Originally posted by zeeblebotThe potential to threaten US dominance of world markets in its insistence to have oil traded in US dollars. Saddam suggested that a new oil bourse be constructed where oil could be traded in any currency, but more specifically Euros. The IRanians have made similar noises about having oil traded in non US currencies.
germany had one of the greatest military forces in the world at that time. or THE greatest. it took several countries to defeat them.
what does iran have, besides an active nuclear research program?
Considering that for many analysts the hegemonic power of the US rests largely with its monopoly in how oil is traded with US dollars, is it a mere coincidence that after years of supporting his regime the US only really started to consider Saddam persona non grata when he dared to mention that oil could be traded in other currencies? Is Iran next on the hit list for the same reason?
Originally posted by Turtlestackwe didn't need iraq as a base next to iran. if the US sights in on iran, it's toast. why knock over and occupy one country when we really want to knock over and occupy the country next door? why not skip to step 2?
Then what you are saying is that there is no strategic importance to occupying Iraq in regard to Iran and that we can better keep a rouge, nuclear (nearly anyway), extremist nation who hates us in check better by sea?
I was in the Navy so I am flattered by your confidence in my shipmates but that is not really a logical plan of attack. You need a base of operations on land to direct ground forces that work in conjunction with sea power.
wasn't iraq the strongest of the two? why not knock over iran instead, so we could have a base to surround iraq with?
Originally posted by kmax87well, the EU better not suggest it, or we'll have to knock them over, too.
The potential to threaten US dominance of world markets in its insistence to have oil traded in US dollars. Saddam suggested that a new oil bourse be constructed where oil could be traded in any currency, but more specifically Euros. The IRanians have made similar noises about having oil traded in non US currencies.
Considering that for many analysts the h ...[text shortened]... that oil could be traded in other currencies? Is Iran next on the hit list for the same reason?
Originally posted by TurtlestackWhat is more important to us : protecting our interests at home or protecting our image abroad?
Aye, there's the rub.
What is more important to us : protecting our interests at home or protecting our image abroad?
If we play nice with the rest of the world by pulling every Jew out of Isreal, closing off all interests in the middle east what would happen? Would extremist nations all of a sudden chill out and be happy? Would Iran stop trying to ...[text shortened]... r price one day for sure and someday Chinese will be the official language of Nebraska 🙂
They are one and the same. Of course if we have to choose it's the first option, but we need to be very careful about how we define "our interests". That phrase makes it sound too much like imperialism is ok. Americans are "interested" in making money, wouldn't you say? That doesn't mean we should be using our military to make money from other nations by force!
If we play nice with the rest of the world by pulling every Jew out of Isreal
Whoa! It's not playing nice to actively remove Jews from Israel! Playing nice means leaving the Middle East alone to resolve it's own issues.
Would extremist nations all of a sudden chill out and be happy?
They'd stop being unhappy with the US pretty quickly, yes.
Would Iran stop trying to build a nuclear device?
No. Nor should they. They're responsible for their defense just as much as any other nation is.
Would they not strangle the supply of oil and force prices up?
Maybe. It's their oil; it's immoral to prevent them from doing this. Should we bomb Toyota to prevent competition in auto manufacturing? That's ridiculous.
Would fanatics stop being fanatical?
Yes! Not all of them, but fanaticism would definitely weaken.
No they would not. Just as we in America wish to impose our way of life (democracy) on the entire world
I don't. I am not into imposing democracy. It will come on it's own without need for imposition; imposition gets in the way actually. It makes people angry at democracies and makes them cynical about this style of government.
But the rest of the world will still be able to carry on business as usual while we run the show.
The world would do just fine without the US "running the show".
And that is what it's all about. Business. Create a free market, give people the creature comforts of life and a few bucks in their pocket and they will be content and less likely to go to war with us.
Didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? The free market wins when put in peaceful economic competition with other economic systems.
America is just keeping the status quo she built after WWII.
The status quo after World War II was built by the US and the Soviets in an arms race. There is no way to maintain that status quo without a USSR sized rival.
We want to be in charge and dictate to the world how things should be and we will continue to do so until we can't do it anymore. It's a bully and arrogant tactic but that's the way things are.
Unless we Americans stop being such jerkoffs and learn to interact as just another group of humans interacting with other humans who "were created equal".
Originally posted by zeeblebotWe did it because we could. Also Iraq was not popular in the middle east so they were an easy taget. Even Iran wanted Iraq gone (they were at war once too).
we didn't need iraq as a base next to iran. if the US sights in on iran, it's toast. why knock over and occupy one country when we really want to knock over and occupy the country next door? why not skip to step 2?
wasn't iraq the strongest of the two? why not knock over iran instead, so we could have a base to surround iraq with?
By owning Iraq we sit in the heart of the middle east and it is a vitally important stragic location to all points around her.
Iran we could not simply invade like Iraq because Iran has alot of support around the world and we would wind up going to war with people we don't want to go to war with. Nobody cared about Iraq and we plucked it from the tree.
Maybe one day we will invade Iran, but not today - there is not the multinational support for it. If Iran starts dropping nuclear bombs on people then we go in but right now we just want to keep our enemies closer than our friends.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not saying we are not jerkoffs. We are. We want to run the world. We freely invade any country that we don't like. We topple governments and instal puppet dictators. We've been doing it longer than I've been alive.
[b]What is more important to us : protecting our interests at home or protecting our image abroad?
They are one and the same. Of course if we have to choose it's the first option, but we need to be very careful about how we define "our interests". That phrase makes it sound too much like imperialism is ok. Americans are "interested" in making ...[text shortened]... group of humans interacting with other humans who "were created equal".[/b]
But we also don't want someone else doing it either. We don't want Iran being the next superpower do we? Even if it's not them then someone else will step in to fill the void. There will always be people and nations who want to rule as many as they can rule.
As long as there are people on this planet there will be people who want control of them. That's a fact. We Americans feel that our way of life is best and we will fight to make sure things stay that way. Our goal is to make every nation a democracy and every economy and open market - secular if you will. Those in the middle east have a different way of looking at things.
Originally posted by Turtlestackwe could knock france off, too, but we haven't.
We did it because we could. Also Iraq was not popular in the middle east so they were an easy taget. Even Iran wanted Iraq gone (they were at war once too).
By owning Iraq we sit in the heart of the middle east and it is a vitally important stragic location to all points around her.
Iran we could not simply invade like Iraq because Iran has alot ...[text shortened]... on people then we go in but right now we just want to keep our enemies closer than our friends.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou're right about that. It would be completely worthless to invade Iraq if it was only to use it as a tool against Iran.
we didn't need iraq as a base next to iran. if the US sights in on iran, it's toast. why knock over and occupy one country when we really want to knock over and occupy the country next door? why not skip to step 2?
wasn't iraq the strongest of the two? why not knock over iran instead, so we could have a base to surround iraq with?
Iraq was also a goal. He invaded a couple of his neighbors and that's no good for stability in the ME. Plus, like I said, we thought he had WMD.
My point is that Iran is a bigger fish in regards to terrorism. Saddam was far less supportive to terrorists and in my opinion anyway, less likely to give terrorists some kind of ABC weapon.
Both are important to ME stability, which is important to reducing terrorism.
1 edit
For all you people who missed the point of this list, here are the names of the most important as it pertains to the Bush Administration and their penchant for wars and an expansion of the Military. (google PNAC and read their doctrine...it was written by key Bush adminstration officials prior to coming into office)
Republicans
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
House Whip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Originally posted by uzlessYou missed Rummy. With only one exception, he was more important than anyone one that list.
For all you people who missed the point of this list, here are the names of the most important as it pertains to the Bush Administration and their penchant for wars and an expansion of the Military. (google PNAC and read their doctrine...it was written by key Bush adminstration officials prior to coming into office)
Republicans
Dennis Hastert: did not ...[text shortened]... ed Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
I think your list confuses political exposure with influence.
Most of those men did not influence his decision.
Bill Frist for example.
Originally posted by MerkInfluence who's decision? Bush's?
You missed Rummy. With only one exception, he was more important than anyone one that list.
I think your list confuses political exposure with influence.
Most of those men did not influence his decision.
Bill Frist for example.
Man, if you believe that Bush came up with this idea on his own, well...😞
Originally posted by uzlessInfluence him to change the doctrine his administration followed after 9/11. The likes of Bill Frist had nothing to do with that. Cheney and Rumsfeld very well could have. That's also not to say that he didn't decide all by hisself that a change of doctrine was needed.
Influence who's decision? Bush's?
Man, if you believe that Bush came up with this idea on his own, well...😞
If you want to make the case that his administration is a bunch of chickenhawks, feel free, but you're not making clear what you are trying to say with these lists. What are you trying to say?
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkThe republicans are viewed as defenders of the nation yet it's the Democrats that actually do the fighting.
If you want to make the case that his administration is a bunch of chickenhawks, feel free, but you're not making clear what you are trying to say with these lists. What are you trying to say?
Republicans are viewed as good monetary policy makers yet the Democrats were the only ones in 20 years to have a surplus budget.
I find these myths illuminating. Perhaps no matter what facts are presented to you, you won't change your mind.