Where's the love?

DinoDoc · August 14, 2002, 20:56

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
US ... probably showed Iraq how to make chemical weapons, anyway (back when they were fighting Iran).

You're thinking of the French.

orange · August 14, 2002, 20:56

Originally posted by finkian
they shouldn't? That's smart. Take the troops away. Because whether or not Saddam has much power with his own oil-- if he could cut Kuwait's supply off? And gain a significant control of trade routes in the persian gulf? Um, no thanks.

If the Arab world has a problem with it, they will respond. If the UN has a problem with it, we will respond. There is no need to keep troops there, IMO.

At least with the Gulf War last time we had a coallition. This time everyone is against us and there is no smoking gun to point to.

(West Wing is on!

)

finkian · August 14, 2002, 20:57

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're thinking of the French.

Nope, US did spend a lot of money arming the Iraqis.

orange · August 14, 2002, 20:59

on the Kurds issue. Note how we don't fight a war to create Kurdistan. No...why not? Because they don't have oil to give us. Sure we denounce the genocide of Kurds, but we don't do a full scale coallition to respect popular soverignty.

Don't for one second think that it's anything but our own national interests which dictate if we go to war or not, not the prosperity of a people.

tandeetaylor · August 14, 2002, 20:59

Originally posted by finkian
Of course we do--- and which arabs would be unhappy about losing saddam on their border? Hmmmm... none?

That may be true, but they're not going to say (as has been proven by recent happenings), "Yes, America, come and please, do whatever the hell you want!"

And our troops in Saudi Arabia are almost as much of threat to them as our not being there would be. Why do you think terrorists started going after Egypt? Perceived American alliances don't do good things for keeping Arab leaders alive.

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:00

Originally posted by orange

If the Arab world has a problem with it, they will respond. If the UN has a problem with it, we will respond. There is no need to keep troops there, IMO.

At least with the Gulf War last time we had a coallition. This time everyone is against us and there is no smoking gun to point to.

(West Wing is on!

)

With the arabs all pissed off at each other anyway? half are busy yelling at the palestinians for not finding a peaceful, the other half is funding them, and everyone is occupied thinking they can threaten Israel.

And not EVERYONE is against us, btw. There are countries who would very much like to see saddam gone. And they will probably go with us. Or perhaps Britain doesn't count?

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:01

Originally posted by orange
on the Kurds issue. Note how we don't fight a war to create Kurdistan. No...why not? Because they don't have oil to give us. Sure we denounce the genocide of Kurds, but we don't do a full scale coallition to respect popular soverignty.

Don't for one second think that it's anything but our own national interests which dictate if we go to war or not, not the prosperity of a people.

Of course we don't do anything outside our national interests. What's the use of that? It's a waste of money to do that. And, unfortunately, money runs nations.

DinoDoc · August 14, 2002, 21:01

Originally posted by finkian
Nope, US did spend a lot of money arming the Iraqis.

I didn't say otherwise. Pay attention to what I responded to. I could be thinking of the French aid to thier bioweapons and nuke program though.

PS I really want to express my awe at the collective threadjack.

tandeetaylor · August 14, 2002, 21:03

Originally posted by finkian
And they will probably go with us. Or perhaps Britain doesn't count?

I don't know if you've been keeping track, but if we do go to Iraq, Britain is probably not "going with us."

Six Thousand Year Old Man · August 14, 2002, 21:06

Originally posted by finkian

It's also the american way to ensure that needed markets maintain a certain reasonability for our own good-- and Europe's, I might add.

So let me get this straight... if someone has something you need, and won't sell it to you at the price you like, it's the american way to take it by force?

That confirms my first point (a) that the US does what it does based on US self interest alone.

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:06

(blushes) oops, was that my ignorance showing? Last I'd heard, the royal marines were doing something... Anyway, (tries vainly to recover) as loathe as I am to refer to fez, there are nations behind us. And I doubt they'll really mind when Iraq is able to sell every last drop of oil they own when we have someone sane in office there and sanctions can be lifted.

tandeetaylor · August 14, 2002, 21:07

Originally posted by finkian
And, unfortunately, money runs nations.

Yes, we should stretch ourselves as thin as possible, reinstate the draft, raise income taxes to 70%, use all the money on weapons and campaigns against every bad scarey guy in the world. That would be much better than the "unfortunate" situation of money running the nation.

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:08

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

So let me get this straight... if someone has something you need, and won't sell it to you at the price you like, it's the american way to take it by force?

That confirms my first point (a) that the US does what it does based on US self interest alone.

lol, who's interests are we gonna do it based on? Slovakia? nope, it's not taking it by force... it's preventing someone else from taking it away from us.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · August 14, 2002, 21:09

Originally posted by finkian

lol, who's interests are we gonna do it based on? Slovakia? nope, it's not taking it by force... it's preventing someone else from taking it away from us.

Taking it away from us?

So the US owns the oil in Iraq?

This gets better and better...

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:11

Originally posted by tandeetaylor

Yes, we should stretch ourselves as thin as possible, reinstate the draft, raise income taxes to 70%, use all the money on weapons and campaigns against every bad scarey guy in the world. That would be much better than the "unfortunate" situation of money running the nation.

As thin as possible? Raise to 70%? Reinstate the draft? And you think that this is going to happen?

Like I've said, it's silly to say we are getting rid of "every" scary guy in the world... or else north korea wouldn't be an issue, nor libya, nor syria, nor.... ad infinitum. Nope, just the ones who actually affect us. Like Iraq.

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:13

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

Taking it away from us?

So the US owns the oil in Iraq?

This gets better and better...

Uh... no? When did I say that? But our supply of one of the most precious commodities we have ACCESS to... is in the middle east. And by threatening that supply, yeah, that would hurt us. It's reaching to say we own it. America supplies many, many weapons to European allies... does that mean that europe owns the american military?

tandeetaylor · August 14, 2002, 21:13

Originally posted by finkian
lol, who's interests are we gonna do it based on? Slovakia?

So which is it, fortunate or unfortunate?

orange · August 14, 2002, 21:13

Originally posted by finkian
And not EVERYONE is against us, btw. There are countries who would very much like to see saddam gone. And they will probably go with us. Or perhaps Britain doesn't count?

You actually believe both of those statements??

Saudi Arabia is an example of a country that indeed would like to see Saddam gone, but does not want American Imperialism and is certainly nothing close to an 'ally'

and Britain, possibly our closest ally (and political lapdog) has expressed disapproval of a war on Iraq

tandeetaylor · August 14, 2002, 21:14

I was trying to point out in my last two posts a contradiction in your way of thinking.

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:15

Originally posted by orange

You actually believe both of those statements??

Saudi Arabia is an example of a country that indeed would like to see Saddam gone, but does not want American Imperialism and is certainly nothing close to an 'ally'

and Britain, possibly our closest ally (and political lapdog) has expressed disapproval of a war on Iraq

I already expressed my mistake.

DinoDoc · August 14, 2002, 21:16

Originally posted by orange
Britain, possibly our closest ally (and political lapdog) has expressed disapproval of a war on Iraq

Is that because they likely wouldn't be able to go even if they wanted to anyway?

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:17

Originally posted by tandeetaylor

So which is it, fortunate or unfortunate?

It's unfortunate that money runs our policy, but a reality. I would like to say that America could do everything based on goodwill towards the fellow man, but it's just not possible. Neither you, nor your son, will live off of goodwill, nor drive to work on saving the world for Iraqi peasants. You will, however, when tensions ease in the middle east.

orange · August 14, 2002, 21:18

Despite Prime Minister Fez's claims, Spain will not send troops either, and are less likely to do so than Britain

DanS · August 14, 2002, 21:18

This thread is boring. But it started out fun.

DinoDoc · August 14, 2002, 21:19

Originally posted by orange
Despite Prime Minister Fez's claims, Spain will not send troops either, and are less likely to do so than Britain

Thier boots melt too?

orange · August 14, 2002, 21:20

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is that because they likely wouldn't be able to go even if they wanted to anyway?

No.

DinoDoc · August 14, 2002, 21:20

Originally posted by DanS
This thread is boring. But it started out fun.

I know

Six Thousand Year Old Man · August 14, 2002, 21:20

Originally posted by finkian

Uh... no? When did I say that? But our supply of one of the most precious commodities we have ACCESS to... is in the middle east. And by threatening that supply, yeah, that would hurt us. It's reaching to say we own it. America supplies many, many weapons to European allies... does that mean that europe owns the american military?

If you want to ridicule your own argument, go ahead

But seriously...

Why don't you get your oil from somewhere else, rather than killing people so you can drive SUVs? Or..

...oh, right... because starting a war suits US interests better.

DinoDoc · August 14, 2002, 21:22

Originally posted by orange
No.

You mean thier decision had nothing to do with thier entire army falling apart in the desert!?!

finkian · August 14, 2002, 21:22

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

If you want to ridicule your own argument, go ahead

But seriously...

Why don't you get your oil from somewhere else, rather than killing people so you can drive SUVs? Or..

...oh, right... because starting a war suits US interests better.

You're right. Getting rid of Saddam so I can drive an SUV. Or be defended by an Abrams tank. Or fly home to Oregon in a 747. Yeah. Too bad that there are very few places with such a large supply of oil accessable... like none.