/B
No. It's not a crime. It's terrorism. Evidence of its legally ambiguous status is clearly visible in the US's equivocal treatment of some Americans who have been "determined" to be terrorists: Lindh gets a criminal trial; Padilla gets locked in a military brig. One is a criminal; one is a soldier.
And no, it was very far from a joke. Terrorism is whatever we say it is. That's what's important here.
Quote:
Why did you assume that terrorism, in the form of the "war on terrorism," was meant as some form of ideology? That makes no sense. You can definitely have wars against things that are not ideologies. Why would you argue this?
I didn't. I said that terrorism is a tactic, and you can't wage war against a tactic. I proposed that diplomacy is also a tactic, and made a little double joke there about how a) you can't wage war against diplomacy, either, and b) the current admin has had some serious diplomatic troubles lately (and especially today with the business with Russia).
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
What planet do you live on and can I get tickets for the next space flight?
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
To those in the world who care about the example you are setting, those are fine ways to make friends and gain respect. For those that hate you and teach others to hate you, none of those matter.
Hatred of the US will continue so long as: you are rich, you are powerful, you support Israel and you are not a Islamic state. Are you willing to give up any and all of these? Perhaps you could withdraw your support of Israel. Once they are gone, that is a major souce of animosity eliminated. That would be the easiest, but sacrificing them still won't get you off the hook.
Comments
Originally posted by Axle of Elvis
Browsing these discussions, it is apparent that there are, as is often the case in political forums, a number of people who see this as a black and white issue, in other words, "either you're for us, or you're against us".
Stop and take a minute to think about what it means to be Anti-War and what it means to be Anti-US.
To think that George W. Bush did not do the right thing in entering this war against international consensus is neither anti-war, nor anti-US.
To think that war in general is wrong is Anti-war, but it not anti-US.
Some of you can't even put the idea in your minds that one can oppose the war but still support the troops, including the actions they take in the line of duty. That's just plain silly.
This is not a black and white issue. As a CEO, I'd love to have some of you blind supporters on my team, if I had my personal interests in mind. But with the company's interests in mind, I see value in dissent from my own recommendations, and I would never allow myself to be surrounded by "yes men" because that can stifle progress and leave the company at risk of damage due to any mistakes I might make.
So I wouldn't have a Groverat or a Eugene or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine) in a decision-making position. Likewise I wouldn't want a Sammi Jo on my team either. There's just no room on my team for blind loyalty, in either direction. It's just too dangerous.
People, start thinking for yourselves! That's what leads to progress.
You've said it all here. There's nothing left to talk about. It's comforting to know that at least some people like you exist. Not many people these days can hold two seemingly opposing thoughts in their heads at the same time these days. Huzzah to you, my friend. Huzzah to you.
Originally posted by tonton
So I suppose you'll support the idea that we should set an example by not seizing any oil from Iraq, right, Scott? If the Bush Administration does this then I'll believe it.
Oh yea the US will be all like "this is our oil to pay us back for freeing you". You know this is such a dumb notion that the US will somehow "take" the oil by edict or shady "business" deal. Did we take Kuwaits oil? Why would we take Iraqs?
Originally posted by groverat
Does an open Iraq actually help Bush's oil buddies?
While I'm sure they would not mind seeing gas prices go up another dollar a gallon, I'm equally sure they don't want to revisit the 1970's gas station lines.
Supply/demand/price dynamics are pretty tricky in the petrol business...
Originally posted by BR
You've said it all here. There's nothing left to talk about. It's comforting to know that at least some people like you exist. Not many people these days can hold two seemingly opposing thoughts in their heads at the same time these days. Huzzah to you, my friend. Huzzah to you.
You're just a blind pseudo-patriot!
So any rumors about all of the post 9/11 being about oil is not so far fetch. How many former Oil execs get to run countries. ( 1 - US, 2 - Afghanistan, 3 - ? Iraq ? )
Originally posted by Scott
You're just a blind pseudo-patriot!
A psychologist would call that projection.
The best idea is to take Saddam's money, he has billions, and pay for all this shit. Iraq first and then if there's any left over free powerbooks for everyone at AI!
Bush, Powell and Blair have repeatedly said their oil is their resource and will be used for their people. Plenty of articles from sources like the BBC show that oil production can only get to half-US levels in 3 years at best (Bush has 5 more in office at most).
What's the thought-out theory on this?
Originally posted by groverat
I still haven't seen anyone make the case how this is "for oil".
What's the thought-out theory on this?
It's not for oil as in "to take the oil from their country"
It's more for oil as in "to have a stable source for (purchasing) oil, that is controlled by 'us' "
Originally posted by tonton
It's the influence on oil policy that we want.
Could that not have been achieved by simply removing the economic sanctions?
1. Pipelines from and through Iraq, facilitating oil trade to friendly countries.
Couldn't this have been doing quite easily without war?
2. An "incentive" to keep other oil countries, like Saudi Arabia, in line with our interests.
This is just BS. Plenty of our allies screw us over all the time with no repercussions.
Can't you see it? It can be about oil and not be about "stealing" oil.
Earlier on in this thing I was much more receptive to the idea that oil was a big deal. But as time goes on and I think about how that works in reality it becomes less and less a factor.
To me it is starting to seem like such a minor and obscure part of it I wonder why it's mentioned so much. Especially when you take into account how huge the payoff the anti-war movement tries to make it seem with their "blood for oil" crap.
To me it seems like making weapons manufacturers richer has more real economic potential than anything to do with oil.
Originally posted by groverat
Earlier on in this thing I was much more receptive to the idea that oil was a big deal. But as time goes on and I think about how that works in reality it becomes less and less a factor.
To me it is starting to seem like such a minor and obscure part of it I wonder why it's mentioned so much. Especially when you take into account how huge the payoff the anti-war movement tries to make it seem with their "blood for oil" crap.
To me it seems like making weapons manufacturers richer has more real economic potential than anything to do with oil.
Well, what do you want to bet that we wouldn't even be engaged in this (or the previous) conflict if Iraq had NO oil whatsoever. There are loads of nasty military dictators out there, and we're not going around arguing for regime change. It's not about UN sanctions, either. Isn't Israel in violation of more UN sanctions than Iraq? Didn't I read that somewhere?
My point is that you can't just dismiss oil as a factor here. Yes, the anti-war protestors drive me nuts because tend to be too reductive and/or naive about the entire mess, but that doesn't mean that oil isn't a factor.
At any rate. Anti-war. Anti-the current admin. And the last one. And the one before that. And the one before that.
Prophecy from 18 Jan 2001
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Axle of Elvis
So I wouldn't have a Groverat or a Eugene or a Scott (man, that guy is scary, he's so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine) in a decision-making position. Likewise I wouldn't want a Sammi Jo on my team either. There's just no room on my team for blind loyalty, in either direction. It's just too dangerous.
Get over yourself, buddy.
Originally posted by Scott
For example if you willingly spread lies about the US ... that's anti-american. What else could it be?
If you are against the war and make excuses for Saddam and deny the horrible things he's done. That's pro-saddam. I think I've only called one member here pro-saddam.
If the "anti-war" group that sponsors a march is a front group for an anti-american anti-democratic "workers party" then you have to wonder what they are for. Peace? Or opposing the US?
Very true, Scott. Very True.
Originally posted by trumptman
I mean think about the loaded phrase you threw into this discussion yourself. Anti-war, as if there were just a large majority of people sitting around hoping for thousands of their sons, daughters, neighbors and fellow citizens to go off and possibly be killed. There are those who acknowledge the need for war against a serious threat and who wish to use it as a last resort. Are those people simply labled "pro-war" by you and your own limited understanding?
Maybe I am so blindly assimmilated to Republican doctrine like so many of us pro-war Americans, but I for one sincerely believe that this war is about security. If, by bringing democracy to Iraq, we can in the short-term get rid of their ability to produce and distribute WMD, and in the long-term, promote peace in the region (specifically the palestinian/israel conflict) by having a model of middle-eastern democracy, then I think we would be absolutely lowering the risk for terrorism in the US.
Originally posted by AsLan^
Our goodwill (speaking as an American) can not be so great that we will readily invade another country without significant benefit for ourselves.
Now I definitely believe that the prospect of an ending to terrorism and the prosperity created as a result, as I spoke of above, beyond all other considerations, is what is driving this war. And that is the significant benefit to ourselves.
Originally posted by chweave1
Now I definitely believe that the prospect of an ending to terrorism and the prosperity created as a result, as I spoke of above, beyond all other considerations, is what is driving this war. And that is the significant benefit to ourselves.
I'm curious: how, precisely, are we going to end terrorism? Considering that it's a tactic and not an ideology, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on diplomacy. And we seem to be waging one of those, as well.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, what do you want to bet that we wouldn't even be engaged in this (or the previous) conflict if Iraq had NO oil whatsoever.
That puts Iraqi into the international spotlight, yes, because it made them rich and gave them the ability to even afford weapons of mass destruction.
And all the "blood for oil" insinuations cause an inertial effect. When there is a murky and unproven conspiracy you cannot disprove it because there were no facts to begin with. Kind of like international political hype.
In Gulf War 1.0 you could see a clear oil connection. Iraq stole Kuwait's oil supply and that threatened production. But we've been used to 12 years of Iraqi economic sanction and their small role in the world oil game and oil barons make shitloads of cash anyway. Why try to flood the market with Iraqi oil and lower oil prices if the goal is to make oil barons happy?
There are loads of nasty military dictators out there, and we're not going around arguing for regime change.
Say it with me, kids:
Not all situations are the same. Not all situations require the same tactics.
It's not about UN sanctions, either.
The sanctions against Iraq address a problem that exists outside of the text of the sanctions. Iraq has naughty weapons and an insane leader, it is in the interest of our national security to remove that threat. So it is about the sanctions and it isn't.
The whole discussion "is it ABOUT resolutions" is semantic anyway.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm curious: how, precisely, are we going to end terrorism? Considering that it's a tactic and not an ideology, a war on terrorism makes about as much sense as a war on diplomacy. And we seem to be waging one of those, as well.
How do you end terrorism? Is that a Joke? It is not some abstract concept. IT is a crime.
By saying that you can't end terrorism because it is a tactic is like saying the same about war. Which would make all the war protestors cry, and who would want to do that?
By that notion, you can't end anything. Why did you assume that terrorism, in the form of the "war on terrorism," was meant as some form of ideology? That makes no sense. You can definitely have wars against things that are not ideologies. Why would you argue this?
Originally posted by chweave1
[B]How do you end terrorism? Is that a Joke? It is not some abstract concept. IT is a crime.[/B
No. It's not a crime. It's terrorism. Evidence of its legally ambiguous status is clearly visible in the US's equivocal treatment of some Americans who have been "determined" to be terrorists: Lindh gets a criminal trial; Padilla gets locked in a military brig. One is a criminal; one is a soldier.
And no, it was very far from a joke. Terrorism is whatever we say it is. That's what's important here.
Why did you assume that terrorism, in the form of the "war on terrorism," was meant as some form of ideology? That makes no sense. You can definitely have wars against things that are not ideologies. Why would you argue this?
I didn't. I said that terrorism is a tactic, and you can't wage war against a tactic. I proposed that diplomacy is also a tactic, and made a little double joke there about how a) you can't wage war against diplomacy, either, and b) the current admin has had some serious diplomatic troubles lately (and especially today with the business with Russia).
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by tonton
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
Appeaser!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by tonton
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
What planet do you live on and can I get tickets for the next space flight?
Originally posted by tonton
You end terrorism through gaining respect. In my opinion that is th only way to do it.
You don't gain respect by waging war. You don't gain respect through hypocrisy and inconsistency. Neither do you gain it through obsequiousness. You gain it by setting an example, prospering, and teaching. You gain it by accepting and embracing. You gain it by making friends, not enemies.
To those in the world who care about the example you are setting, those are fine ways to make friends and gain respect. For those that hate you and teach others to hate you, none of those matter.
Hatred of the US will continue so long as: you are rich, you are powerful, you support Israel and you are not a Islamic state. Are you willing to give up any and all of these? Perhaps you could withdraw your support of Israel. Once they are gone, that is a major souce of animosity eliminated. That would be the easiest, but sacrificing them still won't get you off the hook.