RE: [ZION] Orson Scott Card on Iraq
I don't think it is right to kill for a better standard of living, either. I saw it as defending an ally, regardless of whether you agree on how Kuwait was established, or not. I also saw Saddam as a threat to the region, given his WOMD attacks on Iran, his killing of Kurds, his desire to be the new Saladin (emperor of the Muslim middle East), and the reality that we would not be able to quickly switch over to our own oil sources. High oil prices, whether they come from internal or external sources, affect our economy. I'm not for killing people to buoy up that economy, but I am for maintaining our allies in order to keep the USA economy (and also then, the world economy) running well. We killed a few thousand Iraqi troops. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people. We understood him to be ruthless, and knew he would use the power of oil fields in Kuwait (and his next goal, Saudi Arabia) to force the world into hand. If suddenly, millions of people in the USA and elsewhere were out of work, because oil got so costly that the economy collapsed into a major recession, would you THEN be interested in managing the problem? Whether you like it or not, John, we are in a global economy. Whether you like it or not, your pipe dream of being totally self-sufficient will not occur as long as there is a strong enough group of liberal tree huggers to keep us from developing our own sources. And whether you like it or not, we have a responsibility to peaceful allies. Whether you like it or not, we have to manage global events or risk having them manage us. For all those seeking to live in a Utopia (whether on the far right or left, or in between): it ain't here, yet. And as much as anyone dreams of building it, it isn't going to easily happen even if we save every tree or turn all of the grasslands and tundra into one giant oil field. We can't hide our heads like ostriches. We personally might not see the danger if we do, but our backsides are still out in the open. To try and bring our economy back to a US-only level would devastate our economy for decades. We might as well just give up and call ourselves a third world nation, because that's what would be left of us after we shrank our economy that much. And to try and get a single oil well built with all of the extreme environmental screaming is just a pipe dream. We would have to give up our SUVs, our air conditioners, and much of our economy, in order to reduce our thirst for oil that much. I don't see that as sensible. Attacking Iraq a decade ago was sensible. It was a clear threat to the region, and therefore, to global economies. Gary Smith John W. Redelfs wrote: Gerald Smith wrote: How about to defend an ally (Kuwait)? Also, how about to defend our oil interests? Those are two very important reasons to go into Iraq the first time, as well as the second time. Kuwait was not an ally. It was a client state that western oil money set up in the first place. And we have plenty of oil here at home for our legitimate needs. What would the economy of the USA been like over the past 10 years if Saddam had control of the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? He would have jacked the price up, forcing us into $3/gallon a decade ago. As it is, most of us grouse at paying above $1.50/gal right now. It would have stifled our economy, and enriched someone known to slaughter his enemies (foreign and domestic) WITH WMDs, and also spends money on many terrorist groups. $3/gallon is better than being dependent on imported oil. The only reason we are dependent on middle east oil is because we have become addicted to the cheap oil. I think we were well within reason to defend and ally and also our national security in both efforts. I guess we just have different priorities. I don't think it is OK to kill people to enjoy a little bit better standard of living when we already have one of the highest standards of living in the world. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your
RE: [ZION] Orson Scott Card on Iraq
How about to defend an ally (Kuwait)? Also, how about to defend our oil interests? Those are two very important reasons to go into Iraq the first time, as well as the second time. What would the economy of the USA been like over the past 10 years if Saddam had control of the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? He would have jacked the price up, forcing us into $3/gallon a decade ago. As it is, most of us grouse at paying above $1.50/gal right now. It would have stifled our economy, and enriched someone known to slaughter his enemies (foreign and domestic) WITH WMDs, and also spends money on many terrorist groups. I think we were well within reason to defend and ally and also our national security in both efforts. Gary John W. Redelfs wrote: Jim Cobabe wrote: John, what say you about this OSC editorial on Bush and Iraq? http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-01-25-1.html Orson Scott Card says that the war in Iraq is justified as an extension of the first Gulf War even if there were no weapons of mass destruction. I say that the first Gulf War was not justified because it was not on our own soil. I don't believe in invading foreign countries on a pretext. --JWR Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Orson Scott Card on Iraq
Gerald Smith wrote: How about to defend an ally (Kuwait)? Also, how about to defend our oil interests? Those are two very important reasons to go into Iraq the first time, as well as the second time. Kuwait was not an ally. It was a client state that western oil money set up in the first place. And we have plenty of oil here at home for our legitimate needs. What would the economy of the USA been like over the past 10 years if Saddam had control of the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? He would have jacked the price up, forcing us into $3/gallon a decade ago. As it is, most of us grouse at paying above $1.50/gal right now. It would have stifled our economy, and enriched someone known to slaughter his enemies (foreign and domestic) WITH WMDs, and also spends money on many terrorist groups. $3/gallon is better than being dependent on imported oil. The only reason we are dependent on middle east oil is because we have become addicted to the cheap oil. I think we were well within reason to defend and ally and also our national security in both efforts. I guess we just have different priorities. I don't think it is OK to kill people to enjoy a little bit better standard of living when we already have one of the highest standards of living in the world. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Orson Scott Card on Iraq
Let's see... In my neighborhood there is a little grocery store. We use it everyday for our necessities. The owner is nice enough. The employees are nice enough. We get along. The prices are acceptable. One day, I see a group of club wielding thugs walk towards the store with the intent of killing the owner and taking over the store. I personally have the sneaking suspicion that if the thugs take over, my prices will raise, not to mention the fact that the thugs are thugs, and if they own the store, their thuggery will probably simply escalate now that it has a better means of financing itself. Also, I never hated the original store owners. We got along. They were acceptable neighbors. So, the big question is whether or not me and my friends and our AK-47s feel like stepping in and confronting the club wielding thugs. Personally, I would hope that I would step in...especially when you consider that once the thugs are better financed, they probably will also buy AK-47s and stopping them will become much more difficult. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I have only praise for both Bush and Bush Sr. in this regard. How about to defend an ally (Kuwait)? Also, how about to defend our oil interests? Those are two very important reasons to go into Iraq the first time, as well as the second time. What would the economy of the USA been like over the past 10 years if Saddam had control of the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? He would have jacked the price up, forcing us into $3/gallon a decade ago. As it is, most of us grouse at paying above $1.50/gal right now. It would have stifled our economy, and enriched someone known to slaughter his enemies (foreign and domestic) WITH WMDs, and also spends money on many terrorist groups. I think we were well within reason to defend and ally and also our national security in both efforts. Gary John W. Redelfs wrote: Jim Cobabe wrote: John, what say you about this OSC editorial on Bush and Iraq? http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-01-25-1.html Orson Scott Card says that the war in Iraq is justified as an extension of the first Gulf War even if there were no weapons of mass destruction. I say that the first Gulf War was not justified because it was not on our own soil. I don't believe in invading foreign countries on a pretext. --JWR Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
