> ! Bob, do you really believe the US never intervened in other > countries ! for economic interests? > > Who said that? Not I. > Clearly it is in our economic interest to have a regime in > Iraq that isn't pro-terror, anti-United States, with > delusions of being the next Nebuchadnezzar.
Talk about delusions - you're off in the stratosphere! You really have no concept of how the people in Iraq feel about that invasion and occupation that's destroyed their country and mountains of their loved ones. What's the plan, to trot out a handful of winners and parade them around and around ten million times as "proof" of how we're so loved by the Iraqi's? What's the thinking there - that it's been a giant snake-oil sales job all along, so why stop now? > It is moreover in > our economic interest to ensure that long-term, all despotic > regimes in the middle east are toppled and/or otherwise > replaced by democratically elected governments and control of > the education of the Arab "man in the street" is wrested from > the hate-filled religious fanatics who fund and breed fodder > for Al Qaeda. Once again, you have it completely backwards. You don't change hearts and minds by blowing Dad's brains all over the kitchen wall. Don't you have even a clue of how those people feel? You talk about hate-filled religious fanatics as if that's the exclusive providence of the other side. How about interviewing some Palestinians to see if there's any hate-filled religious fanaticism going on there? And how about checking to see if any of the same mentality is at work behind the Iraq invasion? > That hasn't always been so, sadly. We have funded those > regimes and propped them or indirectly allowed them to be > propped up for the sake of "cheap oil" and our policy in Iraq > has them all more or less shaking their boots and flipping > out. This notion that our economic interests were served > better by dictators with a heavy hand rather than free > societies is what has changed in our outlook since 9/11. > > I would like to point out that the claim that we invaded for > cheap oil was precisely backward. It was for the sake of > cheap oil that we never cleaned that rats nest in the first > place. Now that oil is a bit more expensive maybe the lunacy > of that argument can be shown for what it always was. The > people who were fighting for cheap oil were the people who > fought against us and still seem to think the world would be > a better place with Saddam in power. Here we go with the plays-with-words. Nobody ever claimed we invaded for cheap oil. You're making this stuff up as you go along! The claim was that Big Oil was in it for profit, and in case you haven't checked, they have exceeded their wildest expectations. Cheap oil fueled this country's growth for many years, but actuary-types knew that chapter was coming to a close long ago. But instead of doing the right thing, shifting away from oil as an energy resource, Big Oil influence in gov't kept the status quo long after it's day had come, and now we have to (a) pay through the nose for oil, and (b) are going to spend a long time without the energy source we need for inexpensive travel, to say the least. We're standing at the edge of the effect this will have on our society. Now the trips that kept families that had spread out together will be further and fewer between, and that has a decidedly negative affect on families that will be realized more and more over time. We've been hosed big time by big oil and their stooges planted in gov't, and we will not be able to correct this situation easily or anytime soon. > For France and certain elements in other European countries, > it was in their economic interest to keep Saddam in place and > eventually to get the sanctions lifted for Chirac's buddy. I > don't begrudge them their rational self-interest, but I note > sadly that in light of their unseamly involvment in the > oil-for-food scandal, none of our armchair patriots here seem > the least offended that what really lie beneath their > opposition to our military engagement was little more than > kickbacks and bribes, not the lofty principles articulated by > that fraud de Villepin in his passionate knife-in-the-back of > Colin Powell at the UN. It was the neocons who gave Colin Powell the knife-in-the-back at the UN. > The higher gas prices that have resulted were not in our > short term economic interests, and hence were contrary to the > short term political interests of the Republican party and > President Bush. They have exacted their toll, and may give > power back to the Democrats in November. But if we stay the > course, long term the ME will be a better place because we > took action that in the big scheme of things will redound to > the positive, though that doesn't mean nothing negative can > or will happen. The only people being silly right now in > terms of expectations are the naysayers whose pettiness today > is really quite shocking. > Will there be more terrorst attacks? Of course. This is > because there will always be bad people. But will mullahs be > ruling the ME the next 100 years? That now is in jeopardy if > democracy in ME takes hold. If the mullahs lose power, then > civilization has a chance in that part of the world, and the > civilizing affects thereof will do more to eliminate > terrorism than all the bombs and kumbayas of both extremes of > our political process combined. Pure gobblygook. Bob, I don't know where you get all the time to promote these loonie-tunes thoughts. I, for one, simply don't have the kind of time it takes to react to these promotionals. If you're betting on the wear-em-down strategy working again, I'm sincerely hoping people have more sense. Bill > - Bob > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
