Discussion in 'Europe' started by r2200t, Jul 19, 2004.
You want no differing opinions? Wow, how open minded you are. Typical of the left. You know you can't win the argument, so at least up front you admit you want no dissenting voices. How enlightened.
I iraq war was for oil in the French's eyes. They lost their Back door Oil through the corrupt "Oil for Food" program that was sponsored by the UN. They got Oil, Saddam got money, but the Iraqis didnt seem to get any food.
So yes you are correct. Except that the war itself was fought to prevent any further terrorist links to Saddam and on a slightly minor note of freeing you know 30 million people from a tyrannical dictator. You know just minor.
Only 9% of U.S. imported oil came from Iraq in 2001. The majority of U.S. imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.
Here's a nifty graph that should explain why France & Russia were against removing a very profitable customer.
That is a better way of putting it. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree the war is about oil. But not about Bush making money off oil. Whoever controls the oil, controls the direction of the world.
I have long said that there is, in many ways, a bigger war taking place and that war does not involve the terrorists. It is a war between two competing economic and political idealolgies. The Europeans (less Great Britian and a couple of other nations) are forming an alliance against the US in terms of an economic war. Even some within the US are joining the Euros as this is really more about idealogies and power than it is about economics. Economics (oil, hightech, etc.) are the weapons being used. Now, while the US is engaged in it's war on terrorism, the Euros and some within the US are using that JUSTIFIED war to build resistance against the USA. The war in Iraq is a just a battle in the WoT albeit a battle that serves at least three purposes.
1) It gives us a launching pad within the Middle East from which we can launch future attacks on terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations
2) It provides the USA with a steady oil supplier.
3) It gives the US the most influence within the region.
I don't know about you, but I am glad we have an administration in office that is willing to fight both wars. Bush knows about the "other" war, just as many of us do. But it is not a war that is easily understood by most, so it is not talked about.
Although oil is a major part of what is happening now (and anybody that denies that is living in a fantasy world), it is not the only reason (and anybody that thinks that it is, is also living in a fantasy world.).
Lastly, while you and others like to trumpet this as only being about oil, you totally ignore the increasing strength that Russia is playing in this arena. Right now, the Russian oil companies have more oil in reserve than Exxon, Texaco and Bp combined. Perhaps should be made more about their reasons for wanting us out of the ME. They want to force us to have to buy oil from them so they are supporting the Euros in their "war" against us.
JMHO on the matters.
If you wanted to know what kind of weapons Iraq had, all you had to do was ask a Gulf War vet such as myself. Most of the tanks, artillery pieces, etc. captured by us were Russian made. Most missiles, AA systems, etc. captured by US during the Gulf War were North Korean made.
More accurately, we didn't think it prudent to sell U.S. weaponry to Iraq.
You are correct in that our aid to Iraq during the Iran / Iraq War was battlefield intelligence, many libs are convinced somehow that we were providing missiles, tanks & aircraft. Instead, we provided perishable intel when it was obvious that Iraq was going to lose the war, and it balanced it out so that neither side made any massive gains.
As far as the handshaking bit that libs love to trot out, it's customary for leaders & diplomats to shake hands when meeting. Granted, a punch to the mouth would have been satisfying, but that would hardly be statesmanlike.
There is no shortage of countries around the world wanting to buy weapons from America. We've got the best toys by a long shot and can name our price if we so desired. How many despots would sell their mother into slavery for a stealth bomber? Or a handful of M1-A1 Abrams Battle Tanks? Phoenix batteries? All of them, I'm sure. We have the best systems & any country around the world would pay top dollar for them.
No, the weapons customers are there, but they won't be worthy of recieving them. It's foolhardy to arm anyone with the latest and greatest without being damn sure that you won't have to fight against the very items you sold to Achmed two years down the road. The countries that we do sell arms to are nations that can be trusted to possess them.
France, on the other hand, couldn't care less. They've been selling & arming morally bankrupt leaders for decades, a prime example is the nuclear facilities they were merrily building Saddam in the '80s that Israel had to destroy prior to completion.
I can appreciate your position on warfare but but sorry, I do not hold the same position. As a veteran (infantryman during Gulf War I and 8 years Army) I have been deployed all over the world in hot spots. Therefore, although I have seen first hand the horrors of warfare and civil unrest, I do know that boots on the ground is the only way to truly change the "culture" of a country. Without a direct American presence in the Middle East (not like in SA where the troops are basically locked down onto bases) where the troops (Americans) are able to personally interact with the citizenry, the region will never truly become "Americanized". Therefore, we had to go in the manner we did.
I agree that war often generates extra "benefits" such as new markets, etc. Hey, as they "say, to the victors go the spoils." We had the balls to go, so we should benefit the most in my opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
I further agree to the statement that a steady flow of oil is needed for economic dominance. As good as our economy is, we have not really been able to feel its full impact due to the costs of fuels. Fuel costs directly affect EVERY product we buy (unless you grow it or build it on your own property without any power) so it is very vital to sustaining economies.
Two of them cover the war on terrorism and one covers the "economic" war. So as I see it, it is more about the WoT than anything. But as I said, there are "extra" benefits that we can reap from our action.
As for your initial question regarding when this "cold economic war" started, I would say that it started in the 70's when France pulled out of NATO in an attempt to give the USA a black-eye by giving them the ability to negotiate directly with Russia. That began the Franco/Russian pact that still stands today.
Separate names with a comma.