Some Political Musings
 

Bob Woodward agreed in his new book with my premise that WMD's were a selling point to the American people. So it still elludes me as to what the reason Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz had for wanting to take Irak out? The only rational reason I can think of was a Geopolitical one. I have to discount the greed factor of all those lucrative contracts... Come up with a better idea than oil Pleeze!

Secondly when they were passing out brains it seems our man Wolfowitz was last in line...How in the world could he believe that reconstructing Irak would be like reconstructing France after WW2. There was a government in exile (DeGaulle) and a bureaucratic infrastructure in place in France after WW2. Completely unlike Irak????

Moew Later

Many of your answers can be found here. Just look at the signatories on the statement of principles page.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Its all about ruling the world. Will the US win this ancient battle or will we be bombed into submission or drained of wealth by the enterprise?

Only time will tell.

The difference is the French elite surendered and collaborated with the Nazis and, as thus, were still alive...as the Iraqi elite resisted and were killed long ago.

Look at the size of the US economy, our military preponderence etc..we allready rule the world. In former US regimes we used to give courtesy reach arounds to make the other country feel like they got something out of the deal too...Bush's great change is that we no longer give those feel good reach arounds...now we just give it to them straight and hard. Thats basically what the world is grumbling about...

So whats the difference between the french resistance and the iraqi insurgents?

Were the french people who refused to go along with the occupiers and their cohorts and who attacked them and committed sabotage also 'terrorists'?

tabs, read this:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Quote from 350HP's PNAC reference: "If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." June 3, 1997

Quite a prophesy. Responsibilities shirked by Clinton are now challenges in the lap of Bush. We're on the right track.

Or, maybe another joint resolution from the League of (United) Nations condemning terrorism is needed.

Bob

the big problem I have with that senario (explaination. . "real truth") is that the Euro is at it's very fragle beginings.

If the US felt the need to somehow dominate the Euro, it would be far easier to throw a stick in the spokes at one of the exsiting Euro-countries. That is; One or two Euro-countries sqabbling about fairness, and all sorts of bad things will start happening.

Furthermore, that "oil-currency" "real truth" has an x-files type of "it's just strange enough. . it must be true." This really smacks of a sell-job, to me

how did blue say it; "a little cynicism, and rub two braincells together" . . .well, I've got two braincells telling me this "real truth" is BS. (not that there is no truth. . .it's just a ways off)YMMV

very impressive thread Tabs. Nice reference nostatic. I love it because it supports what I've been saying all along - it's all about Oil (that's capital "O" oil).

If hawks would simply acknowledge that fact - we could really start some meaningful discussion on this subject. Lay the facts on the table as why it is essential for the very well-being of US civilization (and the world for that matter) to take out Saddam and build certainty around the supply of and solidfy economics surrounding oil.

We all easily understand that without oil we become a third world nation pretty darn quick.

So lay the cards on the table - maybe we can all support the Iraq attack if you unwrap it from all this bogus packaging of WMDs and freeing a civilization from an evil dictator. That is just so much crap.

The American people are much more pragmatic than this administration gives them credit for. GWB should be spanked for assuming that they will only respond to the most base of motivations, that is this BS dreams of good vs. evil.

Won't all you warmongers be offended to learn that you've been sold a bill of goods?

Yeah, that was acknowledged, waaay back. Wayne made the insightful observation that it is about oil . . ..but not like you're thinking. His point was Saddam, the mass murder, must be further kept from wielding the power which comes from that oil.


Now- If the sissys would simply acknowledge that fact - we could really start some meaningful discussion on this subject. :cool:

Well, I don't consider myself exactly a hawk or dove.
I think, from a historical perspective, most administrations have tried to do a decent job of situating the country for a favorable position in coming decades. I hope the building special influences and greed don't overcome this.
I am for what happened in Iraq, and think it was a huge mistake business wasn't taken care of the first time around. In my opinion, this is an attampt to secure resources and a favorable political landscape for our future.
There are many things affecting the future. First, is that the world will ultimately become one village. Globalization will happen. Second, fossil fuels are a finite source of energy. (I believe in the future, we will be cursed at for using up a resource that could be used for so many things other than fuel.) We are inclined to burn up everydody's oil. We don't have much, but we have some and a bunch of coal reserves. We can maybe fall back on them for a very short period of time, if we have to. While we are burning up everybody else's oil, eventually another main source of energy will (hopefully) be developed. Unfortunately, third world countries that don't invest their revenues right will then permanently be on the bottom of the ladder.
Just ruminating.

I said it was not about oil for the sake of oil, but about providing a steady, reasonably priced flow of oil to support the global economy. Hiding in the shadows of my arguemnet is the US dollar being the tranactional currency for oil.

Basically what Mr. Clark outlined was what the US did during the Vietnam war.. used the $35 oz price of Gold to help defray the cost of the war. NOw with the $ being the transactional currency for oil the US can manipulate the currency so that we collect vigourous from the sale of oil. This helps support the American lifestyle. What political party in the US wants to tell the American people they can no longer afford to buy their SUV's (price of gasoline is excluded in this arguement). That their standard of living MUST decline. It's happening anyway but who wants to be told the truth?

The one downfall of Mr Clarks arguement is the HUGH fallout from a change in reserve currency status...it would literally be an end of the world economy as we know it.

Mr Clarks arguement gives plausibility as to why France is taking the stance it has.

I think that Mr Clarks rational is a part of the picture, maybe a large part but it isn't the sole reason for US foreign policy under Bush.