isnt the weapons of mass destruction is a little warn out?
but what if we actually did it an in the end only found a few cans of paint in the land mass the size of California. err ... didnt this already happen a few years ago.
Not for the average American who has most likely forgotten about 'sexed-up' data when it came to Iraq. I feel that both Democrats and Republicans want war with Iran and several other Middle Eastern nations. 9-11-01 was a windfall, one so 'lucky' for the politicians in order to enact war with Afghanistan that many believe that the attacks on America were an inside job, or at the very least allowed to happen.
The American People were so charged by 9-11 that attacking Iraq made lots of sense and the public were willing to believe anything.
The idea of War with Iran may not fly with We The People, so someone has to sacrifice themselves to the Golden Calf of politics and broach the subject every so often to test the public opinion. Newt is one of those demons that knows he will never sit on the throne of the Oval office (Oh sure he may try, but his job is to be a distraction, not a real runner).
Oil is the key unspoken reason to make war in the Middle East. He who controls the spice controls the universe. Wait, I meant oil....
In the late 1960's early 1970's the whole idea of Peak Oil rose up in political and military circles. Not just global but on the national level. As soon as the subject rose to the surface 'suddenly' the USA was hitting its peak oil. As a kid during the time I recall the adults talking about the subject of oil. There were plenty of tales that perfectly good, full oil wells were taken off the line and quietly capped, that American resources undeveloped were well known and that the USA had no reason what-so-ever to depend on foreign oil.
In the early 1980's the story emerged from an insider who said that the military purposefully brought about a false 'peak oil in America' scenario in order to justify depleting the rest of the world while sitting on reserves that could keep the nation going strong for at least 50 year after all of the other oil was used up. In the Cold War era this was aimed at forcing the USSR to use up its own oil while the USA sat on its own. When the world reached peak oil, not enough for everyone, the USA could open up its reserves for its own military and stay on top as the World's Super Power.
This was around the time of the Afghanistan War in the 1980's where CIA and KGB were fronting and training operatives in Afghanistan (Bin Laden was one such person).
the Iran Iraq war also took place. Saddam had an advantage very early in the war. He could have marched in, took over Iran and the war would have been over in months. however the Western Powers (USA, USSR) had their filthy hands in it and caused Saddam to cease his push, the war then dragged out over about 8 years.
This was back in the day when Rumsfeld, bush Family and lots of other well known politicians of the last Administration were on first name basis and very friendly with Saddam.
War in the Middle East, constant tensions, constant threat of more war keeps the region unstable, prevents it from really emerging as the real economic super-power it could be based on the oil wealth it sits on. This has always been advantageous to the Western World who has gotten extremely cheap oil through all of this time.
Dubai is changing from an oil exporter to a tourist importer. They are running out of oil and are planning on a future to keep the money rolling in. Other Emirates are also at the same point where they understand that their oil is running out.
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:Not for the average American who has most likely forgotten about 'sexed-up' data when it came to Iraq. I feel that both Democrats and Republicans want war with Iran and several other Middle Eastern nations. 9-11-01 was a windfall, one so 'lucky' for the politicians in order to enact war with Afghanistan that many believe that the attacks on America were an inside job, or at the very least allowed to happen.
The American People were so charged by 9-11 that attacking Iraq made lots of sense and the public were willing to believe anything.
The idea of War with Iran may not fly with We The People, so someone has to sacrifice themselves to the Golden Calf of politics and broach the subject every so often to test the public opinion. Newt is one of those demons that knows he will never sit on the throne of the Oval office (Oh sure he may try, but his job is to be a distraction, not a real runner).
Oil is the key unspoken reason to make war in the Middle East. He who controls the spice controls the universe. Wait, I meant oil....
In the late 1960's early 1970's the whole idea of Peak Oil rose up in political and military circles. Not just global but on the national level. As soon as the subject rose to the surface 'suddenly' the USA was hitting its peak oil. As a kid during the time I recall the adults talking about the subject of oil. There were plenty of tales that perfectly good, full oil wells were taken off the line and quietly capped, that American resources undeveloped were well known and that the USA had no reason what-so-ever to depend on foreign oil.
In the early 1980's the story emerged from an insider who said that the military purposefully brought about a false 'peak oil in America' scenario in order to justify depleting the rest of the world while sitting on reserves that could keep the nation going strong for at least 50 year after all of the other oil was used up. In the Cold War era this was aimed at forcing the USSR to use up its own oil while the USA sat on its own. When the world reached peak oil, not enough for everyone, the USA could open up its reserves for its own military and stay on top as the World's Super Power.
This was around the time of the Afghanistan War in the 1980's where CIA and KGB were fronting and training operatives in Afghanistan (Bin Laden was one such person).
the Iran Iraq war also took place. Saddam had an advantage very early in the war. He could have marched in, took over Iran and the war would have been over in months. however the Western Powers (USA, USSR) had their filthy hands in it and caused Saddam to cease his push, the war then dragged out over about 8 years.
This was back in the day when Rumsfeld, bush Family and lots of other well known politicians of the last Administration were on first name basis and very friendly with Saddam.
War in the Middle East, constant tensions, constant threat of more war keeps the region unstable, prevents it from really emerging as the real economic super-power it could be based on the oil wealth it sits on. This has always been advantageous to the Western World who has gotten extremely cheap oil through all of this time.
Dubai is changing from an oil exporter to a tourist importer. They are running out of oil and are planning on a future to keep the money rolling in. Other Emirates are also at the same point where they understand that their oil is running out.
Inchante Wrote:... I'm going to make this plain so you understand. I'm not saying that as an insult, I'm saying that there must be a disconnect for you not to have already reached this understanding.) ... Under all such contracts exists the obligation of the Government to protect its citizens ... So, when the terrorists attacked the people of the United States on September 11th, 2001
You are in reference to the two bush wars
-the first war was a Bush family thingy. There was no weapons of mass destruction. Get over it, the government lied. We attacked the wrong country and did a hack job while we were there. Another administration has to clean up the mess.
-The Afghanistan war is not winnable. The Russians tried years back 1980's. Reference linky. I would suspect if they could not secure a win (they had a vested interest and were several thousand miles like next door) we will never be able to do much short of spending lots of tax money. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden and been done with all the junk.
You are in reference to the two bush wars
-the first war was a Bush family thingy. There was no weapons of mass destruction. Get over it, the government lied. We attacked the wrong country and did a hack job while we were there. Another administration has to clean up the mess.
-The Afghanistan war is not winnable. The Russians tried years back 1980's. Reference linky. I would suspect if they could not secure a win (they had a vested interest and were several thousand miles like next door) we will never be able to do much short of spending lots of tax money. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden and been done with all the junk.
NO
Wow, Pellaz, you are putting words in my mouth. You should look at my post again. I said absolutely nothing about Iraq. For some reason you have joined three different wars in your mind which is a rather half-hazard way of looking at several rather complicated issues.
Not to mention the fact that the first war in Iraq was not about "weapons of mass destruction", it was about the invasion of Kuwait and, at that time, Iraq had scud missiles (a.k.a weapons of mass destruction).
As for the second Iraq war, I was opposed to it before it began and my opposition to it has only proven to be correct since that time.
As for saying that the war in Afghanistan is not winnable, I am rather skeptical about that notion. It is absolutely winnable, it is just a matter of how much the United States is willing to sacrifice. For one, the reason why the Russians failed in the 1980's was because of American support of the Mujahaideen at the time.
Also, "we should have captured Osama Bin Laden and been done with it". So, there were no people that could have possibly taken Bin Laden's place if we did that, there were no second and third tier commanders in Al Qaeda being supported by the Taliban? They didn't have training bases or cell groups any place? That is like saying, "oh, we could have just assassinated Hitler when the Nazis invaded Poland and been done with it. The entire German military would have thrown its hands up and surrendered and never bothered anyone ever again". I am afraid that I find that idea a bit ludicrous.
OrphanPip Wrote:Well it's kind of hard to not understand why the US is not very popular with Iran. First of all, they backed the Shah's dictatorship for several years, until he was ousted by the Ayatollah.
Oh, but here you know that the British have been far too modest when it comes to the history of modern Iran. The United States had no policy concerning the nation until WWII, you know. Britain, however, had a tidy little oil scam going in Iran, an oil scam that the Democratically elected leaders if Iran did not like. And so strong alliances bring Nations into conflicts that never would have been:
In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).[6] Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s, a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism.[7] Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.[8] Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[9] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.[10] With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[11]
And here the British Government denied its old pall, the Shah safety and attempted to coverup the connection:
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:Watch out Canada - if you do not tow the line guess who will be occupied after Iraq.
Well, I agree with most of what you have to say. It is just this last little bit that is incongruous. The Canadians are perhaps the most savvy, not the most prolific but the most savvy, at this type of economic imperialism.
Point in fact, they just pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol because they have increased their carbon footprint by some 24% since 1990, this is mainly due to their delving into tar sands (oil sands).
In addition, Congressional Republicans in the United States are attempting to push through an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, and are slapping it on a Bill to continue Social Security Payroll Tax Cuts so that Democrats have to choose between an environmentally destructive pipeline and a tax break for the poor and middle class. Make no mistake, Canada wants this pipeline more than many in the United States do.
This, of course, is just the latest bit from Canada. It was not that long ago that a Canadian gold company was found to have been responsible for human rights abuses in 3rd world countries. This story was shut up rather quickly.
I say that Canada is particularly savvy at this type of economic imperialism because, while they are guilty of participating in it, they never seem to feel the backlash from it.
I'm not sure how the tar sands have to do with Canadian imperialism though, the oil is only being mined because Americans are buying it, evident by the fact that a good number of the mining projects are American owned. It doesn't even matter if the pipeline is built or not, anyway, since the companies will just continue to deliver it through the existing pipelines and by tanker. Nor does Canada particularly want the pipeline, this has more to do with political alliance between the Tories and the Republicans. The Kyoto pull out was arranged in secret by the Tories without consulting parliament, and has caused outrage. And Canada's carbon emissions are still lower than the US's per capita. The Kyoto accord itself is a political document more than it is about effectively dealing with environmental concerns. It displaces undue pressure onto economies that are natural resource based, for the energy cost of production, despite the fact that they are not the only ones consuming those resources. It would be economically disastrous for Canada to agree to such a lopsided international treaty, that favours service economies (cough, Europe, cough) disproportionately. Also, Canada is joining the US as the only two developed countries not to support Kyoto, which again just reflects the political alliance between the Tories and American conservatives. Canada was also not the worst performer who signed Kyoto, Australia was, and pretty much any growing economy in the West over the period. Most countries who signed Kyoto stagnated since the 90s instead of cutting, just because their economies have stagnated. I fail to see how any of this has to do with Canadian imperialism.
Also, the Goldcorp "human rights abuses" are confusing at best. A local Guatemalan mining company had started the mine prior to being bought by Goldcorp. The accusation of human rights violation were that the government had violated aboriginal land treaties when it sold the rights to the land. Goldcorp didn't even participate in that. This was also followed up by accusations of health risks driven by hysterical protesters, said accusations turned out to be without scientific proof and all studies have shown that local waters are within safety standards.
It's fairly disingenuous to try and draw comparison between these and the US funding coups. At best, in recent years, all I can think of is Canada's interference in the Somalian civil war in the 90s (which also involved US forces). Canada is also often complicit in the imperialism of its allies.
OrphanPip Wrote:Also, the Goldcorp "human rights abuses" are confusing at best. A local Guatemalan mining company had started the mine prior to being bought by Goldcorp. The accusation of human rights violation were that the government had violated aboriginal land treaties when it sold the rights to the land. Goldcorp didn't even participate in that. This was also followed up by accusations of health risks driven by hysterical protesters, said accusations turned out to be without scientific proof and all studies have shown that local waters are within safety standards.
LOL. Sorry, that was a deliberate poke at you, and I did it to get a response. You know, it's like . . .
Though, I will answer some things, though they are not a dispute of your comments:
1. The U.S. carbon emissions are down by 9% since their peek (recessions aren't all bad).
2. Both oil companies and the U.S. Government have unequivocally stated that U.S. oil consumption has peeked and will likely never to return to such levels.
3. I was thinking about Barrick Gold in Papua New Guinea, but thanks for the info on Guatemala. I'll remember that next time I want to poke a Canadian just to see what happens.
I do it to my friend Ignatius, a professor of speech pathology at USC, all the time. I tell him he needs to take his American PhD back to Vancouver and teach Canadians to say "house" properly. Surely that is a great enough contribution for a MacArthur genius grant. He says he would do it if he was sure of a MacArthur.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
Virgo
![[Image: 400_400_FearSells-AreYouBuying.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SZayDTLnaFI/AAAAAAAAPhE/iUtF_ViMijc/s400/400_400_FearSells-AreYouBuying.jpg)
