Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

[DinoDoc]

Buy American?

[HershOstropoler]

"Why, turn them over to our command, like good colonials, of course."

The forces or the money?

Seriously, what troop strength for a force with projection capability would go with that amount of money? I can't imagine much above 1 million total.

[MichaeltheGreat]

More like a third of a million, unless you want to essentially freeze the technological level of current equipment, in which case I'd say you could go to about half a million. The biggest issue is how often and how far you'd deploy them, and what sort of help you could get in defraying those costs.

[GePap]

"O'Chirac reactor" Of course, the French also built Diamona for the Israelis...

Sikander: You call the European world-view unrealisitc, that for 50 years they have felt safe, so forth and so on: And for 50 years we haven't as well? Were the Europeans less afraid of nuclear war than us? and in the event of any actual war, weren't they the front line, as opposed to ebing an ocean away? And what about those Europeans older than 60? They certainly have seen a much crueler world than Americans: the last time any American saw his home burned to the ground by and invader was 1865. Wasn't the Europeans who had metal detectors first, cops and cameras everywhere first? weren't London, Paris, Berlin, and Madrid facing bombings regularly back when no American thought it was possible here? So were does this "realisitc" view of the world come from, when we have faced less difficulty, less suffering and less crisis than anyone and any other people in the world? Until 9/111, every single crisis the US saw was far abroad. Maybe you knew someone directly involved, but the last time involvement was widespread was Vietnam.
The European view of the world is not unrealistic, or certainly no more unrealistic than ours. If "suffereing" and living in insecurity is the measure of being able to "see the real world", then by god, lets ask someone from the Congo to tell us what the world is like, cause they sure as hell have seen more than anyone here, or the US, or Europe.

Che: DD is correct; realists are perplexed by this war: Wolfowitz and those that developed this notion are not realists: they are neo-cons, and neo-cons have an evengelical spirit that realist lack utterly. Realists don't think force can make the world better (nothign can), only safer for a time. That is a fundamental difference.

MtG: I agree that the ability of the rich world to affect the situation around the world is more limited than people think: which is why I see such rgeat danger form this war. The people oin the admin. overestimate the ability of the US (or anyone) to change hearts and minds through violence, which opens up a whole new set of expectations and possible actions down the road for which the American people are not ready.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whatever is wrong with #2: Calling it a War for Oil

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What if other countries decide they don't have to obey? Better to crush one country today than have to crush half a dozen tomorrow.

Yes, I think you´re right, and this is *part* of the reason of this whole business, America being the bully on the block. But picking up the oil is a bonus, and pleasing Israel and its lobby is more than a bonus, its probably equally as important as your argument. I think the diverse opinions on this are not mutually exclusive.

I might also mention that this is also a War Against Europe, given the fact that Europe has a lot to lose, economically, there. Now they add insult to injury (with Spiff even supporting them ), by demanding we pick up part of the costs.

Paying for a war against *our* interests? Now this is chutzpah, amazing.

Not a cent for tribute!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
The whole country supports Israel.

Yes, I am aware of that. The question is: How do you explain it? Collective insanity? Or manipulation?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yes, if you're a bunch of weak, sniveling cowards, the Islamic fundamentalists will ignore you for the time being, as you're not a threat to them, just amoral infidels.

You have it perfectly wrong.

Islamic fundamentalists are not a threat to us; never have been. They are not even much of a threat to the US Empire; how I wish they were.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
So, what happens if we go in there, and make the Iraqis open the oil floodgates?

According to an article on Salon.com yesterday, war in Irqi would very like damage much of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. I saw an estimate of $20 billion to get it up and running again. Even if it isn't destroyed in the fighting, the twelve+ years of embargo have takn their toll on maintenance. The Iraqi oil floodgates won't be opening anytime soon.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MtG :
Comrade fundamentally didn't understand we're in the same **** as you.

If you really think that, and are afraid of the fundamentalists ,then I start to understand your position.

I´ll give you an example why you are totally wrong: Germany recently arrested a presumed terrorist leader. This guy is probably guilty, for all I know, but the important thing is: *He explicitly gave order to his group never to target Germans.*

They definitely know who their enemies are, and who aren´t.

I wish the same were true for all Europeans.

[chequita guevara]

CT, you just don't get it.

Israel doesn't need us to protect her. The Arab states need us to protect them from her. Israel has only come close to losing one war, and given the break up of the Arab block, that's unlikely to ever happen again. Israel would crush any Arab state stupid enough to attack it. Israel could take out Hussein if they felt it was necessary to their survival. Syria and Jordan would fall in days, Egypt would be take a few weeks. Lebabnon's not a threat, nor are the Saudis. Who is this great danger to Israel that we are supposedly going to war to protect it from.

Fer chrissake! Israel improves all of the weapons we sell them. They have bio/chem/nuke weapons (at least 200 of the latter). They have a highly trained and dedicated army and litterally millions of reserves. The only reason Damascus, Amman, and Cairo aren't Jewish cities today is because we forced them to pull back.

As for oil, it's a tertiary concern. Nice bonus, but it's not the reason we're doing this.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for nothing exploding in Europe, Comrade Tribune, you must be daft. Europe has been the target of far more Islamic terrorism than the US has. We just got the worst single attack, and probably the most victims. But France has been suffering attacks many years. The Pan Am bombing over Scotland, whether you believe it was the Libyans or the Syrians. There were Moslem attacks in Italy. You aren't getting away with anything. We've been free of such things for so long just cuz no one's had the balls to attack us directly.

Ahh, cool down. I am not daft, and you stop being Marxist here.

Do you think losing a plane once in a decade (or generation!) is a threat? I mean, come on.

And it was an *American* plane, even if it exploded over Scotland.

Of course, if OBL wants the US out, he should rather attack their soldiers all around the world, would seem a better strat. So he maybe *is* a provocateur, after all. The jury still out on this.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


You have it perfectly wrong.

Islamic fundamentalists are not a threat to us; never have been. They are not even much of a threat to the US Empire; how I wish they were.

You're naive, dear. Modern Islamic fundamentalism as a socio-political phenomena is barely half a century old. Despite obstacles to publication and travel, repression, imprisonment, torture and execution by secular governments in the Islamic world, it has spread all throughout the Islamic world, and has strong support among the majority of people in those countries who've been bypassed by the "benefits" of the modern world.

The notion that Islamists have a duty to overthrow non-Sharia governments is something that was created (or at least first published) by Sayyid al Qutb in the early 1950s, so it's very new in the 1300-odd year history of Islam. What the fundies lacked in al Qutb's time was effective communication, charismatic leadership, and capital. They have all that, now. Their goal is nothing less than the total conversion of all to (their concept of) Islam, and the destruction of anyone else. It's just taken them a little while to get organized.

Of course, you can always ignore them for another 50 years and see how things go then - or maybe you figure they'll be impressed by your progressive thoughts and culture?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Of course, you can always ignore them for another 50 years and see how things go then - or maybe you figure they'll be impressed by your progressive thoughts and culture?

No, I´m thinking in realpolitik terms. If the fundamentalists were really so powerful (they are not!), they would be an Allah-sent counterweight to the US Empire.

Destroy each other, and Europe will rule supreme!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I´ll give you an example why you are totally wrong: Germany recently arrested a presumed terrorist leader. This guy is probably guilty, for all I know, but the important thing is: *He explicitly gave order to his group never to target Germans.*

I'll give you an example of why you're totally naive. Just because you don't target somebody one day, doesn't mean they're a friend, or neutral, or whatever. It means, they're simply a lower priority target for the time being, since nobody can take on everybody at once.

It's also convenient (a la Mohammad Atta et al) to plan an operation in a different country from the target, because it is much harder for intelligence and law enforcement to operate across borders without good cooperation (and good reason) between the host governments.

They definitely know who their enemies are, and who aren´t.

You're right, they do. You should read al Qutb or al Maududi. They define their enemies as all non-believers. OBL is a disciple of al Qutb.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
CT, you just don't get it.

Israel doesn't need us to protect her. The Arab states need us to protect them from her.

Yes, yes, I see your point.

However, *my* point is: What is cheaper: Destroying your enemies yourself, or let others do it for you?

Israel is being economical. Don´t underestimate their thinking.