Re: $5 gallon gas wont't stop worlds most thirsty SUV

I don't understand your and many others' obsession with getting the US's (or 'the West's') hands on Iraqi oil as a justification for the invasion.

There was no hindrance to Iraqi oil flowing westwards.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling
Loading thread data ...

It actually made things worse.

Realistically I dont think most americans gave a rats ass about the atrocities being commited against the Iraqi people by Saddams government.

Saddam would still be in power today if in 1990 he hadn't invaded Kuwait, and instead started selling his oil, and even before that if he hadn't started a war with Iran. But crazy Dictators tend to ruin things for themselves.

Reply to
Paradox

i don't understand how dipstick troll rectal orifaces like you can find a connection between this drivle you post, and ford vehicles that are talked about in a newsgroup called alt autos ford.

Reply to
Tom

Iraq had a war against Iran - Iraq was supported by the USA for several reasons - one of which was revenge because of the destruction of the US embassy in Iran and the taking of the US hostages.

As Iraq fought Iran, Iraq's oil infrastructure collapsed and they couldn't pump oil. Iraq struck a deal with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait: They would pump Iraq's OPEC oil quota with their own oil, and give that money to Iraq as a sort of loan.

Later, Kuwait wanted that money paid back, and started doing serious things in the financial world against Iraq. Iraq told the USA that they were going to invade Kuwait, and the USA didn't tell them not to.

The USA let Iraq invade Kuwait, because that would allow the USA to "rescue" Kuwait and Kuwait would "owe" the USA for that. As a result, the USA got bases and troops in Kuwait.

But wait. The USA wasn't done yet. Operation "Desert Shield" was a ruse played against Saudi Arabia to get them to "invite" US troops in to protect them. The US showed the Saudia's fake satellite photos showing that Iraq was massing troops and tanks along the Iraq-SA boarder. There was no such build-up, but the US needed to instill fear and desperation to get the Saudi's to allow the US to station troops in their country. The troops never left, and that was one of the reasons why muslim/islamic anti-US sentiment built up and led to the 9-11 attacks (the infidels were allowed into the holy land).

Operation Desert Storm had turned a friendly Iraq (ie Saddam) into an enemy. What the US gained was a military foot-hold into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Then they turned the screws on Saddam, but it was taking too long and there was no obvious reason to commence hostile action against Iraq, and eventually the USA invented a reason to invade Iraq in order to install a US-friendly gov't (along with more military bases). That situation has "blown up" in the face of US planners, and it's not clear how it's going to play out.

The surrounding Arab countries have a lot at stake to see that it doesn't work, for if it doesn't then the US would learn a lesson - that they don't really have enough resources or the ability to re-engineer a country (an arab country).

Iran is now handing the USA a reason to invade them too (uranium enrichment) but it's too early to play that card right now. It can wait until the Dem's have had their turn in the whitehouse (to put the US back into financial order) after which the next republican administration will invade Iran because the lax democrats have allowed them to become a "gathering threat" against the US.

Meanwhile, US citizens are experiencing (effectively) a tax on oil/gasoline that is equivalent to what CDN's and Europeans pay. Instead the tax is going into the pockets of the oil industry, and they can pay their exec's $400 million in retirement packages now. Americans will have to just spend less at Walmart - and China will cry about that.

Reply to
MoPar Man

Yes, he would.

That's right

MAybe

Right again.. but then Saddam had been blustering a while.

LET?!!! Now that is taking things a bit far into the Whoo--eee-ooo realm

There wasnt? then what the hell did we do all that killing against?

Oh, those sad little Muslims!

Tell ya what... you had the things right there for a while and now you're into "WE are the enemy" trilateral commission stuff.

You Pat Buchanan and Nomen... what a trio.

How about this... we deport any arab, persian, back to where they came from? Sound reasonable? Then we dont have any troops in Islamic lands.

And we nuke the shit out of em if..

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

Ha, ha, ha... What a vivid imagination. It is amazing what two lonely brain cells can come up with when they have nothing else to do.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Patriotism is blind, isin't it Matt?

Reply to
MoPar Man

Dont reply to a drive-by, with just more snark... take on somebody that can debate you!

Like I said.. you started out with actual facts, though spun a little; including April Glaspie, then took off into conspiracy-land!

If you aint the guts to take me and a couple others on here, then go hang with your chums on DU:

quote: the levers of democracy are too weak to take these traitors down. The Criminal Bush Regime must be physically removed. The protesters in D.C. need to push up against the White House gates in a mass mob to actually threaten this P.O.S.

Enough said for now... I've just about had it, and this country really needs to ORGANIZE and PROTEST!!! It's now high time to get SERIOUS.

-unquote

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

It can be, to be sure, but not nearly so much as paranoia.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

You and Pat Clancy need to collaborate on a novel.

Reply to
jcr

Interesting bit of fantasy / fiction.

Reply to
« Paul »

No, Backyard! The conspiracy theorists think that secretly the Bushies -want- us to cut and run so that Iran -will- do something like test a nuke or close the straits - so that we will have an excuse to invade Iran.

Of course, the more pragmatic of us out there figure that the Bushies don't want to pull out because it would throw too many variables into the upcoming congressional elections. Right now all the Republican races are built on the Hawk arguments of staying the course, arguments that only rcently stopped reverberating with the voters. Those campaigns are all ready committed to the stay-the-course arguments, and it's too late to change direction or they are gonna get accused of being flip-floppers. I think most of the upper Repubublican party masters are now deeply regretting using that argument against the Kerry campaign - it ignored one of the fundamental of politics - that all politicians are flip-floppers. It was a lot like what the Republicans did to Clinton when they accused him of being a liar and forced a special investigation to investigate his lies - they cannot argue against this tactic when it's turned against them with the Delay issue and Valerie Plame issue and the White House leak issue.

The whole thing is kind of like watching the iceberg coming right at you from the bow of the Titantic. The boat is just too massive to turn on a dime, all you can do is sit back and cringe when the inveitable wreck happens. I personally am rather amazed, being a Democrat. The last time the Republicans got ahold of power back in 1980 with Raygun, they managed to hold on to it pretty well for 12 years. Now it's pretty well a given that they are going to lose it after only

  1. I was sure they were going to be more clever about it than that.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

The dimocrats want to pull out of Iraq now because things are coming together in Iraq and they will loose the biggest issue in November.

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Feel better now Ted?

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

The only thing that's coming together in Iraq, is Al Quaeda.

Reply to
Hairy

And we all know how happy that makes you and your liberal buddies. Pretty sad when whatever side you're on becomes so entrenched in their politics that you have to wish for bad things to happen and rejoice when they do.

So what's your precious U.N. doing about Iran? Oh that's right - they can't do anything because the major players (nations and individuals) are so caught up financially in helping them succeed. More bad things for you to cheer about.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Oh and while I'm on the subject - as usual, while the U.N is sitting around with its collective thumb up its butt, once again, by default, the U.S. will be forced to make the really tough decisions and take action and do all the heavy lifting and make 99% of the sacrifices, and the liberals will once again be able to criticize and urge hatred of the U.S. around the world for taking military action and not using "diplomatic means" to solve the problem.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Off your meds again, Bill? How did you get all that from my simple statement of fact?

Dave

Reply to
Hairy

More liberal tactics.

How did you get all that from my simple statement of fact?

By reading it and taking it at face value. If that is your observation, then you don't know much about the subject (either thru willful ignorance or from listening to very biased filtered sources (just another form of willful ignorance).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Lost the attribution in my last post - should have been:

More liberal tactics.

By reading it and taking it at face value. If that is your observation, then you don't know much about the subject (either thru willful ignorance or from listening to very biased filtered sources (just another form of willful ignorance).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.