Forum Overview :: Motherfucking News :: Since you've calmed down a bit, here's some answers

[quote name="Senor Barborito"][quote name="Steven Lollerson"]I certainly concede that France's position on Iraq may have quite a bit to do with looking out for thier own best interests.[/quote] And they should be doing just that. It's the job of any government, be they American, French, or Iraqi to look out for the best interest of their people. Iraq's best interest is not having the US constantly bombing them along the North and South borders - and to prevent that they need WMD so they can put themselves in a situation of MAD with the United States. Quite frankly our inability to find anything like a smoking gun in Iraq surprises me and makes me think Saddam is being a lot more cooperative than, well, I'd be in his shoes at least. [quote]France is one of Iraq's largest trading partners (second to Russia) under it's oil for food program and will probably lose billions in loans if a new government is installed, as well as billions in unsigned contracts (Total Fina Elf). However the cynic in me (see how cynicism can work against other countries, not just your own?) realizes that France's only claims to relevance are its position as a leader of the faltering European Union (keep le fucking pie hole shut Eastern Europe, if you ever want us to let you in) and its position on the UN security council (which Im at a loss to explain).[/quote] Relevance? WTF? So some countries are inarguably 'better' than others in a laughable, pathetic, Ayn Rand-sense-of-entitlement manner? Unable to believe that anyone would actually say anything as stupid as what I think I'm hearing, I'll ask you to please restate this more clearly or better yet explain what you mean. [quote]The war for oil argument is laughable at best. If we wanted thier oil why didnt we take it 1991 when we were in a much better position (ie, with thier troops in full retreat) to do so?[/quote] Because Bush Sr. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html">understood the power of multilateral action</a> and knew his coalition would dissolve the instant he tried to do that. [quote]Why not make a deal with Saddam to lift the sanctions in exchange for oil contracts?[/quote] Because every administration until now has understood the need to remain on good terms with the rest of the world. It's rather hard to be a major player in a region where literally everybody hates you - this business with Turkey is certainly crimping our style, no? [quote]With the costs of the military operation expected to reach 60 billion and the cost of the cleanup and stabilization expected to be in the 100 billion dollar range (perhaps higher if Saddam does what reports hint that he is planning to do and sets Iraqi petoleum facilities ablaze), this is harldy a shrewd financial move, especially at the tax payer's expense. In addition, do you really think Exxon and Mobil wants to see oil at less than $20 or so a barrel? They're coorporations trying to maximize profits, not ease your pain at the gas pump.[/quote] Bringing Iraqs facilities up to the level of extraction efficiency of OPEC would be a brand new $15 billion a year industry probably more - which means the war pays for itself in short order. <a href="http://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=2324">See my statistical breakdown (compliant with DOE and OPEC figures) here</a>. They're currently operating at only 60% of that level. Tell me, which country will get the lion's share of that oil - especially now that most of our traditional allies aren't buying into the war? Which country also has the companies which will be getting the contracts using <i>very</i> cheap post-war Iraqi labor to drill it out? Which companies does our administration have personal, vested interests in? Are you connecting the dots I'm plotting here? I would also bet that Iraqi oil extraction rates will far exceed those of most other OPEC nations before we're halfway through draining the country dry, but that's not the kind of thing you can put a number to. More immediately the war makes sense for Bush to engage in for domestic political reasons - once he wins it, he doesn't even have to lift a finger to win the next election. This is why liberals are so overwhelmingly against it, and conservatives so overwhelmingly for it - we all know that the war is about the next election and nothing else. [quote]Or perhaps thats not what you were getting at. If not I agree wholeheartedly that this is about oil, in that oil revenues enable Saddam to continue producing weapons of mass destruction.[/quote] Provided he doesn't have means of conveyance, I could care less that he has WMD, and I'm sitting in a major city in America. The next thing you'll say is "What about Israel?" My response is fuck Israel - I'm strongly pro-Semite (I love their cultural stance on education) but viciously anti-Israel. They butchered our sailors intentionally on the USS Liberty for the crime of getting too close to ongoing Israeli warcrimes, and the leader of the nation is a known warcriminal. Bush may not be the brightest president we've had by a longshot, but much like I don't believe retards are really capable of committing capital crimes with wrongful intent, I don't believe he is 'evil' the way Ariel Sharon, Henry Kissinger, or John Ashcroft are. --SB The most important things you should take from this argument are the contents of those two links.[/quote]