Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
I always find it strange that only reasonable people agree with me.
I don't see most of our interventions helping our public.
It's all about money and political strategy.
We support democracies only when they support our interests. We're just as eager to support dictatorships when they do the same.
Critics would have had a conniption had he done it but Pres. Bush should have immediately seized control of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure, brought U.S. oil companies into the country to modernize a cash cow horribly neglected by Saddam Hussein, sold the U.S. oil at cost, and financed our wars and their economy by undercutting OPEC's prices and selling oil everywhere else. That would have been in the best interests of us, the Iraqi people, and pretty much everyone in the world but OPEC, who I couldn't possibly care less about.
Instead Pres. Bush is criticized for liberating Iraq for oil despite taking no oil; Iraq's economy is completely stagnant because their oil industry was too neglected to increase production and that's the only source of money in that country; and OPEC has been able to manipulate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then the recent Islamic uprisings to their best advantage but MSNBC and CNN would have crucified Pres. Bush if he actually did that.
I support Pres. Obama's decision to stay out of Libya, another oil rich nation, and think it's in our best interest because we're not willing hurt the feelings of that Parisian college student, who we've been talking about, 60 years my junior who I've never met, but would completely support him if he said he wanted to go into Libya, seize control of their oil fields, etc. That would be the right thing to do for us and them.
Pres. Bush was extremely vocal about human rights in these countries and he's still criticized as being a war monger despite using economic sanctions effectively to bring about change but there's only so much speaking out against human rights violations can do.
Last edited by Donahue; 03-16-2011 at 10:20 AM.
None of this half-and-half shit works.
Either stay out of wars almost always (best option) or enter wars and take all the spoils (next best option).
We've subverted democracy throughout the world on multiple occasions, and we've done it ever since the early 1900s.
Taking Iraqi oil and using it to fund their government would have been a blessing to the people. Instead we were too afraid of the feelings of Parisian college students to help the people out so we're leaving the country in squalor. Every other day The New York Times runs a story on their population's poverty and the government's struggles to pay the smallest bills.
That's what is ruthless and that's why we should be less concerned with our image abroad and more concerned with doing what's ultimately necessary. Afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly descend into the same civil wars that have plagued the region once we leave and we have concerns over our image to blame.
Do you have any specific U.S. targets you would like to see blown up or do you prefer to let them choose at random?
It's not like we aided him because we're best friends forever. We aided him because he gave into our demands and stopped supporting terrorism. I don't see why this is a bad thing, especially when Pres. Bush is being criticized as a war monger. Isn't a non-violent solution what you were looking for?
Last edited by Donahue; 03-16-2011 at 11:01 AM.
The reason we didn't go with your plan as far as oil goes, however, is because we opened Iraq's oil market up to various companies. So no, we didn't "take" Iraq's oil. However, we did help several corporations profit from it without much regard for using the money gained to help Iraq.
Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity - Middle East, World - The Independent
So, again, we didn't take the oil. We let multinational corporations take it, which shouldn't be surprising, since a lot of the previous administration's members were connected to these companies.
The same is true for certain members of the U.K. government.
We didn't lift sanctions and begin giving aid to Col. Gaddafi because we want to invite him over for a sleep over party. Heck, we didn't even lift sanctions or give aid to Col. Gaddafi. We lifted sanctions on and gave aid to Libya in exchange for them pursuing actions beneficial for us. If the government of Libya changes, then it changes. Col. Gaddafi just happens to be the leader of that country right now.
We have good relations with the United Kingdom and their Prime Minister David Cameron. Would it be hypocritical if we didn't go to war with the UK if their voters choted out Cameron and his party in the next election? Cameron may be the face of his government, practically speaking anyway, but it's the country we're dealing with, not him.
Given the fiscal mess, we sure as hell cannot afford these damn police actions. Especially when you don't raise taxes to finance the damn things.
It's time the USA stopped trying to fix other folk's messes. We got our own that should take priority over everything else for god's sake.
It is ironic with all of the fiscal woes, and the Pubs wanting to cut some things to the bone that we would even entertain going into Libya. Those guys are fucking nuts! Crazy as loons! But there never was a war they did not salivate over, well, as long as they don't have to go, but can send underprivledged young Americans to do the dying. Fuck the Cons and the neoCons. And fuck any Left Wingnut that wants to meddle in the affairs of other Nations.