Hi Hawkmoon; Thanks for the informative replies.
Re: "Isn't that the same population that is counting upon the revenues from selling that oil to rebuild their country?"
This isn't evidence that my statement is incorrect. All you're doing is asking a very simple question. The short answer is "yes". The long answer is "yes, so what". Unless you want to argue about my statement, you have to admit that I am right when I say:
(1) If Bush has proved anything in going into Iraq, it's that the local population has "veto power" over the pumping of oil.
My statement applies to Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as Iraq, so by failing to address my comment, you agree that it is impossible for us to use military force to get Saudi Arabia's or Iran's oil. That means that the local populations have a "veto power" over the pumping of their oil and therefore over the health of our economy.
That's right, the towelheads have you by the balls. Get used to it.
Re: "And if you can't control your own family from provoking a war, then the entire family must pay the price."
This is hilarious. So not only are the sins of the father to be visited on the son, but vice versa? Even the sins of the 3rd cousins once removed are to be visited on all the nieces and nephews? You're in fantasy land.
Re: "But let's also face something else. A large percentage of Saudi Arabia cheered the attacks upon the US."
No argument here. I damn well know that the Arabs don't like us, or at least our government. I don't like a lot of them or theirs either. Hell, it's my supposition that winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs cannot be done with military force. If the MFs already loved us, or even if they just put up with us, we wouldn't have to win those hearts and minds.
Re: "Depends on how far back you go. At one time the entire Islamic world was under fundamentalist rule."
This is hilarious. You're arguing that the Iraqis will avoid Islamic Fundamentalism because they experienced it N hundred years ago. The same argument applies to the Algerians and Iranians, and it didn't stop them, LOL.
Re: "How quickly people of your ilk forget, OR WILLFULLY IGNORE, when someone attacks us."
More useless personal attacks. You're ignored.
Re: "No doubt the post-war reconstruction plan has been rather lacking."
This is probably as good an admission as I'm going to get from you on this. I notice that the rest of your answer didn't include even a guess as to when things are going to get better. From this, I take it that you are either clueless, or are unwilling to tell me what you really think because it is so long from now. Either way you're being disingenuous when you talk about it not being an unsolvable problem. By the way, do you have a rigorous mathematical proof that the problem is not unsolvable? Or is this your guess?
Re: "You keep bitching about the US "wanting to control Iraqi oil".. However, you FAIL to note that every previous power elite within Iraq WISHES TO DO THE VERY SAME THING, for their OWN GREEDY PURPOSES. Control the oil and they control the economy of the country."
This is all but an accusation that the new (supposed) power elite in Iraq (i.e. US military power) is there for its "OWN GREEDY PURPOSES". If you agree with this, I'd like to hear what that purpose is, given that you have tacitly admitted that the US has failed in extracting oil from the place, LOL.
Re: "And what has been the price?"
Our 10 year actions against Iran have been considerably less expensive, both in blood and treasure, than Bush's first few months in Iraq, LOL.
Re: "And do you see the Iranian people sitting still while a fundamentalist Wahhabist government attempts to seize control in Iraq?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I expect that Iran will continue to assist the Islamic Fundamentalist guerillas in Iraq who are killing US (and British) soldiers regularly.
But you do not deny my statement, which you therefore tacitly admit:
(5) The fact is that we won the battle for the hearts and minds in Iran without invading and occupying their country. But you reject this lesson of history.
Re: "Again.. you completely, and WILLFULLY, ignore the fact that Islamic fanaticism takes root when their is not socio-economic hope amongst a youthful people."
I am not sure that Islamic Fanaticism requires certain economic conditions in order to thrive, in that the Saudi WTC attackers were fairly well off. But what is clear is that Bush has created a condition in Iraq that makes it the new breeding ground of terror.
Re: " Which is why it's IMPERATIVE that we continue to create the foundation for a stable and viable economy ..."
Uh, how can we "continue to create" what we've so far only destroyed? Maybe you forgot that the mission of the Army is to kill people and break things, not to "continue to create the foundation for a stable and viable economy", LOL. You're sounding like a leftist arguing for stabilizing Haiti, LOL.
Re: "No. we need to EMPLOY hundreds of thousands so these young people feel they have AN OPTION."
This is a good idea, but instead of calling me defeatist, you should be talking to Bush. 65% of the Iraqi public is out of work. When this happened in Palestine, (as a result of Israel's hopeless attempt to protect its sinuous borders), fundamentalist religious organizations stepped into the void. The result was an eventual increase in terror.
But my point is that the employment of Iraqis ain't happening now, so why are you so supportive of the Iraq war? Because it could theoretically have potentially been done right off in some alternate universe?
Re: "Vietnam was a sideshow. ..."
Now you're arguing that the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations lied (or at least were mistaken) when they talked about the domino theory. Okay, if we can't trust what the government says about these things, then why should we trust their (or your) judgement that Iraq is somehow not a sideshow?
Re: "The Persian Gulf, until such time the industrialized world no longer relies upon fossil fuels, is CRITICAL to the global economy."
You already know that fossil fuel production in Iraq has been severely curtailed. You agree with my point that the local population has "veto power" over oil production. From these two postulates, you should conclude that the war in Iraq is a "battle for hearts and minds". But you present no evidence that we are winning this battle, or that it can be won. And the evidence from the newspapers suggests that Iraq is growing more troubled rather than less.
Hey, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the outcome to be different.
Re: "No disagreement there. We're going to have to expand our military combat forces."
We agree. Then why isn't the administration talking about doing this?
Re: "Then the UN will reveal itself for what most of us already recognize."
You've previously been arguing that the administration MUST bring more nations, especially Arab or at least Muslim ones, into the Iraq occupation. Those nations have repeatedly stated that they won't come in at all, or won't come in until there is UN backing. But now you're on the verge of admitting that the UN is hopeless.
So here's the question: Why hasn't the Bush Administration gotten any Arab assistance in Iraq?
Re: "In such a case, I can see the potential for the US to push the UN out of NYC, and "diverting" funding to our operations in Iraq."
I doubt that will save much money, LOL. I would think it would eventually cost us big time. Do you really want the UN to begin meeting in Peking, Moscow or Berlin, LOL?
-- Carl |
