I am young, but that was a couple years ago. I'm not 5 haha. Yes I remember the speculation during that time about the war being oil driven. Like I said in the beginning of this thread, no one was prepared to go to war over oil when it was 1.40 a gallon or so. This only goes in line with what I already said, so im not sure what your point is? You asked " But do you think America would invade Iraq solely for their oil reserve because it somehow anticipated the oil price would spike up to $145 and Americans would suffer as a result? " and my answer is yes and no. I don't think of it as in that specific of terms. It could be, but I see it more as a stabilization of an area of the world that is very important to us now, and judging by crudes behavior of late, may be VERY VERY important to us in the future. You may also me right about regime change. I don't know, and I don't pretend to, but how does that not go in line with what I said? I really don't see where you are refuting me to be honest. Everything you said is entirely possible and true, yet doesn't refute my hypothesis.
Are you willing to say then that it is possible to justify Osama bin Laden's hatred for the United States and that 9/11 was a moral and righteous action on his part? You keep saying you are young. Maybe that explains your attitude but I also see a leaning towards the more morally ambiguous in many of my generation and those younger. Such a stance, however, is a cop-out. You define yourself and by extension the world around you by your choices. By saying and resigning yourself to the idea that that's simply how the world is you are supporting that kind of world. Here's another kind of truth which you can choose to believe or disbelieve: what goes around comes around.
Its not a cop out. It could be, and maybe some people use it as one, but not for me. It's simply the way of the world. I'm sure Bin Laden has some way of justifying his actions. I can't imagine how, but he wouldnt have done it otherwise. Hitler surely could justify his horrible actions, how else could he have gotten nations to fall in line with him? Right and Wrong are ambiguous. Thats just how it is. In one of the schools I went to everybody who was not a baptist was going to hell, without exceptions. It didnt matter how good of a person you were, if you didnt believe what they believed you were bound for an eternity of agony. Were they right or wrong? Why? Were the christian crusaders right when the slaughtered woman and children for not being christian? I could go on and on. You seem to be implying that I am okay with all behavior because morality it ambiguous. I'm not. The world we live in is a hard one. Im simply recognizing that the world is sometimes and all too often, them or us. If there isnt enough oil to go around who gets it? the US? Is that right? Its not if your china, or india, but we have the military to ensure that we have enough for our country. Thats the world we live in. Peace is only here because we have the biggest stick.
I have a much simpler explanation. 1) First gulf war ends with a cease fire "contract" saying if Sadam does X we will stop fighting and let him stay in power. 2) Sadam doesn't do X. Trying to make Sadam do X peacefully or through pinprick strikes or with sanctions that hurt the people more than his govt doesn't work. 3) We start (or resume or escalate depending on your perspective) war to remove Sadam for violating terms of contract with the US. Otherwise future contracts with the US are meaningless, and the US takes a step away from being a superpower. Suspected WMD, real evidence that Sadam is a bad guy, and desire for friendly democracy in the middle east help make the case but are not the root cause. 4) We stay and suffer casualties and spend lots of money after removing Sadam b/c administration believes a healthier and more stable Iraq is possible and worth the cost for lots of reasons. Lots of other countries would have left it to the Iraquis to sort out on their own much earlier.
jobig04, "Peace is only here because we have the biggest stick." Well, a big stick can keep you safe, but when you keep hitting others with it - you are going to have a reaction. If you destroy everything around you - you essentially die yourself. The world is a hard place, but longevity comes from being able to adapt to the environment - i.e the universe - and not destroying it. The Romans had a fantastic military - but still crumbled. It's not about the stick, you see... If you make everything around you grow with you, isn't that a good thing?
How about: - Peak oil theory is correct. - Radicals Islamists pose threat to oil producers. - Oil producers privately enourage U.S. to protect them. Then: - 9/11 occurs. - Oil producers privately push the U.S. to protect them and use 9/11 as the rationale to establish a base to "stabilize" the region.
The US has been involved in toppling more than 50 democracies in the last century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy US School of Americas - teaching torture, interrogation etc. - just look up the "US interrogation manuals" for the region, pretty horrific stuff... Donald Rumsfeld had a blooming career involved in Latin America conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1zZNbqi53o (2 minutes trailer) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5L1VdlktOw (US School of Americas in Georgia) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8028007074233952313 (92 minutes) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aW0HtBbsP0qU http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/international/americas/19rumsfeld.html Predatory states: Operation Condor and covert war in Latin America http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0742536874
I think Iraq only happen because the troops were already there . This is where Clinton sat idle for 8 years. Clinton toyed around with Saddam for 8 years when he should have closed the deal and brought the troops home. Another case of open ended objectives. There is no way Bush could have justified sending a 150,000 troop buildup if we had to ship all from the states. Had Clinton brought the troops home from Saudi Arabia would 9/11 happened? After 9/11 you have less flexibilty with the 150,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. You keep them in Saudi Arabia ,but for what reason. You do want them out because they do flame and give cause to terrorist. You move all to Afghanistan, but at the time you are still containing Iraq. And Afghanistan really did not require that many troops, remember we had Nato and the Northern allience fighting. Or you bring them home. Now that may look like weakness, Binliden would declear victory.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/torture/ The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture: http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_archives The "terror archives" listed 50,000 people murdered, 30,000 people disappeared and 400,000 people imprisoned. Torture, American Style: http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/resources/torture/torture.pdf Probably the one area of the world where the U.S. government has most engaged in the use of torture is Latin America. Torture was integral to U.S. foreign policy in Latin America... The infamous School of the Americas trained key Latin American military of- ficers and troops, some of whom ushered in the brutal military dictatorships that presided over their countries from the 1960s to the 1990s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_and_CIA_interrogation_manuals Techniques discussed in School of Americas training manuals, 1987-1991: ⢠Motivation by fear ⢠Payment of bounties for enemy dead ⢠False imprisonment ⢠Use of truth serum ⢠Torture ⢠Execution ⢠Extortion ⢠Kidnapping and arresting a targetâs family members The second manual, "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983," was used in at least seven U.S. training courses conducted in Latin American countries, including Honduras, between 1982 and 1987. According to a declassified 1989 report prepared for the Senate intelligence committee, the 1983 manual was developed from notes of a CIA interrogation course in Honduras. Both manuals deal exclusively with interrogation. Both manuals have an entire chapter devoted to "coercive techniques." These manuals recommend arresting suspects early in the morning by surprise, blindfolding them, and stripping them naked. Suspects should be held incommunicado and should be deprived of any kind of normal routine in eating and sleeping. Interrogation rooms should be windowless, soundproof, dark and without toilets. The manuals advise that torture techniques can backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than pain itself. The manuals describe coercive techniques to be used "to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist." These techniques include prolonged constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture, deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting routines, solitary confinement, threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs or placebos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5L1VdlktOw (US School of Americas , 5 minutes) The old US techniques for Latin America described sound familiar to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, don't they? So... How proud are you of the Iraq war, and the US history on destabilization? Your primary motivation is fear - and don't you ever forget how you are controlled. Conflict in Georgia, US strikes in Pakistan - all part of the same doctrine.