McCain - War for Oil - Page 4

StarryStarrySkies · #31 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catawba

Using peoples fear to get votes is one thing. Using peoples fear to bring about the deaths of 4,000 of our own troops and 100,000 Iraqi deaths is quite another. Only one of our candidates supported the war before it started and continues to support the war today. That is a pretty clear distinction between the candidates.

Absolutely but it isn't necessarily true that they used fear to declare war. Probably to maintain the war but probably not to begin it.

The problem with what to do with it is extremely complex. McCain is very very smart. He doesn't want to pull out because it would diminish our influence there because we would no longer have power there. It would also diminish our influence and credibility elsewhere because we would have acknowledged that we were wrong and that we pursued the war even though we knew we were wrong, then gave up the cause. This, as an alternative to waiting it out while tryng to really fix the problem, that is ensuring the democratic government can sustain itself.

What is really interesting is that Iraq actually gave us the opportunity to get out while still maintaining our dignity. They pronounced that they were ready and willing to sustain themselves without or help when we tried to negotiate a plan to keep our men there and keep control over their airspace. We didn't take it, though - proof to me that we are very much interested in staying there to exert our influence and control.

catawba · #32 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarryStarrySkies

Absolutely but it isn't necessarily true that they used fear to declare war. Probably to maintain the war but probably not to begin it.

The problem with what to do with it is extremely complex. McCain is very very smart. He doesn't want to pull out because it would diminish our influence there because we would no longer have power there. It would also diminish our influence and credibility elsewhere because we would have acknowledged that we were wrong and that we pursued the war even though we knew we were wrong, then gave up the cause. This, as an alternative to waiting it out while tryng to really fix the problem, that is ensuring the democratic government can sustain itself.

What is really interesting is that Iraq actually gave us the opportunity to get out while still maintaining our dignity. They pronounced that they were ready and willing to sustain themselves without or help when we tried to negotiate a plan to keep our men there and keep control over their airspace. We didn't take it, though - proof to me that we are very much interested in staying there to exert our influence and control.

In your post I see much on which we agree. I do think Saddam used the threat of WMD,s to keep his regional enemies, including Iran, at bay. However, knowing the effect of 10 years of sanctions and our massive bombing during the Gulf war, and the reports by the U.N. inspectors that determined there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD. Being aware of all that myself as a mere citizen, it is impossible for me to buy that with all of the intel capabilities available to the administration, that they could come up with the notion that the crippled Iraq was any threat to the U.S. Since my theory has been borne out by the absolute lack of any WMD's, the only logical answer in many people's minds, is this administration used the false threat of WMD's to scare the public and Congress into endorsing the invasion of Iraq. As far as staying and continuing to kill and be killed to basically save face for our bad decision makes no sense to me. This is borne out by your last point.

In your last point we are in agreement again. We did not accept our opportunity to save face. Since the government we aided in setting up there is not representative of the Iraqi people, it will fall as soon as we leave, whether that is next year or ten years from now. But since our administration has no real plan B for an energy program, they plan to keep our troops there "100 years," as McCain let slip, or until their oil runs out, whichever comes first I would wager. Our thinking is indeed very close on the war it seems to me.

GovernmentCheese · #33 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catawba

In your post I see much on which we agree. I do think Saddam used the threat of WMD,s to keep his regional enemies, including Iran, at bay. However, knowing the effect of 10 years of sanctions and our massive bombing during the Gulf war, and the reports by the U.N. inspectors that determined there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD.

Maybe if you consider the UN Oil for Food fiasco it will make sense. I mean you are presenting that members of the UN could NEVER be over-powered by greed.

catawba · #34 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GovernmentCheese

Maybe if you consider the UN Oil for Food fiasco it will make sense. I mean you are presenting that members of the UN could NEVER be over-powered by greed.

Everyone is subject to the influence of greed and fear. In the case of the Iraq war however, it appears that the right wing fear mongers in charge of our government were under the greatest influence of the former and biggest wielders of the latter.

StarryStarrySkies · #35 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catawba

In your post I see much on which we agree. I do think Saddam used the threat of WMD,s to keep his regional enemies, including Iran, at bay. However, knowing the effect of 10 years of sanctions and our massive bombing during the Gulf war, and the reports by the U.N. inspectors that determined there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD. Being aware of all that myself as a mere citizen, it is impossible for me to buy that with all of the intel capabilities available to the administration, that they could come up with the notion that the crippled Iraq was any threat to the U.S. Since my theory has been borne out by the absolute lack of any WMD's, the only logical answer in many people's minds, is this administration used the false threat of WMD's to scare the public and Congress into endorsing the invasion of Iraq. As far as staying and continuing to kill and be killed to basically save face for our bad decision makes no sense to me. This is borne out by your last point.

In your last point we are in agreement again. We did not accept our opportunity to save face. Since the government we aided in setting up there is not representative of the Iraqi people, it will fall as soon as we leave, whether that is next year or ten years from now. But since our administration has no real plan B for an energy program, they plan to keep our troops there "100 years," as McCain let slip, or until their oil runs out, whichever comes first I would wager. Our thinking is indeed very close on the war it seems to me.

Glad to hear we are like-minded. I think we should move toward nuclear power and shoot the waste into the sun. The likelihood of it blowing up in the atmosphere is so small and there are ways to ensure the safest possible liftoff.

StarryStarrySkies · #36 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GovernmentCheese

Maybe if you consider the UN Oil for Food fiasco it will make sense. I mean you are presenting that members of the UN could NEVER be over-powered by greed.

It was also found that UN peacekeeping officials were making pornographic movies and such by exploiting children and women in developing third world countries. PEACEKEEPING officials. Disgusting.

GovernmentCheese · #37 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catawba

Everyone is subject to the influence of greed and fear. In the case of the Iraq war however, it appears that the right wing fear mongers in charge of our government were under the greatest influence of the former and biggest wielders of the latter.

The "right wing fear mongers" in charge of what government? Iran? They would be considered moderates there. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "right wing fear mongers". You are obviously talking about the mysterious and all powerful man behind the Christians.

catawba · #38 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarryStarrySkies

Glad to hear we are like-minded. I think we should move toward nuclear power and shoot the waste into the sun. The likelihood of it blowing up in the atmosphere is so small and there are ways to ensure the safest possible liftoff.

I agree that if we can find a safe way to dispose of the waste that nuclear energy can play a part in shifting away from oil.

catawba · #39 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GovernmentCheese

The "right wing fear mongers" in charge of what government? Iran? They would be considered moderates there. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "right wing fear mongers". You are obviously talking about the mysterious and all powerful man behind the Christians.

I was talking about the right wing fear mongers in charge of our government, the previously good old USA. If you are not clear as to what I mean by right wing fear mongers, please read the previous posts in this thread.

I have no idea who you refer to as the "mysterious and all powerful man behind the Christians." If you expect a response on that, you will have to be more clear.

Professor Peabody · #40 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 10:37 PM

[quote=catawba;583347]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarryStarrySkies

Using peoples fear to get votes is one thing. Using peoples fear to bring about the deaths of 4,000 of our own troops and 100,000 Iraqi deaths is quite another. Only one of our candidates supported the war before it started and continues to support the war today. That is a pretty clear distinction between the candidates.

Did you say clear distinction? Really?

Quote:

Obama's record shows caution, nuance on Iraq

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 20, 2007

WASHINGTON -- As Senator Hillary Clinton continues to take heat for her vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, her presidential rival, Senator Barack Obama has used his long-running opposition to the war as a cornerstone of his campaign, telling enthusiastic supporters that he opposed the war from the beginning -- a claim neither Clinton nor the other top-tier Democratic contenders can make.

But a review of Obama's record during his 26 months in Congress reveals that he has taken a more nuanced and cautious position on the war than the full-bore opposition.

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.

Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.

Though liberals want Congress to stop funding the war in order to end it, Obama has indicated that he will vote for the latest $95.5 billion Iraq appropriation when it comes before the Senate this spring.

Aides say the senator's opposition to the war has been strong and consistent. They said he opposed the initial $87 billion as a Senate candidate because the White House wanted to set aside $20 billion of it for reconstruction, and Democrats feared the money would be distributed in no-bid contracts.

Obama has voted for war appropriations because he wants the troops provided for fully, said Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman. Aides said that Obama has criticized the war several times early in his Senate career, but that he delayed rolling out specific plans and major Senate speeches while learning about his new office.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...uance_on_iraq/

Yep he's a real anti-war advocate isn't he? It's obvious he's an empty suit willing to say anything to get elected. That Washington outsider change thing worked for his mentor Jimmy Carter. But anyone old enough to remember the disgraceful Carter years certaibnly won't want to elect Obama to Carters second term of double digit inflation and double digit interest rates.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain & Airbus, Democrats Strong Advantage .... McCain’s Political Demise?	nlytend	Current Events	11	07-09-2008 12:26 PM
McCain-Cheney 2008?: McCain Hints at Running Mate	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	1	04-01-2008 03:26 PM
McCain ahead against either/McCain please answer phone/Obama sinking	DuH2	Elections & Campaigns	8	03-20-2008 09:56 AM
Blogs and Legitimacy, McCain vs. McCain, A New Majority Leader and Trouble for Team Clinton	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-17-2008 04:30 PM
Fred : McCain is betraying the Reagan vision UPDATED: LIMBAUGH BLASTS MCCAIN AND HUCKABEE	DiscerningBlog	Political Blogs	0	01-17-2008 11:19 PM