A view on the US role in Iraq
Nov 29th 2006, 10:48 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
A view on the US role in Iraq
Published 11/29/06
"We Americans are trying to give Iraqis independence from Sunni
minority elites.
There's only one real problem in Iraq: the violent Sunni minority
that ruled by putting Iraqis in mass graves, hasn't stopped just
because they're out of power now. The Shia are tired of being
slaughtered and have started to fight back. Most people in the
country feel Iraq would be better off if all the Sunnis left -- and
some are actively pushing them out.
Meanwhile, the Kurds in the north have built a safe, economically
booming area that will shortly be the other Israel: an oasis of
sanity, democracy and civilization in the Mideast desert of
oppression, religious crazies, and terror.
All war is not bad. America needed it's civil war to end slavery.
With or without Western intervention Iraq would have seen civil war
at some point to deal with this Sunni dominance. The question for
history is whether or not western intervention made things worse
than they would have been otherwise. It is doubtful that even today
most Shia and Kurds would arugue that the fall of Saddam was worth
paying some price. If you compare the price the American people
paid during our civil war the Iraqi situation comes into
perspective today."
"We Americans are trying to give Iraqis independence from Sunni
minority elites.
There's only one real problem in Iraq: the violent Sunni minority
that ruled by putting Iraqis in mass graves, hasn't stopped just
because they're out of power now. The Shia are tired of being
slaughtered and have started to fight back. Most people in the
country feel Iraq would be better off if all the Sunnis left -- and
some are actively pushing them out.
Meanwhile, the Kurds in the north have built a safe, economically
booming area that will shortly be the other Israel: an oasis of
sanity, democracy and civilization in the Mideast desert of
oppression, religious crazies, and terror.
All war is not bad. America needed it's civil war to end slavery.
With or without Western intervention Iraq would have seen civil war
at some point to deal with this Sunni dominance. The question for
history is whether or not western intervention made things worse
than they would have been otherwise. It is doubtful that even today
most Shia and Kurds would arugue that the fall of Saddam was worth
paying some price. If you compare the price the American people
paid during our civil war the Iraqi situation comes into
perspective today."
Nov 29th 2006, 11:26 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Published 11/29/06
By whom? Who cares? It's propaganda bullshit, and off-topic for
rec.travel.europe.
**** off Peej.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>Published 11/29/06
By whom? Who cares? It's propaganda bullshit, and off-topic for
rec.travel.europe.
**** off Peej.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Nov 29th 2006, 11:31 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
ceases to amaze me. America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
and always will be. America has one interest and one interest only in
Iraq and thats OIL and the money and power it brings, let us not forget
that America has consistently undermined many demodratic states simply
because their people democraticaly chose to elect leaders who would not
toe the American line, take for example Venezuela and Nicaragua. Lets
see how much America respects democracy if Daniel Ortega is elected
president in what is universally accepted as a free and fair election.
Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
rather than dollars. This war is purely and simply a business
transaction, your country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and
is set to spend hundreds more and it is not doing that so some
tribesman in the middle of a desert can rest easy in his hammock that
his vote will count the same as everyone elses, all those hundreds of
billions will need to be repaid with considerable interest and you can
put the house on that one!
ceases to amaze me. America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
and always will be. America has one interest and one interest only in
Iraq and thats OIL and the money and power it brings, let us not forget
that America has consistently undermined many demodratic states simply
because their people democraticaly chose to elect leaders who would not
toe the American line, take for example Venezuela and Nicaragua. Lets
see how much America respects democracy if Daniel Ortega is elected
president in what is universally accepted as a free and fair election.
Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
rather than dollars. This war is purely and simply a business
transaction, your country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and
is set to spend hundreds more and it is not doing that so some
tribesman in the middle of a desert can rest easy in his hammock that
his vote will count the same as everyone elses, all those hundreds of
billions will need to be repaid with considerable interest and you can
put the house on that one!
Nov 30th 2006, 12:00 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
Sure it's all about oil.
The Shiites have it and the Kurds have it while the Sunni minority
doesnt have it but think they should have it and are killing Shiites to
get it while the Shiites are fighting to keep it.
[email protected] wrote:
> The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
> ceases to amaze me. America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
> or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
> and always will be. America has one interest and one interest only in
> Iraq and thats OIL and the money and power it brings, let us not forget
> that America has consistently undermined many demodratic states simply
> because their people democraticaly chose to elect leaders who would not
> toe the American line, take for example Venezuela and Nicaragua. Lets
> see how much America respects democracy if Daniel Ortega is elected
> president in what is universally accepted as a free and fair election.
> Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
> puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
> THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
> rather than dollars. This war is purely and simply a business
> transaction, your country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and
> is set to spend hundreds more and it is not doing that so some
> tribesman in the middle of a desert can rest easy in his hammock that
> his vote will count the same as everyone elses, all those hundreds of
> billions will need to be repaid with considerable interest and you can
> put the house on that one!
The Shiites have it and the Kurds have it while the Sunni minority
doesnt have it but think they should have it and are killing Shiites to
get it while the Shiites are fighting to keep it.
[email protected] wrote:
> The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
> ceases to amaze me. America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
> or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
> and always will be. America has one interest and one interest only in
> Iraq and thats OIL and the money and power it brings, let us not forget
> that America has consistently undermined many demodratic states simply
> because their people democraticaly chose to elect leaders who would not
> toe the American line, take for example Venezuela and Nicaragua. Lets
> see how much America respects democracy if Daniel Ortega is elected
> president in what is universally accepted as a free and fair election.
> Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
> puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
> THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
> rather than dollars. This war is purely and simply a business
> transaction, your country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and
> is set to spend hundreds more and it is not doing that so some
> tribesman in the middle of a desert can rest easy in his hammock that
> his vote will count the same as everyone elses, all those hundreds of
> billions will need to be repaid with considerable interest and you can
> put the house on that one!
Nov 30th 2006, 12:01 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
> ceases to amaze me. America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
> or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
> and always will be.
If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that ghastly
mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too happy
if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't then
the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct interest.
The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for America'
can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> The ability of some americans to completely miss the obvious never
> ceases to amaze me. America could not care less about democracy in Iraq
> or anywhere else, Americas only interest is America, always has been
> and always will be.
If only that was true. It isn't otherwise the insane invasion of Iraq
would never have been launched. Whether or not oil prompted that ghastly
mistake is not the question. The rest of the world would be only too happy
if America always acted in its own interests because its interest almost
invariably coincides with most countries' interests. When it doesn't then
the relevant country is in its turn acting against its own direct interest.
The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for America'
can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
Nov 30th 2006, 12:06 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
<Lets see how much America respects democracy if by some miracle the
puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
rather than dollars
Johnnyanon>.
Your argument .is convoluted. You obviously cannot comprehend the logic
underlying international exchange rates.
puppet goverment of Irag decide at the stroke of a pen to increase
THEIR countrys wealth by roughly 30% by selling THEIR oil in euros
rather than dollars
Johnnyanon>.
Your argument .is convoluted. You obviously cannot comprehend the logic
underlying international exchange rates.
Nov 30th 2006, 12:38 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On 30 Nov 2006 05:00:20 -0800, "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sure it's all about oil.
>The Shiites have it and the Kurds have it while the Sunni minority
>doesnt have it but think they should have it and are killing Shiites to
>get it while the Shiites are fighting to keep it.
I see you've joined the "it's all the Iraqi's fault" brigade.
Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
worse state, and still call it a success.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
>Sure it's all about oil.
>The Shiites have it and the Kurds have it while the Sunni minority
>doesnt have it but think they should have it and are killing Shiites to
>get it while the Shiites are fighting to keep it.
I see you've joined the "it's all the Iraqi's fault" brigade.
Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
worse state, and still call it a success.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Nov 30th 2006, 1:04 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
<Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
worse state, and still call it a success
DFM>
It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
secure.
Welcome to reality
worse state, and still call it a success
DFM>
It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
secure.
Welcome to reality
Nov 30th 2006, 1:21 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>secure.
>Welcome to reality
Sadly, I think this is about the most accurate piece Peej has ever
posted. It describes a US foreign policy that is both immoral and
stupid, and that is doomed to fail.
And not a whisper about WMDs or the significance of Israel as the
existing US foothold in the region.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>secure.
>Welcome to reality
Sadly, I think this is about the most accurate piece Peej has ever
posted. It describes a US foreign policy that is both immoral and
stupid, and that is doomed to fail.
And not a whisper about WMDs or the significance of Israel as the
existing US foothold in the region.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Nov 30th 2006, 5:04 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
> From: "John Rennie" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for America'
> can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
I believe it has been.
Donna Evleth
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:01:30 -0000
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> The observation that 'What is good for General Motors is good for America'
> can be amended to 'What is good for America is good for all of us'.
I believe it has been.
Donna Evleth
Nov 30th 2006, 5:13 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:04:32 -0800
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
> worse state, and still call it a success
>
> DFM>
>
> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>
> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>
> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>
>
> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>
>
> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>
> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>
>
> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
> secure.
>
>
> Welcome to reality
Reality??????? Ohboyohboyohboy! How do you plan to insure a friendly Iraq
government? Those guys are doing civil war these days, or haven't you
heard?
Yes, it would be nice to limit Saudi influence over oil, since that was
where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. It would be even nicer to take
steps to move away from dependence on oil, especially oil coming from
politically unstable regions. I keep asking: why is there no equivalent to
the Manhattan Project of World War II to develop alternative energies?
Who are our new Central Asian friends? If you are thinking of the assorted
dictatorships that inhabit that region, they are not friends, they are
allies of convenience. The minute that convenience ends, they will bail
out.
Donna Evleth
>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:04:32 -0800
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
> worse state, and still call it a success
>
> DFM>
>
> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>
> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>
> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>
>
> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>
>
> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>
> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>
>
> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
> secure.
>
>
> Welcome to reality
Reality??????? Ohboyohboyohboy! How do you plan to insure a friendly Iraq
government? Those guys are doing civil war these days, or haven't you
heard?
Yes, it would be nice to limit Saudi influence over oil, since that was
where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. It would be even nicer to take
steps to move away from dependence on oil, especially oil coming from
politically unstable regions. I keep asking: why is there no equivalent to
the Manhattan Project of World War II to develop alternative energies?
Who are our new Central Asian friends? If you are thinking of the assorted
dictatorships that inhabit that region, they are not friends, they are
allies of convenience. The minute that convenience ends, they will bail
out.
Donna Evleth
>
Nov 30th 2006, 5:43 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
> worse state, and still call it a success
> DFM>
> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
> secure.
> Welcome to reality
A fine post.
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
> worse state, and still call it a success
> DFM>
> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
> secure.
> Welcome to reality
A fine post.
Nov 30th 2006, 7:41 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
>> worse state, and still call it a success
>> DFM>
>> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>> secure.
>> Welcome to reality
> A fine post.
You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above you
are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
news:[email protected]...
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
>> worse state, and still call it a success
>> DFM>
>> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>> secure.
>> Welcome to reality
> A fine post.
You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above you
are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
Nov 30th 2006, 8:07 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
evleth pollution is intolerable !
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> a �crit dans le message de news:
C194DDC6.3EE10%[email protected]...
>> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
>> c.travel.europe
>> Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:04:32 -0800
>> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
>> worse state, and still call it a success
>> DFM>
>> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>> secure.
>> Welcome to reality
> Reality??????? Ohboyohboyohboy! How do you plan to insure a friendly Iraq
> government? Those guys are doing civil war these days, or haven't you
> heard?
> Yes, it would be nice to limit Saudi influence over oil, since that was
> where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. It would be even nicer to
> take
> steps to move away from dependence on oil, especially oil coming from
> politically unstable regions. I keep asking: why is there no equivalent
> to
> the Manhattan Project of World War II to develop alternative energies?
> Who are our new Central Asian friends? If you are thinking of the
> assorted
> dictatorships that inhabit that region, they are not friends, they are
> allies of convenience. The minute that convenience ends, they will bail
> out.
> Donna Evleth
>
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> a �crit dans le message de news:
C194DDC6.3EE10%[email protected]...
>> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
>> c.travel.europe
>> Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:04:32 -0800
>> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
>> worse state, and still call it a success
>> DFM>
>> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>> secure.
>> Welcome to reality
> Reality??????? Ohboyohboyohboy! How do you plan to insure a friendly Iraq
> government? Those guys are doing civil war these days, or haven't you
> heard?
> Yes, it would be nice to limit Saudi influence over oil, since that was
> where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. It would be even nicer to
> take
> steps to move away from dependence on oil, especially oil coming from
> politically unstable regions. I keep asking: why is there no equivalent
> to
> the Manhattan Project of World War II to develop alternative energies?
> Who are our new Central Asian friends? If you are thinking of the
> assorted
> dictatorships that inhabit that region, they are not friends, they are
> allies of convenience. The minute that convenience ends, they will bail
> out.
> Donna Evleth
>
Nov 30th 2006, 9:15 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>>> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
>>> worse state, and still call it a success
>>> DFM>
>>> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>>> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>>> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>>> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>>> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>>> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>>> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>>> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>>> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>>> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>>> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>>> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>>> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>>> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>>> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>>> secure.
>>> Welcome to reality
>> A fine post.
> You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above you
> are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat analysis
by PJ?
news:[email protected]...
> "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>>> <Now you have to figure out how to leave with the country in a much
>>> worse state, and still call it a success
>>> DFM>
>>> It would be stupid for us to "cut and run".
>>> We own Iraq, simpleton, and we're there for several reasons.
>>> One, we are there to insure that the Iraq government that ultimately
>>> comes to power is friendly to the U.S.
>>> Two, we are there to make sure Iraq's oil infrastructure gets on line
>>> so that, combined with the recently online Caspian Sea pipeline, the
>>> Saudi influence over OPEC will be diminished.
>>> Three, in case you missed it, with Afghanistan in the East, our new
>>> Central Asian friends in the North, Iraq in the West and the US Navy to
>>> the South, an unfriendly Iran is completely surrounded.
>>> Four, we are there to have a PERMANENT military foothold in a very
>>> unstable region of the world which unfortunately has an inordinate
>>> amount of the world's fuel - oil. Until we get a viable, alternative
>>> fuel source up and running, it is critical to the GLOBAL economy (not
>>> just the U.S.) that the world's second largest known oil field be
>>> secure.
>>> Welcome to reality
>> A fine post.
> You have to be ****ing joking, mate. If you believe any of the above you
> are a candidate for the same lunatic asylum that peejay resides in.
What is untrue about about it? Why are you so upset with this neat analysis
by PJ?
