LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYeah but you're also a bunch of dicks that no one likes
Yeah but you're also a bunch of dicks that no one likes
Getting into American politics now, but I'd watch what happens to the demographics in the south-west and especially whether Mexico becomes a bigger player. Some very smart people think there's a chance they could make a dig at the US's unchallenged supremacy over the North American continent in the long, long term (we're talking 60-80 years here)Originally Posted by silentstriker
And FYI, Rome had rivals, from Carthage to Parthia to Persia (at different times).
America may not always remain the pre-eminent superpower but we have a large population but not so large as to strain natural resources, a lot more natural resources and habitable land than someone like China, and we are well situated far enough away from other major powers as to not worry about border issues (aside from Immigration type things).
Also comparing it to Rome is funny because I'll take a 1000 years thank you very much.
But otherwise you've basically just restated what I said before
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
IIRC their government is so fragmented they can't even get a hydrocarbon law up... there's not gonna be any wholesale taking of oil from Iraq for a long time.
Yea, which was totally evident when Obama visited.Yeah but you're also a bunch of dicks that no one likes
"The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
-My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with
How the Universe came from nothing
Sure, I am not saying it will always be pre-eminent, I'm just saying it will be 'eminent'Getting into American politics now, but I'd watch what happens to the demographics in the south-west and especially whether Mexico becomes a bigger player. Some very smart people think there's a chance they could make a dig at the US's unchallenged supremacy over the North American continent in the long, long term (we're talking 60-80 years here)
But otherwise you've basically just restated what I said before
I don't know if you are actually dumb enough to believe that the Iraq invasion was for freedom and democracy????
Can you please let us know what could be the possible motives for the Iraq invasion?
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
I never made any comments about freedom or democracy. I'm just calling you out on your statement about oil. I haven't seen any oil and it's cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives while getting no resources in return. If this was indeed an invasion for resources, where the hell are they and why haven't we taken them all? It'd be nice to get out of debt.
I know you guys want profits immediately but patience is a virtue. Capital expenditure always comes first. Read
"Iraq is worth owning, unlike Vietnam. I mean Eisenhower did contrive stories about the rubber and the tin and so forth but that was mostly for propaganda purposes. Vietnamese resources were not of that much significance. Iraq is totally different. It is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources pretty much unexplored, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. Now they are very easy to gain access to. The profits from that must flow primarily to the right pockets, that is, US and secondarily UK energy corporations. And controlling that resource puts the US in a very powerful position, even more powerful than today, to exert influence over the world."
from Noam Chomsky
On the War in Iraq, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David McNeill
Wait. There is more.
Now at first the US intended to run it like a pure colony. I mean the Bremer laws [named after former US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer] that were passed apart from being illegal were just grotesque. I mean they opened up the whole economy to foreign takeover. It was a joke: Iraqi businesses would not have been able to survive. Nothing.
Last edited by smalishah84; 05-12-2011 at 11:59 PM.
Apart from the WMD bilge which they astonishingly believed, the strongest reason was to replace Saddam with a regime much more conducive to their interests who would then act as a counterweight to Iran.
That they did the exact opposite just shows how appallingly incompetent their strategy was.
They why haven't they?
And the bolded part is wrong, so wrong it boggles the mind. Has he not heard of Africa?
Do you think they actually "believed" Iraq to have WMD. That was such a big farce. Please.
They sure as hell spent a lot of time pushing it to the world. It was a farce but that doesn't let them off the hook.
This isn't actually an argument, by the way.
Not to mention the oil arugment falls flat on its face when you look at this. Iraqi oil imports to the US have done a fine job of going sideways since the invasion.
it might well be that american estimates of getting oil off Iraq went horribly wrong but I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that there were other reasons for them invading Iraq.
What is not an argument? All I said was that the US invading Iraq was not for freedom and democracy and it sure as hell was not for WMD.
Oil seems like the most plausible alternative
It doesn't seem particularly plausible to me simply because 1. it hasn't happened and 2. there are very good reasons why the US wouldn't be interested in a smash-and-grab attempt at Iraqi oil, the biggest of which is that it's a long, long, long way away and far too close to Iran for it to be stable.
The geopolitical counter-Iran reason is more sensible... although that hasn't worked either.
Again, you haven't actually presented any arguments as to why they didn't honestly believe their WMD arguments.
Donald Rumsfeld was caught lying on TV a number of times regarding saying that he never said that there were WMDs in Iraq when he clearly did. Trying to back track on what he had said because he knew that the govt would be found out?
And if the WMDs were not there why was the US sitting in Iraq for such a long time? If the reason for the invasion was WMDs and they didn't find those then why not get the hell out of there? Simple. Because it was never about WMDs.
Last edited by smalishah84; 06-12-2011 at 12:59 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote