From a recent conversation elsewhere:

Just read Cheney's manifesto for the Project For A New American Century, (http://www.newamericancentury.org) in which he lays out his plan for world domination. After the Cold War, with the US as the World's Only Superpower (TM), the PNAC posits that we should keep ourselves on top by smacking down any potential challengers. The key to this is supposedly conquering the Middle East by force. Besides all of that precious oil, it's also strategically located at the crux of three continents, within saber-rattling distance of Russia, China, the EU, Pakistan, India, etc.

Cheney writes (the document has also been attributed to Rumsfeld and Richard Perle, but let's assume it's Cheney for the sake of argument), that public opinion would most likely not support such a course of action, unless a "Pearl Harbor-like event" were to occur, and mobilize public sentiment towards war.

We were warned several times, from numerous sources, that Al Qaeda were planning on hijacking American planes and using them as bombs. I think Cheney looked at those warnings and said, "Great, now's my chance!" He lowered our defenses, sent GWB to the ranch for a month, warned Ashcroft to stop flying civilian planes, then sat back and waited for a catalyzing event that would allow the Repubs to: Pass the Patriot Act, start building Cheney's dream oil pipeline through Afghanistan, invade Iraq, (and from there, Syria and Iran, as they were discussing only a year ago) and most importantly, scare people away from ever voting Democrat again.

As for the costs - what's 3000 dead New Yorkers to Dick Cheney? We're all liberals anyway. And so what if Al Qaeda is still strong and Osama's still on the loose - we might need to "mobilize public opinion" again, say, around election time?

Just more "rantings and ravings", hmm?

Just more "rantings and ravings", hmm?
It's clear that the current administration has visions of an empire greater in scope than the Roman Empire. November will determine whether or not the American people support an imperialistic America for now. I do not. I believe it runs contrary to the vision of the founding fathers of this great nation. It places the country into a position that the citizens do not have the stomach to support long term with good reason -- we know in our hearts that it's wrong.

It's clear that the current administration has visions of an empire greater in scope than the Roman Empire. November will determine whether or not the American people support an imperialistic America for now. I do not. I believe it runs contrary to the vision of the founding fathers of this great nation. It places the country into a position that the citizens do not have the stomach to support long term with good reason -- we know in our hearts that it's wrong.

name one country the u.s. has taken over in conquest for treasure or resources.

name one country the u.s. has taken over in conquest for treasure or resources.

North America.

North America.

the u.s. didnt take over north america in the context of the discussion. now put down the big book of countries and back away from the computer.

my gawd! and you want to be my history teacher????? its really scary how little you get for your tuition these days isnt it?

name one country the u.s. has taken over in conquest for treasure or resources.


How did my answer not answer your question? I would love to know. Because you didn't seem to be asking for context BILL, you were looking for one example when the united states took over a country for conquest and treasure. I would suspect that if you asked the indian nations of this country your question they would give you a like response.

How did my answer not answer your question? I would love to know. Because you didn't seem to be asking for context BILL, you were looking for one example when the united states took over a country for conquest and treasure. I would suspect that if you asked the indian nations of this country your question they would give you a like response.

please. youre getting animal crackers all over the keyboard.

name one country the u.s. has taken over in conquest for treasure or resources.

The Confederate States of America.

please. youre getting animal crackers all over the keyboard.

BILL repeat this sentence, "You are right, I opened myself up to an easy rebuttal because I constantly resort to outlandish hyperbole and blanket statements that people ridicule me for. It is okay to be wrong occasionally, after all this is just the internet and I apologize to those I have offended in the past."

It will do you good to admit it BILL, I promise it is not possible for people to think any less of you for admitting what we already know. And believe me like the guy with the hair weave or toupe we all know.

It's clear that the current administration has visions of an empire greater in scope than the Roman Empire. November will determine whether or not the American people support an imperialistic America for now. I do not. I believe it runs contrary to the vision of the founding fathers of this great nation. It places the country into a position that the citizens do not have the stomach to support long term with good reason -- we know in our hearts that it's wrong.

Do you recognize a difference between "empirialistic" and "liberating"? Was the US being empirialistic when it freed Europe in WWI, WWII; Kuwait in GWI, etc? Was the US being empirialistic when it defeated Japan, which had attacked first, then set about assisting it in becoming a thriving economy? All evidence points to the US consistently liberating people or defeating aggressors, then assisting countries in becoming democratic and self-governing, exactly the *opposite* of empire building. Our course in Iraq is following that path, as well.

Some of you are so anti-Bush/Cheney/Republicans/Conservatives that you seem to say things that are exactly opposite of the truth, but you say them with such conviction that it's really scary. I don't understand how you can ignore 100 years of history, and then see that we are doing the same thing now. Your hate for this administration is clouding your thinking.

The Confederate States of America.

The CSA was an illegal organization that fought in rebellion against the US Constitution, to which each of the member states (via their legislatures) had agreed to abide. Lincoln was enforcing the law, which by definition is what the administrative branch is required to do, when he sent Union troops to put down the illegal rebellion.

Do you recognize a difference between "empirialistic" and "liberating"? Was the US being empirialistic when it freed Europe in WWI, WWII; Kuwait in GWI, etc? Was the US being empirialistic when it defeated Japan, which had attacked first, then set about assisting it in becoming a thriving economy? All evidence points to the US consistently liberating people or defeating aggressors, then assisting countries in becoming democratic and self-governing, exactly the *opposite* of empire building. Our course in Iraq is following that path, as well.

Some of you are so anti-Bush/Cheney/Republicans/Conservatives that you seem to say things that are exactly opposite of the truth, but you say them with such conviction that it's really scary. I don't understand how you can ignore 100 years of history, and then see that we are doing the same thing now. Your hate for this administration is clouding your thinking.

Don't believe for one second that Bush Co was solely interested in the 'liberation' of Iraq. They do not have an altruistic bone in their collective body. Remember, these are the same folks that pride themselves on their 'Vulcan-like' powers of reasoning...hah!

The reason for such action was the timing was right to make the move into a substantial presence in the MId east. The Saudis have their problems, Iran looms large, we still need to keep that oil flowing. One way or another it had to be done.... the only real problem with this whole endeavor is that it should have been done with other tactics. Land gained by military actions are expensive to keep, if you have no allegiance from the populace. This war should have been for the hearts and minds rather than the bodies of the population. It would have been much easier to keep for longer term. But Buch Co has no view past the next election, so we're stuck with it.

Do you recognize a difference between "empirialistic" and "liberating"? Was the US being empirialistic when it freed Europe in WWI, WWII; Kuwait in GWI, etc? Was the US being empirialistic when it defeated Japan, which had attacked first, then set about assisting it in becoming a thriving economy? All evidence points to the US consistently liberating people or defeating aggressors, then assisting countries in becoming democratic and self-governing, exactly the *opposite* of empire building. Our course in Iraq is following that path, as well.

Some of you are so anti-Bush/Cheney/Republicans/Conservatives that you seem to say things that are exactly opposite of the truth, but you say them with such conviction that it's really scary. I don't understand how you can ignore 100 years of history, and then see that we are doing the same thing now. Your hate for this administration is clouding your thinking.

The fact of the matter is that you are wrong. America has consistantly done what it has done as a benefit and a boon to -- itself. If democracy was possible fine, (Lansdale in the phillipines for instance) so be it. If they didn't like the way a democracy was going we did what we thought was best for the U.S. as we did in Iran in 1953 by taking out an elected prime minister in Mossadadq and installing our own puppet regime. We did this with Arbenz in S. America as well with a CIA led coup that installed a tyrannical regime for decades. How about 1973 in Chile when Kissinger quipped, "we set limits on diversity."


The point is how one looks at it. For myself I think in many of those instances the powers that be truely thought they were acting in the best interests of the United States, for me, that is all I am really asking for. The problem has been the blow back from some of these decisions that hamper us now as we look to absolve ourselves from some of our less than steller actions. To say that the United States is not an empire is being disingenuous from the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, war with Mexico, with Spain, our open door policy with China, the U.S. has consistantly looked at economic domination as our imperial avenue, it was cheaper and just as effective as what G.Britain and France was doing late in the colonial and Imperial periods.

So really, the U.S. thinks of itself first, freedom second. The only real debate should be whether or not we should apologize for it...

[QUOTE=DougSloan I don't understand how you can ignore 100 years of history, and then see that we are doing the same thing now. Your hate for this administration is clouding your thinking.[/QUOTE]

that is ignoring 100 years, nay 200 years, of American history. Can you say "Pre-emptive war?"

Everything you say is correct, up to the point where you include the current rogue regime in the grand tradition of American foreign policy. That's where the train of your logic goes off the rails.

BILL repeat this sentence, "You are right, I opened myself up to an easy rebuttal because I constantly resort to outlandish hyperbole and blanket statements that people ridicule me for. It is okay to be wrong occasionally, after all this is just the internet and I apologize to those I have offended in the past."

It will do you good to admit it BILL, I promise it is not possible for people to think any less of you for admitting what we already know. And believe me like the guy with the hair weave or toupe we all know.


repeat this sentence, " i willfully and knowingly try to participate in discussions with an answer, some answer, hell ANY answer, as a result of my abuse as a child at the hands of my parents."

repeat this sentence, " i willfully and knowingly try to participate in discussions with an answer, some answer, hell ANY answer, as a result of my abuse as a child at the hands of my parents."

ok,

Bill should willfully and knowingly try to participate in discussions with an answer, some answer, hell ANY answer, as a result of his abuse as a child at the hands of his parents."

;-)

ok,

Bill should willfully and knowingly try to participate in discussions with an answer, some answer, hell ANY answer, as a result of his abuse as a child at the hands of his parents."

;-)

jay leno called. he said keep your regular job.

repeat this sentence, " i willfully and knowingly try to participate in discussions with an answer, some answer, hell ANY answer, as a result of my abuse as a child at the hands of my parents."

I was wrong. It is possible to think less of you.

The CSA was an illegal organization that fought in rebellion against the US Constitution, to which each of the member states (via their legislatures) had agreed to abide. Lincoln was enforcing the law, which by definition is what the administrative branch is required to do, when he sent Union troops to put down the illegal rebellion.

I swear, for the rest of my days I will be obliged to follow you around to correct these scurrilous slanders, which emanate from your dirty Yankee mouth with some troubling regularity. Shame on you.

There is no such thing as an objectively 'illegal' rebellion, my friend. The whole concept is laughable. ALL rebellions are, provisionally, illegal when they begin. All that fail are judged, finally, illegal. But all rebellions that succeed are legal. That's because the winners write history. To the English, the American Revolution was just as illegal as our Second War of Independence was to you and your Tory kind.

But if you want to use 'acts of the legislature' as the basis for your libel, I would remind you that secession WAS ALSO an act of each state's legislature. They, duly and legally, rescinded their earlier agreement to union, an agreement most Southerners never liked much anyway. Succession didn't happen in some vacuum, with mobs in the street chanting 'We secede.' It was an act undertaken by the elected representative governments of the sovereign states. They cancelled a contract, for cause.

Whether that could legitimately be done or not was, at the time, an open question. It took the war to resolve it. It was resolved in the negative. But at the time -- no one knew. We said yes, Lincoln said no, most people were unsure. That's the way of most legal disputes -- although most legal disputes don't require 600,000 deaths to resolve.

OUR dispute, however, may require ONE death, because the next time you bring down these vile imprecations upon my people, I will be obliged by honor to challenge you to a duel. I know you have weapons. So do I. Plus big dawgs as seconds.

Forewarned is fore-armed ...

I was wrong. It is possible to think less of you.


your welcome. now, put me on your ignore list short stuff.

I swear, for the rest of my days I will be obliged to follow you around to correct these scurrilous slanders, which emanate from your dirty Yankee mouth with some troubling regularity. Shame on you.

There is no such thing as an objectively 'illegal' rebellion, my friend. The whole concept is laughable. ALL rebellions are, provisionally, illegal when they begin. All that fail are judged, finally, illegal. But all rebellions that succeed are legal. That's because the winners write history. To the English, the American Revolution was just as illegal as our Second War of Independence was to you and your Tory kind.

But if you want to use 'acts of the legislature' as the basis for your libel, I would remind you that secession WAS ALSO an act of each state's legislature. They, duly and legally, rescinded their earlier agreement to union, an agreement most Southerners never liked much anyway. Succession didn't happen in some vacuum, with mobs in the street chanting 'We secede.' It was an act undertaken by the elected representative governments of the sovereign states. They cancelled a contract, for cause.

Whether that could legitimately be done or not was, at the time, an open question. It took the war to resolve it. It was resolved in the negative. But at the time -- no one knew. We said yes, Lincoln said no, most people were unsure. That's the way of most legal disputes -- although most legal disputes don't require 600,000 deaths to resolve.

OUR dispute, however, may require ONE death, because the next time you bring down these vile imprecations upon my people, I will be obliged by honor to challenge you to a duel. I know you have weapons. So do I. Plus big dawgs as seconds.

Forewarned is fore-armed ...

Actually the secession process was done with finality through the calling of state conventions, not solely the legislature. As the south pointed to, the union had been created through state conventions, therefore, what had to happen in order to leave the union "legally" was these self same conventions. The legislatures called for these conventions but were not the source for the actual secession.

your welcome. now, put me on your ignore list short stuff.

Why do you do this Bill, I love proving you wrong on a daily basis. How could I give that up.

My only wish is that you were sharper than the scissors they give 1st graders when they cut construction paper.

Why do you do this Bill, I love proving you wrong on a daily basis. How could I give that up.

My only wish is that you were sharper than the scissors they give 1st graders when they cut construction paper.

youre a hoot. dont ever change.

Actually the secession process was done with finality through the calling of state conventions, not solely the legislature. As the south pointed to, the union had been created through state conventions, therefore, what had to happen in order to leave the union "legally" was these self same conventions. The legislatures called for these conventions but were not the source for the actual secession.

Just legal as HELL.

I swear, for the rest of my days I will be obliged to follow you around to correct these scurrilous slanders, which emanate from your dirty Yankee mouth with some troubling regularity. Shame on you.

There is no such thing as an objectively 'illegal' rebellion, my friend. The whole concept is laughable. ALL rebellions are, provisionally, illegal when they begin. All that fail are judged, finally, illegal. But all rebellions that succeed are legal. That's because the winners write history. To the English, the American Revolution was just as illegal as our Second War of Independence was to you and your Tory kind.

But if you want to use 'acts of the legislature' as the basis for your libel, I would remind you that secession WAS ALSO an act of each state's legislature. They, duly and legally, rescinded their earlier agreement to union, an agreement most Southerners never liked much anyway. Succession didn't happen in some vacuum, with mobs in the street chanting 'We secede.' It was an act undertaken by the elected representative governments of the sovereign states. They cancelled a contract, for cause.

Whether that could legitimately be done or not was, at the time, an open question. It took the war to resolve it. It was resolved in the negative. But at the time -- no one knew. We said yes, Lincoln said no, most people were unsure. That's the way of most legal disputes -- although most legal disputes don't require 600,000 deaths to resolve.

OUR dispute, however, may require ONE death, because the next time you bring down these vile imprecations upon my people, I will be obliged by honor to challenge you to a duel. I know you have weapons. So do I. Plus big dawgs as seconds.

Forewarned is fore-armed ...

Notice the intentional lower case "r"

Sorry, pal, but your people unilaterally broke the contract. I don't believe that is generally accepted as a legal means to accomplish a goal or resolve a dispute. It takes two to agree and make a contract, and two to agree to cancel it. If one cancels, it means they go to court, or in this case to battle.

It WAS an open question, and Lincoln exerted his Constitutional authority and answered it.

As to the duel and one death, we'll all miss you, Ed. Except me - I'm a pretty good shot. But then, since your mule died and the wagon wheel broke, there is very little chance you will be travelling to the great state of Wyoming anytime soon. And Lord knows that if I ever enter Kentucky, it won't be voluntarily. I have relatives who live there, but I have disavowed their blood lines until they regain their senses and move away from there.

Notice the intentional lower case "r"

Sorry, pal, but your people unilaterally broke the contract. I don't believe that is generally accepted as a legal means to accomplish a goal or resolve a dispute. It takes two to agree and make a contract, and two to agree to cancel it. If one cancels, it means they go to court, or in this case to battle.

It WAS an open question, and Lincoln exerted his Constitutional authority and answered it.

As to the duel and one death, we'll all miss you, Ed. Except me - I'm a pretty good shot. But then, since your mule died and the wagon wheel broke, there is very little chance you will be travelling to the great state of Wyoming anytime soon. And Lord knows that if I ever enter Kentucky, it won't be voluntarily. I have relatives who live there, but I have disavowed their blood lines until they regain their senses and move away from there.

OLD E is from Kentucky?
No wonder he has issues with the CSA and it being "doubley" legal.
Kentucky didn't join the Confederates States of America until just after April 1865, but they have been fighting it ever since.
Those tuckians really felt they missed out on something good.
My favorite lincoln quote is about Kentucky..."Although I hope God is on our side, I must have Kentucky."

Just legal as HELL.

Isn't secession treason?

. . .we need someone more up to the task than Bush. I can "understand" certain people's desire to dominate the world -- which doesn't mean I <i>agree</i> with it. . .you liberals know what I mean. But how anyone could back the current pack of cowards and incompetents in such an awesome endeavor is beyond me.

OLD E is from Kentucky?
No wonder he has issues with the CSA and it being "doubley" legal.
Kentucky didn't join the Confederates States of America until just after April 1865, but they have been fighting it ever since.
Those tuckians really felt they missed out on something good.
My favorite lincoln quote is about Kentucky..."Although I hope God is on our side, I must have Kentucky."

Kentucky was represented in both governments, both the tyrannical Union and the noble Confederacy. The history, however, is complex, as this website outlines:

http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/KYConfedCongress.htm

MY county was one of the 68 (out of 120) that voted to create Kentucky's provisional Confederate government, and my direct ancestors were toothless rebs.

Interestingly, Kentucky's split personality is perfectly symbolic of the war as a whole, since both presidents -- Jeff Davis and Lincoln -- were native Kentuckians.

Bottom line: Don''t try to out-Southron ME, NC boy. I'll sic the dawgs on you too, soon as they git through gnawing $$'s sorry carcass.

Hear hear! I was about to launch my own southern defense, but you did it *much* better than I could have. I'm so weary of the presumed moral high ground of people who side with the north.

Isn't secession treason?

You all have managed to make it a happy word to me! See my avatar.

name one country the u.s. has taken over in conquest for treasure or resources.
We're doing it right now in Iraq.

Did you read anything on the site linked in the original post? If so you would understand the context of my response. Do you truly understand why we are in Iraq? If you think it's about WMDs or liberation you're wrong. It's about oil.

Kentucky was represented in both governments, both the tyrannical Union and the noble Confederacy. The history, however, is complex, as this website outlines:

http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/KYConfedCongress.htm

MY county was one of the 68 (out of 120) that voted to create Kentucky's provisional Confederate government, and my direct ancestors were toothless rebs.

Interestingly, Kentucky's split personality is perfectly symbolic of the war as a whole, since both presidents -- Jeff David and Lincoln -- were native Kentuckians.

Bottom line: Don''t try to out-Southron ME, NC boy. I'll sic the dawgs on you too, soon as they git through gnawing $$'s sorry carcass.

At least our representatives didn't vote to become Switzerland in 1860!!!!
Oh don't come here we want to be neutral. Oh OKAY that'll work for about a week.
You want southern our NCSU library is named after D.H.Hill confederate general of some esteem. (I was actually born and raised in Michigan--carpetbagger comments welcomed.)

The CSA was an illegal organization that fought in rebellion against the US Constitution, to which each of the member states (via their legislatures) had agreed to abide. Lincoln was enforcing the law, which by definition is what the administrative branch is required to do, when he sent Union troops to put down the illegal rebellion.

You're kiddin' right? If not, please name Mr. Lincolns constitutional authority to do what he did.

You're kiddin' right? If not, please name Mr. Lincolns constitutional authority to do what he did.

The actual basis that Lincoln used was the fact that the constitution did not authorize the secession of a state or part of the country as it was. He was not alone in his belief...
Madison, Jay, Hamilton and other founding fathers feared secession would result if the articles of confederation were not amended to become what became the constitution. Through the ratification of the constitution, the states gave up "sovereignty" so to speak and their only constitutional recourse was to the amendment process not with secession. Remember the word sovereignty does not appear in the constitution.

Also and this is a big definition of is is. Lincoln in his inaugural address said that he would not start a war with the South but he would defend federal properties. By having Sumter fired upon, he was in fact doing his constitutional duty to defend federal property. We still have gitmo do we not?


Lincon had precedence.
Jackson threatened to bring in the army to put down a secessionist threat from South Carolina decades earlier.

If you read the CSA constitution it amends with tenuous language as to the right of secession. They didn't want to have 11 little governances established as well.

Do you recognize a difference between "empirialistic" and "liberating"? Was the US being empirialistic when it freed Europe in WWI, WWII; Kuwait in GWI, etc? Was the US being empirialistic when it defeated Japan, which had attacked first, then set about assisting it in becoming a thriving economy? All evidence points to the US consistently liberating people or defeating aggressors, then assisting countries in becoming democratic and self-governing, exactly the *opposite* of empire building. Our course in Iraq is following that path, as well.

Some of you are so anti-Bush/Cheney/Republicans/Conservatives that you seem to say things that are exactly opposite of the truth, but you say them with such conviction that it's really scary. I don't understand how you can ignore 100 years of history, and then see that we are doing the same thing now. Your hate for this administration is clouding your thinking.
As in my reply to Bill, I ask if you read any of the site linked to in the original post. If you did you should understand the context of my response.

The actions of the US in the examples you cite over the past 100 years has no bearing on my position. I am referring specifically to the current administration and the visions many of its higher echelon hold for the direction of the country over the next 100 years. They are indeed imperialistic in their goal.

Definition of imperialism: Imperialism is the policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Empire), either through direct territorial (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Territory) control or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Politics) and/or economy (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Economy) of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Colony) and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

Again, if you read the site, specifically the letters, you will see that imperialism is the best description. Iraq is the starting point. It will snowball from there. I'm against that. It's unAmerican.

Something to ponder: If our form of government is the best out there then why do we insist upon setting up new versions of it that are different in many fundemental ways? Why not just offer the nations we liberate statehood? I wouldn't be opposed to that.

We're doing it right now in Iraq.

Did you read anything on the site linked in the original post? If so you would understand the context of my response. Do you truly understand why we are in Iraq? If you think it's about WMDs or liberation you're wrong. It's about oil.


so now its about oil....again? why arent we hearing that from nbc, abc, cnn,...et al?

. . .novelty right-wing "newspapers"? Has <i>Bush</i> articulated a plausibly competeing rationale?

. . .novelty right-wing "newspapers"? Has <i>Bush</i> articulated a plausibly competeing rationale?

the accusation is the war is about oil. wheres the proof? where is any major news organization (right or left) even alledging its about oil? please give me something other than an opinion on a fringe nutjobs homemade web page.

"I think Cheney looked at those warnings and said, "Great, now's my chance!" He lowered our defenses, sent GWB to the ranch for a month, warned Ashcroft to stop flying civilian planes, then sat back and waited for a catalyzing event that would allow the Repubs to: Pass the Patriot Act, start building Cheney's dream oil pipeline through Afghanistan, invade Iraq, (and from there, Syria and Iran, as they were discussing only a year ago) and most importantly, scare people away from ever voting Democrat again."

funny, funny stuff.

Perhaps you can't. Where is the "proof" that the war is about anything <i>other</i> than controlling the oil supply?

Look at it this way, at least if it is about oil, the Bush Administration has an outside chance of dusting off that Mission Accomplished banner again. Come on Bill, if Rush said the same thing you'd nod your head out of joint agreeing with his macho realpolitik.

so now its about oil....again? why arent we hearing that from nbc, abc, cnn,...et al? It's ALWAYS been about oil. It's the ONLY thing in the region of any interest to us. It was about oil in 91 and it's about oil now. The US, because of its dependency on oil, has a vested national interest in keeping that region stable. THAT is the reality. Don't get all teary-eyed and tell me how its about the poor Iraqi people and how we're saving them from the evil Saddam (who we helped bring and keep in power) or that it's about WMDs that just don't exist (oh wait, let me guess they're in Syria now, right? Guess they're next.) They just need to come out and admit it.

If we cared that much about liberating the oppressed then why haven't we invaded China or N. Korea? Both nations possess or will possess WMDs and both brutally oppress their citizens.

Nope. It's about oil. And heathens. But mostly oil.

. . .

It's ALWAYS been about oil. It's the ONLY thing in the region of any interest to us. It was about oil in 91 and it's about oil now. The US, because of its dependency on oil, has a vested national interest in keeping that region stable. THAT is the reality. Don't get all teary-eyed and tell me how its about the poor Iraqi people and how we're saving them from the evil Saddam (who we helped bring and keep in power) or that it's about WMDs that just don't exist (oh wait, let me guess they're in Syria now, right? Guess they're next.) They just need to come out and admit it.

If we cared that much about liverating the oppressed then why haven't we invaded China or N. Korea? Both nations possess or will possess WMDs and both brutally oppress their citizens.

Nope. It's about oil. And heathens. But mostly oil.


i'll agree with this; its about oil in the sense that an unstable iraq poses a threat to its neighbors and the rest of the oil producing region. we were getting very very little oil from iraq and our needs were being met and prices werent outrageous before invasion.

now, are there other benefits to a stable iraq? yes. if you dont think so then youre a lost cause. are those reasons wmds, oppressed peoples, etc? yes again. we can argue about wmd's and liberating iraqis all day and you arent changing anyones mind.

as for china and north korea youve put up the classic straw man. sure, both are what you say they are. oppressive and have wmd's. but that doesnt mean invasion is the best course of action for each case. that would be stupid and cost millions of lives possibly in the case with china. china, on some levels, is participating in the world and it functions nicely, while not so nice in others. does that or any past history with them call for invasion or the red button? nope. its a different problem with a different timeframe for conclusion. same goes for north korea, different problem than iraq and china, different track for a solution.

but that doesnt mean invasion is the best course of action for every case. that would be stupid and involve millions of lives possibly in the case with china.
Since we can't even invade a tiny country with an unpopular leader backed by a gutted military without turning the majority of the world against us. Invasion not the best course for every case. Why didn't someone bring that up 18 months ago?

Since we can't even invade a tiny country with an unpopular leader backed by a gutted military without turning the majority of the world against us. Invasion not the best course for every case. Why didn't someone bring that up 18 months ago?

i think someone did, but i cant remember who he was.

i'll agree with this; its about oil in the sense that an unstable iraq poses a threat to its neighbors and the rest of the oil producing region. we were getting very very little oil from iraq and our needs were being met and prices werent outrageous before invasion.

now, are there other benefits to a stable iraq? yes. if you dont think so then youre a lost cause. are those reasons wmds, oppressed peoples, etc? yes again. we can argue about wmd's and liberating iraqis all day and you arent changing anyones mind.

as for china and north korea youve put up the classic straw man. sure, both are what you say they are. oppressive and have wmd's. but that doesnt mean invasion is the best course of action for each case. that would be stupid and cost millions of lives possibly in the case with china. china, on some levels, is participating in the world and it functions nicely, while not so nice in others. does that or any past history with them call for invasion or the red button? nope. its a different problem with a different timeframe for conclusion. same goes for north korea, different problem than iraq and china, different track for a solution.
Ok. We're in general agreement. I will still hold that WMDs and liberation of the Iraqi people were just collateral benefits that, if given any consideration at all in the planning, we only given that consideration for PR reasons to help win support for the op. No argument that whether or not liberation was/is the motive, it is still a good thing overall. I just don't think it's worth going in there for all by itself.

I'll eat my Chinese strawman, but not the N. Korean one. I'd consider them a more dangerous threat to the stability of an important segment of our economy -- the cheap, high tech components industry that makes up most of southeast Asia and Japan. If N. Korea gets ambitious and decides to try for unification again we're in some deep doo doo. We can easily make up for lost oil production in the case of Iraq going berserk (this is kinda past tense) to the point that we could act to remedy the situation as we did with Kuwait as part of a huge coallition (that was the right way to do it in my book). Korea would have an immediate negative impact that would take us much longer to rememdy since we do not have the fabrication plants here to make up for lost production. Keep in mind that 99% of the chips in use are not in use in game consoles or PCs -- they're in cars, airplanes, medical equipment, telecom equipment, etc. Damn near everything today has a chip in it. Take them away and lots of things stop happening and it would cause an almost immediate panic on Wall St. I would say we have just as much, if not more, of a reason for going in there if they don't give up their WMD programs entirely.

Two quick reasons.
200,000 casualties as the armaments across the border open up on the S. Korea capital.
One of the largest sub fleets in the world meaning our navy can not run unimpeded sorties from safe havens (carriers) in the Pacific.

Ok. We're in general agreement. I will still hold that WMDs and liberation of the Iraqi people were just collateral benefits that, if given any consideration at all in the planning, we only given that consideration for PR reasons to help win support for the op. No argument that whether or not liberation was/is the motive, it is still a good thing overall. I just don't think it's worth going in there for all by itself.

I'll eat my Chinese strawman, but not the N. Korean one. I'd consider them a more dangerous threat to the stability of an important segment of our economy -- the cheap, high tech components industry that makes up most of southeast Asia and Japan. If N. Korea gets ambitious and decides to try for unification again we're in some deep doo doo. We can easily make up for lost oil production in the case of Iraq going berserk (this is kinda past tense) to the point that we could act to remedy the situation as we did with Kuwait as part of a huge coallition (that was the right way to do it in my book). Korea would have an immediate negative impact that would take us much longer to rememdy since we do not have the fabrication plants here to make up for lost production. Keep in mind that 99% of the chips in use are not in use in game consoles or PCs -- they're in cars, airplanes, medical equipment, telecom equipment, etc. Damn near everything today has a chip in it. Take them away and lots of things stop happening and it would cause an almost immediate panic on Wall St. I would say we have just as much, if not more, of a reason for going in there if they don't give up their WMD programs entirely.


i dont think north korea is worth a million lives on either side...yet. i agree they are a problem but its not like we didnt engage them. the current crisis of their nukes wasnt created in the bush admin. but its the admin thats left to deal with them whether you agree with their policy or not.

i agree they are a problem but its not like we didnt engage them. the current crisis of their nukes wasnt created in the bush admin. but its the admin thats left to deal with them whether you agree with their policy or not.Then we are already in deep doo doo, since the current administration has shown no aptitude for anything other than screwing up and blaming Clinton.

i dont think north korea is worth a million lives on either side...yet. i agree they are a problem but its not like we didnt engage them. the current crisis of their nukes wasnt created in the bush admin. but its the admin thats left to deal with them whether you agree with their policy or not.
Two quick reasons.
200,000 casualties as the armaments across the border open up on the S. Korea capital.
One of the largest sub fleets in the world meaning our navy can not run unimpeded sorties from safe havens (carriers) in the Pacific.
So.... you're both saying that we should only pick on countries we can beat easily, not ones that can fight back??? That we shouldn't fight if we might get a bloody nose??? Whatever happened to "Kill a commie for Mommy?" or "Better dead than Red!" ;)

No. You're right. N. Korea isn't the real threat. That honor belongs to China. Mark my words -- within 100 years we'll be at war with China and it won't be pretty.

So.... you're both saying that we should only pick on countries we can beat easily, not ones that can fight back??? That we shouldn't fight if we might get a bloody nose??? Whatever happened to "Kill a commie for Mommy?" or "Better dead than Red!" ;)

No. You're right. N. Korea isn't the real threat. That honor belongs to China. Mark my words -- within 100 years we'll be at war with China and it won't be pretty.

I think I speak for BILL as well on this one when I say that although our message seems similar on its face, the rational behind is vastly, vastly like from earth to Pluto removed from one another.

So.... you're both saying that we should only pick on countries we can beat easily, not ones that can fight back??? That we shouldn't fight if we might get a bloody nose??? Whatever happened to "Kill a commie for Mommy?" or "Better dead than Red!" ;)

No. You're right. N. Korea isn't the real threat. That honor belongs to China. Mark my words -- within 100 years we'll be at war with China and it won't be pretty.


it might not take a hot war to defeat north korea. it didnt take one to defeat the soviet union.

sure we have to fight with some who can fight back, just not yet.

i agree, if things progress as they currently are we will have to fight china at some point in time. but a change in political or economical structure from inside china or even in some other country could alter the track were on now.

.....nevermind

Since we can't even invade a tiny country with an unpopular leader backed by a gutted military without turning the majority of the world against us.

Wasn't Saddam elected with a near 100% majority???? ;)

But still at least 50 percentage points over what Bush could muster.

We will be an afterthought in the global game (a la the once dominant UK) long before that comes to pass.

So really, the U.S. thinks of itself first, freedom second.

That's quite true. We've promoted stability over democracy, especially in the Middle East. It's the "he might be a dictator, but he's our dictator" mindset.

Bush had this to say last fall.

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your
nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain,
to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties
often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this
bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought
time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to
oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard.
No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is
temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and
our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold. As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found."

That's a good speech. How should we apply it to Ariel Sharon's treatment of the Palestinians, particularly expansion of West Bank settlements?

Any inconveniently oppressed peoples can be written off as "terrorists".

I think I speak for BILL as well on this one when I say that although our message seems similar on its face, the rational behind is vastly, vastly like from earth to Pluto removed from one another.
Trust me, I would never confuse the two of you. :D I just responded to both of you out of convienience -- and I was having fun.

I'll end up arguing with both of you -- I'm ultra conservative on some points (Nuke 'em all!) and very liberal on others (abortion, personal liberties, etc.). I'd have a lot of fun if I had multiple personality disorder.

We will be an afterthought in the global game (a la the once dominant UK) long before that comes to pass.
That's an interesting notion. What are you predicting?

... The US, because of its dependency on oil, has a vested national interest in keeping that region stable. THAT is the reality ...

That's it! Keep making comments like this and you'll lose your rbr wacko leftist tin-foil-hat-wearing membership card! There's a difference between the U.S. having a vested national interest in keeping that region stable in order to sustain our economic reliance on oil (as you've stated) and the U.S. spilling "blood for oil" in order for Dubya to hook up his oil buddies. Agree with it or not, the former is a legit reason. The latter is utter conspiratorial hogwash.

One day America will collectively wake up and realize that we no longer enjoy the best standards of living, the best education system, the most dynamic industrial base etc. and we'll just say "Aw, f__k it", focus our military on defense and get on with getting on rather than killing ourselves trying to be masters of the Universe.

There's a difference between the U.S. having a vested national interest in keeping that region stable in order to sustain our economic reliance on oil (as you've stated) and the U.S. spilling "blood for oil" in order for Dubya to hook up his oil buddies. Agree with it or not, the former is a legit reason. The latter is utter conspiratorial hogwash.I wonder what you suppose the difference is, other than "tone"?

That's it! Keep making comments like this and you'll lose your rbr wacko leftist tin-foil-hat-wearing membership card! There's a difference between the U.S. having a vested national interest in keeping that region stable in order to sustain our economic reliance on oil (as you've stated) and the U.S. spilling "blood for oil" in order for Dubya to hook up his oil buddies. Agree with it or not, the former is a legit reason. The latter is utter conspiratorial hogwash.
Don't revoke that card yet..... :D

Stability is all well and good. The region WAS stable. 9/11 was a catalyst for many dormant plans -- most starting with Iraq -- to gain solid control of mid-east oil fields. I'm not suggesting that the administration knew that the attacks were going to happen but I'm willing to put money on it that they were happy to have an excuse to put their plans in motion.

There's just way too much conflict of interest with Dubya Co. and Iraq to not cry foul.

One day America will collectively wake up and realize that we no longer enjoy the best standards of living, the best education system, the most dynamic industrial base etc. and we'll just say "Aw, f__k it", focus our military on defense and get on with getting on rather than killing ourselves trying to be masters of the Universe.
One can only hope.

I think you're wrong though... the day that happens is the day we actually DO become the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

. the current crisis of their nukes wasnt created in the bush admin. .

oh, it sure as hell certainly is.