Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War in Iraq
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 16 of 56 (117522)
06-22-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by contracycle
06-22-2004 12:34 PM


war for oil?
quote:
quote:
Clear ulterior motives being what? Oil?
Yes
I was wondering if you might elaborate on this point. I had originally thought that the war must be about oil but the more I thought about it the less sense that made. As best as I can tell there was no problem at all getting oil out of Iraq with Saddam in power. He was perfectly willing to pump and sell his most lucrative natural resource. If the oil wasn't flowing fast enough for us it was because we had imposed an embargo on Iraq.
What I still can't figure out is why we are there. The administration must have known that their intelligence on the WMDs was spotty at best otherwise we would have found something by now. I find it hard to believe that Bush was motivated by "his kind heart" since he is perfectly willing to allow dozens of other despotic dictators maintain control of their plots of land. Plus he claimed he wasn't into nation building before he was elected so what is he doing building not one but two nations? I am truly puzzled by this war and this administration.
Just my $.02

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 12:34 PM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 1:25 PM bob_gray has not replied
 Message 37 by contracycle, posted 06-23-2004 5:16 AM bob_gray has replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 32 of 56 (117774)
06-23-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by joshua221
06-23-2004 1:24 AM


don't be hatin'
I have to agree with crashfrog again, just because you don't like a man’s politics doesn't mean you hate him. I don't know Bush I am not in a position to make that decision. I am in the position to say that I vehemently disagree with his policies.
1. He doesn't believe in evolution which means he has disregarded practically all of modern science. This makes him unqualified to have his finger on the button as far as I am concerned.
2. He squandered every bit of good will we had from the rest of the world by getting involved in a 200 Billion dollar (and it isn't over yet) war for which we have yet to find a reason.
3. He wants to bring his brand of religion to the constitution and government. This is treason in my book.
4. He has put the US in the #1 position for incarcerations per capita of any country in the world. His policy seems to be: more prisons, fewer schools.
I'm sure I could come up with more but this is an excellent start.
On the plus side:
1. I liked the tax cuts
2. He is always good for a laugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by joshua221, posted 06-23-2004 1:24 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 54 of 56 (118328)
06-24-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by contracycle
06-23-2004 5:16 AM


Re: war for oil?
quote:
Furthermore, the US now directly controls a or the major oil-producing nation, meaning that the US has the ability to render OPEC even less relevant than it is now.
See, I'm just not sold on that stance. Iraq, preinvasion, was a secular state and as I said was willing to pump and sell oil. What we may end up with now could be a strongly muslim country which, after a couple of elections, may or may not like us. It is likely we may have been better off with the previous regime. Also, Saddam was able to maintain control of the country and the oil rarely stopped flowing but under the new system it is much more difficult to secure the pipeline. As you can probably tell I am by no means an expert on the subject but the "war for oil" strategy just doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to go in, our money is always far more likely to get us oil than violence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by contracycle, posted 06-23-2004 5:16 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by contracycle, posted 06-24-2004 4:34 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 55 of 56 (118332)
06-24-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by paisano
06-24-2004 8:48 AM


quote:
I looked at Kerry's FITREPS online and the picture that emerges is that of a competent junior officer with combat experience. Nothing more (or less) than that. I suspect Bush would have done as well if deployed.
I'm not sure where you looked but this is what I found on Kerry's webpage:
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/service.html writes:
February 28, 1969 — For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 28 February 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Cung River, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. The daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. The PCF gunners captured many enemy weapons in the battle that followed. On a request from U.S. Army advisors ashore, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered PCFs 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats again were taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF-94; with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.
This doesn't sound like "...a competent junior officer with combat experience. Nothing more (or less) than that." This sounds like a man who put his life on the line for his country. And I don't mean that in the "I hid in the reserves so I am a hero" sense, I mean that in the "I charged a VC rocket" sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by paisano, posted 06-24-2004 8:48 AM paisano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024