I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky
I was against both the first and second war.
The gun control crusade today is like the Prohibition crusade 100 years ago. It is a shared zealotry that binds the self-righteous know-it-alls in a warm fellowship of those who see themselves as fighting on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. It is a lofty role that they are not about to give up for anything so mundane as facts-- or even the lives of other people. ~ Thomas Sowell
In my opinion, it was merely a form of "job creation" by elected representatives who have no real solutions to our modern social dilemmas because they can't seem to bear true witness to our own laws, simply and merely due to a lack of a morals test and a drug test, at the same time.
Last edited by danielpalos; Jun 09 2012 at 07:31 AM.
I would agree with this assessment. The Iraq invasion and occupation may also have been- see what the public reaction is so we can do the same to Syria and Iran- more or less what you said in your last sentence.
The U.S. has a significant interest now, by way of the contracts won by Exxon-Mobil to exploit the oil in the southern region of Iraq. 80% of the oil in the south is covered by the contracts with Exxon-Mobil.
Previously, the U.S. oil Corporations were shut out of Iraq, throughout the years from 1973 to 2003.
So they have done quite well out of the mass murdering antics of the U.S. Administration, though not as well as they had hoped for.
The U.S. had hoped to steal most of the oil in Iraq.
It was hoped Iraq would privatise all its oil, and that U.S. Corporations would get all of it, but in the end the Iraqi Parliament is determined Iraq should hold on to its oil, and the contracts mean that any foreign Companies will have to buy the oil from Iraq,in order to be allowed to extract the oil and resell it.
Secondly, the Bush gang hadn't anticipated that Chinese, Russian, and other non-American Companies would win many of the contracts, which is what has happened.
So the U.S. agenda has been foiled, to a very large extent
On the point you raised that the U.S. receives little of its oil from Iraq, you are missing the point, which is that the U.S. oil Corporations sell oil all over the world, and not just in the U.S.A.
The market for oil is global. Americans are not the only people in the world who use oil, and any Corporation which can sell the black gold worldwide (and not just stateside) can get rich on it.
The U.S. stateside market is only part of the story.
I have just replied to your post, but my reply, too long to reproduce here, is on page 3.
I am new to this game of blogging.
I have just replied to yr post, but my reply appears on page 3 ; --near the bottom of page 3.
I am new to this blogging.
Bush attacked Saddam Hussien out of purely ideological reasons and a way to finally end the decade long brushfire war and no-fly zones once and for all.
Over reach? Absolutely. Mistake? Yes.
But to say that we engaged in that war for petty reasons like oil is ridiculous.
You don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about what "Bush and his Gang" were thinking. Because I've read all 3 of Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" books and he WAS in the rooms with those people and at no time was any of your wild conspiracy theories mentioned.
Go read some real (*)(*)(*)(*)ing journalism.
Last edited by SiliconMagician; Jun 09 2012 at 09:31 PM.