tired of the BS re: the war on terrorism

AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
I was/am shocked and horrified by 9/11, the London train attacks etc. BUT I am sick and tired of the BS spouted by Bush, Blair etc. Tell us that you are shocked and horrified, send your condolences to the victims' families, pray. But please do not insult the rest of the world by telling us nonsense like "we in Britain/the US/the West/the free world do not support using violence to achieve one's aims or change another nation." Exactly what were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if not that? Don't you think that an Iraqi being bombed feels the same as a Londoner or New Yorker being bombed? If you truly do not support using violence to solve problems, then disband your military.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


.png


534Pm5.png





Comments

  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    I believe either they think we're stupid or we are so terrified of the "mad mullah" terrorists that they can say any old hypocritical crap and we'll believe it.

    Sadly, the evidence that it's working is all around us.
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    wow, someone read my cyberspace rant! this is really bothering me! thanks for reading!
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    No problem. It's bothering the crap out of me, too!
  • starfishbluesstarfishblues Posts: 49Registered Users
    Amneris wrote:
    I was/am shocked and horrified by 9/11, the London train attacks etc. BUT I am sick and tired of the BS spouted by Bush, Blair etc. Tell us that you are shocked and horrified, send your condolences to the victims' families, pray. But please do not insult the rest of the world by telling us nonsense like "we in Britain/the US/the West/the free world do not support using violence to achieve one's aims or change another nation." Exactly what were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if not that? Don't you think that an Iraqi being bombed feels the same as a Londoner or New Yorker being bombed? If you truly do not support using violence to solve problems, then disband your military.

    i hear you, amneris. :) i think terrorism is more of a tactic than an idea. it's not like something like the cold war, which was based on ideology. these terrorist attacks are coming from several disparate groups in different regions...and using one tactic of violence to attack another is silly, if you ask me. the "war on terror" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me...the whole thing makes me very, very sad.
    3b/c, very fine, low porosity, average density
    co-wash: suave naturals or nature's gate
    shampoo: nature's gate 1x a week
    conditioner: pantene relaxed and natural or pantene nature's fusion
    leave-in: suave humectant
    styler: just a touch of fantasia IC sparklites gel

    hair loves honey, almond oil, jojoba oil, mayonaise treatments
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    The Anticipated Attack
    Don't blame Iraq for the bombings.
    By Christopher Hitchens
    Posted Thursday, July 7, 2005, at 10:39 AM PT



    My son flew in from London at the weekend, and we were discussing, as we have several times before, why it hadn't happened yet. "It" was the jihadist attack on the city, for which the British security forces have been braced ever since the bombings in Madrid. When the telephone rang in the small hours of this morning, I was pretty sure it was the call I had been waiting for. And as I snapped on the TV I could see, from the drawn expression and halting speech of Tony Blair, that he was reacting not so much with shock as from a sense of inevitability.

    Perhaps this partly explains the stoicism and insouciance of those Brits interviewed on the streets, all of whom seemed to know that a certain sang-froid was expected of them. The concrete barriers around the Houses of Parliament have been up for some time. There are estimated to be over 4 million surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom today, but of course it had to be the Underground—"the tube"—and the good old symbolic red London bus. Timed for the rush hour, and at transit stations that serve outlying and East London neighborhoods, the bombs are nearly certain to have killed a number of British Muslims. None of this, of course, has stopped George Galloway and his ilk from rushing to the microphone and demanding that the British people be removed "from harm's way" by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (Since the Islamists also demand a withdrawal from Afghanistan, it surprises me that he doesn't oblige them in this way as well, but perhaps that will come in time.)

    Looking for possible timings or pretexts, one of course comes up against the meeting of the G8 powers in Edinburgh and perhaps the imminent British spot in the rotating chair of the European Union. (It can't have been the Olympic announcement on such short notice, but the contrast with the happy, multiethnic crowds in Trafalgar Square yesterday could hardly be starker, and it certainly wasn't enough to get the murderers to call it off.) Another possibility is the impending trial of Abu Hamza al Mazri, a one-eyed and hook-handed mullah who isn't as nice as he looks and who preaches Bin-Ladenism from a shabby mosque in North London. He is currently awaiting extradition to the United States, and his supporters might have wanted to make a loving gesture in his favor.

    This would mean that the cell or gang was homegrown, rather than smuggled in from North Africa or elsewhere. Or it could mean coordination between the two. In any event, there are two considerations here. The first is Britain's role as a leading member of the "Coalition" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is its role as a host to a large and growing Muslim minority. The first British citizens to be killed in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban, which is proof in itself that the Iraq war is not the original motivating force. Last year, two British Muslims pulled off a suicide attack at an Israeli beach resort. In many British cities, there are now demands for sexual segregation in schools and for separate sharia courts to try Muslim defendants. The electoral strength of Muslims is great enough to encourage pandering from all three parties: The most egregious pandering of all has come from Blair himself, who has introduced a bill that would criminalize incitement to hatred on the ground of religion.*

    During the last election the Conservatives, who have chosen to go soft on the Iraq war, mutated their lost hawkishness into a campaign against "illegal immigrants" and "bogus asylum seekers"—easy code words for an enemy within. So, there is another form of pandering at work as well. In the main, though, London is a highly successful and thriving melting pot, and I would be very much surprised as well as appalled if there were any vengeance pursued against individual Muslims or mosques.

    Older Londoners are of course raised on memories of the Nazi blitzkrieg, and a younger generation remembers living through a long campaign of bombings by the Provisional IRA. This latest challenge is far more insidious, however, because the ambitions of the killers are non-negotiable, and because their methods so exactly match their aims. It will be easy in the short term for Blair to rally national and international support, as always happens in moments such as this, but over time these gestural moments lose their force and become subject to diminishing returns. If, as one must suspect, these bombs are only the first, then Britain will start to undergo the same tensions—between a retreat to insularity and clannishness of the sort recently seen in France and Holland, and the self-segregation of the Muslim minority in both those countries—that will start to infect other European countries as well. It is ludicrous to try and reduce this to Iraq. Europe is steadily becoming a part of the civil war that is roiling the Islamic world, and it will require all our cultural ingenuity to ensure that the criminals who shattered London's peace at rush hour this morning are not the ones who dictate the pace and rhythm of events from now on.

    Correction, July 8, 2005: This piece originally and incorrectly claimed that Prime Minister Tony Blair had promised legislation that would outlaw speech that could be construed as offensive to Islam and that this represented an extension of Britain's blasphemy law. The government has introduced a bill that would criminalize incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion; this is an extension of a law that prohibits incitement to hatred on racial grounds and is unrelated to Britain's blasphemy law. Return to the corrected sentence
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    Scarlet, what are your thoughts?
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    It seems the London terrorists are/were British-born Pakistanis from Leeds. It also appears the bus bomber was not the only suicide bomber:

    Britain's first suicide-bombing?
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I'll give my thoughts, but they probably won't be popular! :wink:

    I think that the war in Iraq is an excuse for what we see happening. Strikes have been going on for a long time: Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, WTC 1993 attack, marine barracks boming in 1983, 9/11....

    Iraq is an unpopular war, so it's easy to blame the terror attacks on the coalition presence. However, what we're dealing with are - to use a phrase popular in some segments of the media - "Islamic fascists". We are the infidels who deserve to die. OF COURSE, all Muslims do not fall into this category, but those who do are incredibly dangerous to our existence.
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Why are they killing us?

    Posted: July 13, 2005
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    © 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.


    Who carried out the London massacre, we do not know. But, as to why they did it, we are already quarreling.

    President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."

    "Many terrorists who kill ... on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

    Bush was echoed by Sen. John McCain. Those terrorists in Iraq, McCain told Larry King, "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win." We fight the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.

    But is this true?

    Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide-bombers than Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism." His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004. Conclusion: The claim that 9-11 and the suicide-bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.


    "Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells the American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

    But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:


    uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.


    The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

    Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled ... Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

    Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

    The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

    Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide-bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide-bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.

    "Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies ... is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."

    What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV" – our invading Islamic countries to overthrow regimes and convert them into democracies – is suicidal, like stomping on an anthill so as not to be bitten by ants. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Islamic lands that is the progenitor of suicide terrorism.

    Bush's cure for terrorism is a cause of the epidemic. The doctor is spreading the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. So Pape says the data proves. This is the precise opposite of what George Bush argues and believes.

    How would we defend our vital interests in the Gulf?

    Answers Pape: As we did in the 1970s and 1980s. By getting our troops out, removing the cause of suicide-terror, leaving behind stocked bases and putting U.S. carrier and air forces over the horizon to ensure the Gulf oil flows. But unless and until American troops are withdrawn from the Middle East, the suicide attacks continue.




    Guess who wrote this. Patrick J. Buchanan!

    I don't agree, but I thought it was interesting.
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    Scarlet wrote:
    I'll give my thoughts, but they probably won't be popular! :wink:

    I think that the war in Iraq is an excuse for what we see happening. Strikes have been going on for a long time: Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, WTC 1993 attack, marine barracks boming in 1983, 9/11....

    Iraq is an unpopular war, so it's easy to blame the terror attacks on the coalition presence. However, what we're dealing with are - to use a phrase popular in some segments of the media - "Islamic fascists". We are the infidels who deserve to die. OF COURSE, all Muslims do not fall into this category, but those who do are incredibly dangerous to our existence.

    I completely agree with you as to the reason (partly) the coalition went into Iraq. I don't believe for one minute the action of the extremists are a result of our presence in Iraq. I was very very exposed by the media to the "mad mullah" phenomenon from all those attacks long before 9/11.

    I guess the point we're making is, wrong move with Iraq! And, how is going to war (unnecessarily) with Iraq solving the problem? War is killing, and in this particular case, how are we any better than the terrorists?

    Also my personal take is... Where the eff is Osama? I personally think if he's alive, he's in or around Pakistan.

    Is Osama even worth bothering with? Seems to me this is a Movement, so how do we fight it?

    I don't claim to have the answers, and I feel very frustrated by this matter.
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    I don't think the war in Iraq is the reason (there were plenty of wars before it for one thing) but I think that in going to war there, we are essentially stooping to their level, and no one can win.
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    Scarlet wrote:
    This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?

    No - but I also don't think Dubya is good for the US and should not remain in power, so should that start a war too?

    And if the Conservatives win in Canada, I'll think the same of them.
    I think the same of the Chinese goevernment and the list could go on and on. Believe it or not, Saddam was not the worst that there is. Saudia Arabia is barely any better, and we're buddy-buddy with them.
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Amneris wrote:
    Scarlet wrote:
    This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?

    No - but I also don't think Dubya is good for the US and should not remain in power, so should that start a war too?

    Elected president vs. dictator
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Scarlet wrote:
    Amneris wrote:
    Scarlet wrote:
    This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?

    No - but I also don't think Dubya is good for the US and should not remain in power, so should that start a war too?

    Elected president vs. dictator

    a dictator has to be supported by some group of people to get (and stay) there for any extended period of time.....

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • FidoGwenFidoGwen Posts: 92Registered Users
    It doesn't take as much as one would think . . . .
    I'm a 2something/3something. Started modified CG routine on 6/6/05
    Cut more than ten inches from my BSL hair on 8-10-05 and growing it long again
    But we're STILL adjusting. ;-)
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    How does it make more sense to spend BILLIONS on removing a dictatorship when that money could have gone into a real global anti-terrorist plan? What happened to post-9/11 self-preservation?

    Spending BILLIONS to oust Saddam only makes sense if he was a threat to the West, but that has not been proven, so now we're back to the "freeing the people of Iraq" argument.

    It doesn't add up, and we all know it doesn't even though some of us keep trying to rationalize it.
  • MyradelleMyradelle Posts: 26Registered Users
    Scarlet wrote:
    This has probably been asked before (probably by me), but do you think SH was good for Iraq and should've remained in power?

    If removing a dictator who was killing his own people was the reason for the war, should we go into the Sudan next?
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    But, but... Sudan has no oil :? Whatever else they had was taken by the French a long time ago.
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    Oh wait... I just checked, Sudan does have oil! :D

    It's totally worth going in there:

    Peaceful Sudan set to be a major oil producer
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    Cherish wrote:
    Oh wait... I just checked, Sudan does have oil! :D

    It's totally worth going in there:

    Peaceful Sudan set to be a major oil producer

    Bring on the bombs!!!!!
    What about Castro... is he OK because all Cuba has is cigars, coffee, rum and some cheesy pop music with awesome beats?
    What about China? What can we get from them?
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    Amneris wrote:
    Cherish wrote:
    Oh wait... I just checked, Sudan does have oil! :D

    It's totally worth going in there:

    Peaceful Sudan set to be a major oil producer

    Bring on the bombs!!!!!
    What about Castro... is he OK because all Cuba has is cigars, coffee, rum and some cheesy pop music with awesome beats?
    What about China? What can we get from them?

    Hee hee! :twisted: :twisted:
  • CostenyaCostenya Posts: 520Registered Users
    Oh, boy. I just realized there was a politic section on nc.com. Not good. I don't need another excuse to procrastinate. :lol:

    "Peaceful Sudan?" Is this article a joke? Has anyone heard of the genocide going on in Dafur?

    Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
    ___________________________________________________________

    July 20, 2005
    Joined at the Hip
    By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


    On the question of whether China's Cnooc oil company should be permitted by the U.S. government to purchase the U.S. oil and gas company Unocal, my view is very simple: let the market rule. Oil is fungible. It is all one global market. And if China wants to overpay for a second-tier U.S. energy company, that's China's business. Anyway, the more starved Americans are for oil, the sooner we will adopt alternatives and get off this drug once and for all.

    If I seem uninterested in this matter, I am. Because I do not think the important issue is who owns Unocal. The important issue is whether America and China are drifting into a dangerous confrontation over geoeconomics. How so? Well, in brief, the Chinese and U.S. economies have become totally intertwined. While we have been focused on 9/11 and Iraq, China and America have become, in economic terms, Siamese twins.

    You know that cheap mortgage you just got? Well, who do you think subsidized it? In many ways it was China. Americans don't save anymore, and import more than they export. Normally, a nation that did that as long and lavishly as the U.S. has would have to raise interest rates to get other countries to hold its currency. But America has not had to do that, in part because China has been willing to hold most of the dollars it has been accumulating - gained from all the goods it is selling America - despite the low interest paid on those dollars and the fact that they have been depreciating against other major currencies.

    How come? Call it the Tiananmen-Texas Bargain. After Tiananmen, China's leaders struck an implicit bargain with their people, argued Steven Weber, director of Berkeley's Institute of International Studies. "The bargain is that China's voters give up the right to vote, and the Chinese government guarantees China's middle class 9 percent annual economic growth. China's political stability today depends on that bargain."

    The Texas side of that bargain came from the Bush team. For a long time, it ignored China's undervalued currency so China could sell us lots of cheap stuff and would continue holding our devaluing dollars and helping to keep U.S. interest rates low. Our buying binge helped keep China's workers employed and its leaders in power. Their holding our depreciating dollars helped you buy a house with no money down. We've been in symbiotic relationships like this before with Western Europe and Japan during the cold war, but they were allies and democracies, so we could adjust imbalances more easily. Not so with China.

    We are Siamese twins, but most unlikely ones - joined at the hip, but not identical. That's a problem. Because we now need to adjust the Tiananmen-Texas bargain. So many U.S. dollars and jobs are flowing to China, it is becoming politically and economically unsustainable for the Bush team. Hedge funds have made huge speculative bets around the T-T bargain. We need China to revalue its currency upward against the dollar, so China buys more stuff from us and we buy less stuff from China.

    But China's foreign exchange reserves today are nearly $750 billion and heading for $1 trillion - most in U.S. Treasury notes. If China is compelled by the U.S. to revalue its currency, and effectively devalue the dollar further, Beijing will take a big hit on all of its dollar reserves - especially since most experts say the dollar has to be devalued by 30 to 40 percent against the Chinese currency to have any impact on the trade balance. That would also be likely to affect the dollar's value against other currencies and create pressure for inflation and higher interest rates in the U.S.

    "If the dollar falls and U.S. interest rates rise, it could cause a recession or stagflation in America," Professor Weber said. "But if the Chinese currency rises too far too fast and triggers unemployment, it could cause a revolution against the Communist Party. ... We might see our dollar policy as a market adjustment, but they could see it as an attempt at regime change."

    As I said, the issue is not Unocal. The real issue is that we have slipped into a symbiotic relationship with another major power that is neither a free market nor a democracy. We have both grown dependent on that relationship - the U.S. for cheap goods and cheap mortgages, and China for high employment and regime stability. We now have to adjust the bargain at the heart of that relationship. Whether we can do that delicately, without destabilizing Beijing or the global economy, could be the big geopolitical story of 2005.



    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    "Anyway, the more starved Americans are for oil, the sooner we will adopt alternatives and get off this drug once and for all"

    I'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Friedman on this one. We should have been seriously developing alternate fuel sources in the 1970s. If we haven't done it by now, we never will.
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Costenya wrote:

    Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
    ___________________________________________________________

    I agree with you Costenya. As the saying around here goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch! :wink:

    I also personally believe China could kick our butts if they wanted to, and I also believe that their sheer numbers are the reason. If they didn't have that strength we probably would have "occupied" that country long ago.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    curlyara wrote:
    Costenya wrote:

    Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
    ___________________________________________________________

    I agree with you Costenya. As the saying around here goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch! :wink:

    I also personally believe China could kick our butts if they wanted to, and I also believe that their sheer numbers are the reason. If they didn't have that strength we probably would have "occupied" that country long ago.

    On what is this perception based?
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    I was only half kidding around about oil in this thread as well. Yeah... I do really think that oil is part of it so for future reference:

    Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil
    The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.


    Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
    Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

    In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

    "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

    Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.


    We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming
    Mr Falah Aljibury
    An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

    Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

    Secret sell-off plan

    The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.


    Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
    The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

    Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

    Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

    "Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

    "We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

    Privatisation blocked by industry

    Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

    Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."


    Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
    Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

    He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

    Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

    New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

    Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

    View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

    Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

    Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

    The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

    A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

    Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.

    Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK.

    You can also watch the programme online - available for 24 hours after broadcast - from the Newsnight website

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm[/quote]
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Scarlet wrote:
    curlyara wrote:
    Costenya wrote:

    Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
    ___________________________________________________________

    I agree with you Costenya. As the saying around here goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch! :wink:

    I also personally believe China could kick our butts if they wanted to, and I also believe that their sheer numbers are the reason. If they didn't have that strength we probably would have "occupied" that country long ago.

    On what is this perception based?

    if you're asking why i believe China could kick our butts....i bolded why i think this. the cold war was all about communism and long ago china was (and still is communist). from studying the history of the cold war, we were only working our way around to invading china to kill the communist threat anyway.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • ManthaJayManthaJay Posts: 32Registered Users
    What disgusts me the most about the administration is the way they use fear to justify their agenda. The war was definitely about the oil and the billions of dollars in post war contracts awarded to American companies. The 'spread of democracy' is only supposed to give us another ally to extort for oil, and terrorism made a convenient excuse for Bush to justify his war to the American people. If Sept. 11th hadn't happened, he NEVER would have been able to sell this war. If he was truly noble about freeing the Iraqi people, why isn't he taking an active interest in every oppressed nation in the world.

    As for China, we won't even have technological superiority the way things are going, given the fact that the US educates a significant percentage of their scientists. For example, the incoming class of graduate Materials Engineers here at UF is almost 50% Chinese, and I know such percentages exist in most other engineering departments here, and at other schools. Americans just aren't producing engineers in the quantities that the Chinese are, and we can't argue about our better educational system since its our educational system educating a significant portion of their engineers. Its extremely depressing...maybe 10% of this class is American.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file