Caltrops - Motherfucking News





	[quote name="Steve Lollerson"][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] Did you just you put forward the notion that the thuggish tyrants of the Iraqi government are looking out for the best interests of the Iraqi people? Would this be through building lavish palaces and gold-plated theme parks with the proceeds of thier oil sales or through some other means not made public to western journalists? Care to defend Kim Jung Li while you're at it? This idea only works when applied to legitimate democratic institutions. It is preposterous to suggest that the Saddam Husseins, Kim Jong Ils and Robert Mugabes of the world have anything but thier own personal interests at heart. [quote] [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] Thats exactly what I meant. If you think 3rd world shitholes and banana republics make a tin shit worth of difference in global leadership you're sorely mistaken. Outside of UN conference rooms no one gives a shit what the Ivory Coast or Guniea thinks of anything from standardizing the number of holes in swiss cheese to US military intervention. And without a permanent seat on the UN Security Council the opinions of the French would matter little more than these nations. [quote] [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] Because it wasnt about fucking Iraqi oil that time around either. [quote] [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] Given that the Muslim world has spent the last 12 years decrying the unjustness of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, lifting these sanctions could have done nothing but improve our standing "in a region where literally everybody hates" us. [quote] [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. [/quote] A $160 billion dollar cost would take about 10 years to recoup at 15 billion per year, which isn't excatly "short order". In reality, this would take much longer. Even if Iraq decided that the United States should reap the biggest benefits from this (and who else should besides the country that pushed the rest of the world into liberating the Iraqi populace) it is highly unlikely to think that we'll be anywhere near the break even point at any time in the near future. [quote] 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] We all know this do we? Your friend two nodes up was just telling me how its all about oil, and Im pretty sure there was an "Unchecked American Imperialism" argument flying around somewhere aound here. Until very recently liberals such as Josh Marshall, Tom Friedman, Gregg Easterbrook, Bill Keller and William Saletan were on board (and citing diplomatic damage to our relationship with our "friends" as the reason for the reversal of opinion) while paleocons such as Pat Buchanan have been against it since the beginning. This war will very likely be over in a matter of months with the next election almost an eternity away. American public opinion is fickle - an amazingly swift and painless victory by the elder Bush didnt keep him in power and I think it is doubtful that it will gain the current president much long term political capital. North Korea (and probably Iran) will become much bigger issues in the coming months and will overshadow anything accomplished in Iraq. And there's always the risk that this will turn out to be a long and protracted conflict, which would be devasating to Bush's chances of reelection. [quote] [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. [/quote] I did a very quick search on "Ariel Sharon war crimes" and wasnt returned any evidence from any credible or reputable sources. So Im calling you delusional buffoon as I plant my victory banner Iwo Jima style in your gaping noise hole. Steve Lollerson [/quote]