Iraq

[Richardp]

What a mess, and now their trying to find a way of getting out, how can they do it? maybe with help from other arab states.
I'm not suggesting for one minute that they should do it but I wonder how long it would take Saddam Hussein to get it under control if he was reinstalled.
the whole things been a total cock up.

 

[joe-90]

We'll be out soon enough - after the oil has gone.

Take a look at your atlas. Find Iran. On the left of Iran is Iraq. On the right of Iran is Afghanistan.

If we pull out we give both those countries to the hard-line fundamentalists of Iran. If those countries fall then the domino effect will see Saudi Arabia fall too. That means ALL the oil of the Middle East will be controlled by Iran.
Will Iran sell the stuff to us cheap? No way. They sell all their oil to China.
The West without oil is a doomed civilization. No oil - no cars, no food, no heating, no nuffink.

That is the reason that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we'll stay there until the oil has gone.

 

[The Jeep]

Ah, things you never thought you'd hear yourself say: "Come back Sadam, all is forgiven. Get us out of this mess!"

Of course, you're absolutely right Jo-90. It's all about the grab for oil for the 'new century'. The American right (wrong?) have determined in their 'Project for the New American Century, aka PNAC', that they need all the Middle-East / Russian oil for their own delusional plans for the continuing American nightmare, so that's what they're going for. The cost in human life does NOT enter into the equation, especially non-wealthy-white-American lives.

 

[pickles]

the continuing American nightmare,

What is this nightmare you're on about, is it the one that gives them the highest living standards in the world, the best medical care and a history of several centuries of technological and scientific progress that puts the rest of the world to shame.

America may have it's faults but it understands that if it is to survive it needs oil and until there is some kind of alternative that will always be the case. At least it recognises the reality of the situation and is prepared to act on it which is more than can be said for the senile fools in charge in Europe.

Why do so many people have this naive view that oil is somehow "bad". Without it we would have absolutely nothing, you wouldn't be posting here without oil, you would be sitting round a camp fire in the dark. It's the engine that drives all civilised economies and whoever has it will survive

Good luck to America, they may be assholes with a two minute attention span but I would prefer them to be the worlds superpower over the Chinese or, god forbid, the Islamic world any time

Ps Since when did any nation in the world give a toss about poor peoples lives.

 

[noodlz]

I agree that America as the world's superpower is preferable to many of the alternatives and there are great things about the country. So many things America have done have been positive for the world in so many ways, economically, politically, socially, in innovation, overseas aid, etc. The pluses far outweigh the negatives in my opinion and it's good that we should be reminded of America's value to the world.

All this should not mean that we don't voice concerns about the present American administration's policies. It may well realise the necessity of oil, but if this is its reason for being in Iraq, I've never heard it say so. In fact its vehemently denied and instead we were originally told of WMD's, then bringing democracy to the region?! Maybe politics is about not telling the plain truth, but to twist it so and claim a moral high ground, can have repercussions. America's "act(ing) on it" has destabilised the Middle East further and created a greater wedge between East and West.

The term "civilised ecomonies" is not without irony in this context, when America basically protects a source of oil that is not its own for itself by an underhand use of force, if this war is about oil. Oil is important, but there are other alternative sources of energy, and if America put as much energy into developing and improving them, as protecting dwindling oil reserves overseas, it might be much better for itself and the world in the long run.

Global warming is another issue that the present administration disregard. I don't know the extent of its impact but it should be taken more seriously.

So, I would agree with The Jeep, understanding the term America meaning the present administation and not all the country ever stood for. There would probably be many great Americans who'd disagree with the direction the country has been taken in. Eisenhower, a Republican, who held the presidency for two terms said "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.....The United States never lost a soldier or a foot of ground in my administration. We kept the peace." He might well have done things differently to the Bush administration.

Many nations have done lots for the poor, including America....from actions of aid and intervention, I think many have demostrated they have given more than a toss.

 

[sludge]

On a recent trip to Spain a Dutch bloke told me that in europe the general opinion is that the reason america went into Iraq was that sadam was moving to price oil in euros, if the other arab states followed his lead this would have screwed up the dollar which is based on oil (used to be gold). There has not been one mention of this in the british press. Is this a subject that is censored in the media?

 

[The Jeep]

What is this nightmare you're on about

What nightmare? Sit around and you'll find out

 

[joe-90]

Oil is important, but there are other alternative sources of energy, and if America put as much energy into developing and improving them, /quote]

What are they? No-one else on the planet has found one. They all use more energy than they provide.

 

[Richardp]

But there is talk of getting out.
''The Baker report on an exit strategy from Iraq, leaked this week in the US, is as sensible as it is sensational. It rejects "staying the course" as no longer plausible and purports to seek alternatives to just "cutting and running". Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess. This advice comes not from some anti-war coalition but from the Iraq study group under the former Republican secretary of state, James Baker, set up by Congress with President George Bush's endorsement. Students of Iraq studies should at this point sit down and steady their nerves. Kissinger is in Paris. The Vietnam moment is at hand.''
Syria and Iran, clear up the mess is this a remote possibility

 

[joe-90]

the continuing American nightmare,

What is this nightmare you're on about, is it the one that gives them the highest living standards in the world, the best medical care and a history of several centuries of technological and scientific progress that puts the rest of the world to shame.

America is 'rich' because it steals (and squanders) the World's oil.

Their standard of living is now fourth in the World - and falling. UK is tenth - and falling. (Swiss = top)

They run 37% of the Worlds cars (nearly all gas-guzzling SUV's)

They are the World's number one enemy. They squander it - we all lose.

 

[joe-90]

But there is talk of getting out.
''The Baker report on an exit strategy from Iraq, leaked this week in the US, is as sensible as it is sensational. It rejects "staying the course" as no longer plausible and purports to seek alternatives to just "cutting and running". Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess. This advice comes not from some anti-war coalition but from the Iraq study group under the former Republican secretary of state, James Baker, set up by Congress with President George Bush's endorsement. Students of Iraq studies should at this point sit down and steady their nerves. Kissinger is in Paris. The Vietnam moment is at hand.''
Syria and Iran, clear up the mess is this a remote possibility

They are trying to install a Western friendly government (read 'puppet government'). That means they still get the oil - but without the grief.

 

[pickles]

What is this nightmare you're on about

What nightmare? Sit around and you'll find out

What is it a state secret, can't you tell me, or is it that you just made it up.

 

[pickles]

America is 'rich' because it steals (and squanders) the World's oil.
They are the World's number one enemy.

America is rich because they are more technologically advanced than any other nation in history, a product of their own ingenuity and industry and because in general they choose their wars wisely and win them. Vietnam and Iraq are the exceptions.

I agree they squander oil, but not actually at the same rate as countries like China, they actually have the toughest motoring and industrial emission controls in the world, China has none and is industrialising at the fastest rate of any nation since the second world war.

In what way is buying oil in the open market stealing, show me one instance of America stealing oil as oppossed to buying it (at prices that are significantly hurting its economy).

How is America more of a threat to the world than say Iran, do you think Bush is worse than the Iranian president who hears the voice of God telling him what to do' or worse than the Chinese who have invaded Nepal without anyone in the West noticing or caring. Bush may be thicker than a plank but I would put my money on the Iranian pushing the nuclear button first.

Also, answer me this question, given that Saddam was a former ally of America and was seeking American investment in Iraqs oil industry in the 1980's and offered to renew ties in the 90's in return for a lifting of sanctions, how is it possible to argue that Americas only motives for invading were to secure future oil supplies. They could have cut a deal with Saddam any time they liked.

 

[masona]

Also, answer me this question, given that Saddam was a former ally of America and was seeking American investment in Iraqs oil industry in the 1980's and offered to renew ties in the 90's in return for a lifting of sanctions, how is it possible to argue that Americas only motives for invading were to secure future oil supplies. They could have cut a deal with Saddam any time they liked.

As mentioned above and obviously I don't think anyone’s will ever knows the truth in this dirty money dealing world but wasn't it because Saddam wanted Iraq oil to be sold in euro to upset the dollars and that what upset America?

They could have cut a deal with Saddam any time they liked.

Would've been a lot cheaper instead of a war

 

[pickles]

As mentioned above and obviously I don't think anyone’s will ever knows the truth in this dirty money dealing world but wasn't it because Saddam wanted Iraq oil to be sold in euro to upset the dollars and that what upset America?

They could have cut a deal with Saddam any time they liked.

Would've been a lot cheaper instead of a war

I've never heard the euro story before, but your certainly right about it being cheaper to cut a deal. I think that's the point, America was really after security and their motives were more complex than just a cheap oil grab. Misguided and ill thought through perhaps but not as simplistic as many people on the left would like to have us believe.