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

[Comrade Tribune]

I have no problem at all with people paying the costs of their actions.

No one ordered Americans to go to war against Islam, and thereby create more fundamentalism. (Or, perhaps, the Israel Lobby ordered them, but that´s still not our problem).

If they do so, why should *we* bail them out, financially or otherwise?

So they can call us 'Cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys'?

Well, the Surrender Monkeys will hopefully sit back, not pay a dime and watch on television what ever interesting US skyline changes fundamentalists may yet create.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I didn't call him a paranoid, raving moron for no reason.

Damn, I hate it when I must agree with you DD

[Spiffor]

CT :
I don't belive the average dead in the twin towers deserved his death anymore than the average Bagdhadian when the US will bomb Baghdad. These innocent people aren't responsible for the decisions taken by their countres or influent groups within, and yet they'll pay.

Ignoring the fact that innocent Americans will pay for the absurd US foreign policy is just like dismissing the civilian deaths of innocent Iraqis when the west will go "punish Saddam".

It is a pure warmongering stance. An arrogant stance. A despicable stance.

Edit : to me, an American dead is as bad as an Iraqi dead. I thought only American warmongers didn't understand this. I now know I was wrong.

[JohnT]

"So they can call us 'Cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys'?"

You're mad... about a quote from a TV show?

I've heard of pathetic, but... wow!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ignoring the fact that innocent Americans will pay for the absurd US foreign policy is just like dismissing the civilian deaths of innocent Iraqis when the west will go "punish Saddam".

No; because you are blurring the difference between aggressor and victim.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by JohnT
"So they can call us 'Cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys'?"

You're mad... about a quote from a TV show?

It very much shows the attitude.

US attitude toward Europe is, on the whole, colonial, and I, personally, have had enough of it. I can definitely understand the Arabs.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Damn, I hate it when I must agree with you DD

This is the most I've heard that phrase in a single thread ever.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune No; because you are blurring the difference between aggressor and victim.

US administrations and terrorist zealots are agressors. American and Iraqi civilians are the victims. I think I got the picture pretty clearly.

Assimilating Wamericans with Bush's stupidity is exactly the same as assimilating muslims with terrorists. A gross generalization which can only create more hate and destruction between the two people
(and egoistically as a European, a hate which will concern us too, when bombs will explode in our subways)

[JohnT]

"US attitude toward Europe is, on the whole, colonial..."

LOL!!!!!! Are you serious???? Methinks it's quite the quite the opposite, and has been for over 200 years.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
US administrations and terrorist zealots are agressors. American and Iraqi civilians are the victims. I think I got the picture pretty clearly.

Assimilating Wamericans with Bush's stupidity is exactly the same as assimilating muslims with terrorists. A gross generalization which can only create more hate and destruction between the two people
(and egoistically as a European, a hate which will concern us too, when bombs will explode in our subways)

As the Chicken-hawks say: It´s the business of the 'civilians' to effect regime change. This is true for the US as much as for Iraq, nay, more so. Or face the consequences.

As to Muslims and terrorists: You consistently overlook the fact that I think OBL has a point.

Nothing will explode here in Europe, as long *as we make clear we do not identify with the US*. Which is the most important thing to do right now.

Lo-and-behold!, Chirac and Schroeder seem to understand this. It´s a bit late for them to become patriots, but better late than never.

Europe first, and let America go down the drain. Best thing that could happen, ever.

[chequita guevara]

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

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
It´s a war for Israel.

No, it isn't. Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. If we unleashed her, Israel could conquer the ME in a matter of weeks. Holding it would be another story altogether, but they could easily beat every country in the ME. Only Egypt would give them some trouble.

The war is about asserting American power. The first Gulf War was about showing the world who was boss in the wake of the Cold War. But a curious thing happened. The lesson didn't take. Hussein didn't play along. For twelve years he'd been thumbing his nose, not at the UN, but at the US. As long as Iraq can get away with refusing to kowtow to the American Empire, it lets other countries know they can get away with it also. Hussein has to be be made to tow the line or he has to be destroyed.

That's what this war is about.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by JohnT
"US attitude toward Europe is, on the whole, colonial..."

LOL!!!!!! Are you serious???? Methinks it's quite the quite the opposite, and has been for over 200 years.

Iam not sure you get me. What I am meaning to say is, US treat Europe, *as if* it were a colony, or an outpost of their Empire, something I definitely do not want to be. I´d rather the Empire to end, asap.

[DinoDoc]

I call BS che. Realists are mystified by the war.

[JohnT]

Well, as long as Buck Birdseed can post the above linked thread in all seriousness, I doubt that the feeling is anything less than mutual, my friend.

[Comrade Tribune]

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

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it isn't. Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. If we unleashed her, Israel could conquer the ME in a matter of weeks. Holding it would be another story altogether, but they could easily beat every country in the ME. Only Egypt would give them some trouble.

The war is about asserting American power. The first Gulf War was about showing the world who was boss in the wake of the Cold War. But a curious thing happened. The lesson didn't take. Hussein didn't play along. For twelve years he'd been thumbing his nose, not at the UN, but at the US. As long as Iraq can get away with refusing to kowtow to the American Empire, it lets other countries know they can get away with it also. Hussein has to be be made to tow the line or he has to be destroyed.

That's what this war is about.

This is an interesting line of thought. The problem is that Saddam *did* play along. He isn´t a threat (or even a nuisance) to the US at all. I wish he were.