|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 05 2013 04:15 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:13 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 packrat386 wrote:
But I think that the main motive was an overzealous and panicked US military/administration in the wake of 9/11 excuse, not motive except thats NOT what the evidence that I've read points to. As I stated in the rest of the post that you didn't quote.
actually you seem to say the opposite:
On October 05 2013 04:13 packrat386 wrote:
The second that there was even a hint of a reason to justify US invasion Bush jumped on it.
|
On October 05 2013 04:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:15 packrat386 wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 packrat386 wrote:
But I think that the main motive was an overzealous and panicked US military/administration in the wake of 9/11 excuse, not motive except thats NOT what the evidence that I've read points to. As I stated in the rest of the post that you didn't quote. actually you seem to say the opposite: Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:13 packrat386 wrote:
The second that there was even a hint of a reason to justify US invasion Bush jumped on it.
ffs, please read the WHOLE post. He jumped on the hint of the international justification that came up through the UN. Saddam kicked out some inspectors and he saw that as his chance to PUT THE BUSH DOCTRINE IN ACTION against a regime that he considered a pain in the ass. Obviously economics is always a consideration, but the articles that I've read indicate that Bush was just itching for a fight.
|
um... you still seem to be arguing the opposite of the thing you claim to be arguing
bush is just a puppet. don't think about what bush wanted, think about what cheney and rumsfeld and rove wanted. bush itching for a fight is the excuse to do something that they wanted to do for reasons of economics and power. 9/11 provided the rhetoric for something they wanted to do anyway. excuse, not motive. this seems to be what you are arguing, but you claim not...? I'm confused
|
On October 05 2013 04:20 sam!zdat wrote:
um... you still seem to be arguing the opposite of the thing you claim to be arguing
bush is just a puppet. don't think about what bush wanted, think about what cheney and rumsfeld and rove wanted. bush itching for a fight is the excuse to do something that they wanted to do for reasons of economics and power. 9/11 provided the rhetoric for something they wanted to do anyway. excuse, not motive. this seems to be what you are arguing, but you claim not...? I'm confused
None of these things are what I'm arguing. Even if Bush was a "puppet" his administration went to war because they seriously believed in first-stiking anybody who threatened the US in any way. Saddam fit that bill, and he made us look stupid because he was very good at walking the line of frustrating, but not enough to justify an invasion. Yes, 9/11 provided a good rhetorical basis, yes they wanted to do it anyway. The only thing that I'm trying to argue is that the reason they wanted it was *mostly* for reasons of global power perception and demonstrating US military capability. The economic factor wasn't nearly as large.
We are very close to agreeing here, but you're glossing over the subtlety of the point I'm trying to make.
|
why do you think that global power perception and the demonstration of military capability aren't about economics? what i'm challenging is your separation of these things, power and economics are all part of the same thing, the point of having power is so that you can get rich
|
The point is that it wasnt for some sort of immediate economic gain, obviously 2 forms of power are linked, my point is that it's wasn't about Saddams oil or the denominations he wanted to sell it in.
|
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did
|
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats announced Friday that they will try to force the House to vote on a measure to fully fund the government -- and end the shutdown -- with a procedural motion known as a discharge petition.
Democrats unveiled their plan at a Friday afternoon press conference. Their resolution would fund the government through Nov. 15 at the same levels as the Senate-passed continuing resolution. And, like the Senate bill, there would be no strings attached related to delaying or defunding Obamacare. Here's a copy of their
The effort, led by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and George Miller (D-Calif.), has little chance of succeeding. The process can be time-consuming and it requires members of the majority party -- in this case, Republicans -- to buck their party leaders and sign a petition with the minority to force a bill to the floor. But it's one of the few things Democrats can do as the minority to try to force action.
If all 200 Democrats sign the petition, 18 Republicans would have to join them in order to hit 218 signatures, the magic number needed to move forward with the petition. Democrats already know there are at least 21 Republicans who would support a "clean" government funding bill, with no strings attached. But declaring support for such a bill and signing a petition to force it to the House floor, against the will of House GOP leaders, are two entirely different things.
During Friday's press event, Miller exuded confidence about Democrats' ability to round up the votes.
"We expect we can get them all in one day," he said.
Source
|
On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did
But for oil the region would be vastly different...
|
On October 05 2013 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did But for oil the region would be vastly different...
yes, and nobody would care about it. it's no longer a middleman between europe and asia, which was the only point of arabia in the middle ages. nobody goes to war over sand. if people care about the region, it is because of oil. there is absolutely no other reason that any Power would bother themselves over it otherwise
|
On October 05 2013 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did But for oil the region would be vastly different... yes, and nobody would care about it. it's no longer a middleman between europe and asia, which was the only point of arabia in the middle ages. nobody goes to war over sand. if people care about the region, it is because of oil. there is absolutely no other reason that any Power would bother themselves over it otherwise
idk... what if they had a big army? Or flew planes into buildings? Or tried to nuke Israel? Or offered missile bases to an enemy? Or assassinated a major power's leader?
|
On October 05 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did But for oil the region would be vastly different... yes, and nobody would care about it. it's no longer a middleman between europe and asia, which was the only point of arabia in the middle ages. nobody goes to war over sand. if people care about the region, it is because of oil. there is absolutely no other reason that any Power would bother themselves over it otherwise idk... what if they had a big army? Or flew planes into buildings? Or tried to nuke Israel? Or offered missile bases to an enemy? Or assassinated a major power's leader?
Obviously, we're going to take action against anyone who commits an act of war against us.
|
The USA are going to be the biggest oil and gas supplier in the very near future and the imports are falling. They're fracking like there is no tomorrow.
(source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579111360245276476.html)
I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Look up what the wars are costing, even if you would rob all the countries of their oil(what the US isn't doing) it would not be worth it.
People seriously need to get over all this oil nonsense.
|
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:The USA are going to be the biggest oil and gas supplier in the very near future and the imports are falling. They're fracking like there is no tomorrow. (source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579111360245276476.html)I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense. Look up what the wars are costing, even if you would rob all the countries of their oil(what the US isn't doing) it would not be worth it. People seriously need to get over all this oil nonsense.
Yes, this is correct. The US will be a world leader in oil and gas within a decade, and could be self-sufficient if it wants to be.
Nonetheless, the US still has an interest in oil and gas affairs in the Middle East and elsewhere so as to ensure that prices remain stable and to aid key allies (ie Europe).
|
Tempting to post my own theory on this but guess its better if i dont lol.
Annyway:agree that its not only about oil.
Also read the thing about usa going to be the biggest producer, though in same article it was said that it would only last till around 2020, after rusia would take over again. (fracking in rusia is still in its infancy, but they are expected to have huge reserves wich eventually will be tapped)
So much for peak oil, Ha ha.
Still remember the thread on this forums about that, unfortunatly i didnt safe it.
|
Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.
Interesting http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm/
|
On October 05 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did But for oil the region would be vastly different... yes, and nobody would care about it. it's no longer a middleman between europe and asia, which was the only point of arabia in the middle ages. nobody goes to war over sand. if people care about the region, it is because of oil. there is absolutely no other reason that any Power would bother themselves over it otherwise idk... what if they had a big army? Or flew planes into buildings? Or tried to nuke Israel? Or offered missile bases to an enemy? Or assassinated a major power's leader?
the only reason they care about us is because we want to be in the region getting their oil. You think they just do that stuff for fun? Bin laden united islamists in anti-americanism, but most of them before that (and now, after) are really more concerned with regional politics. The only reason they care about us is because we meddle in the region, and the only reason we meddle is because of oil. Anything else is just manichean
somebody who thinks that oil doesn't matter please explain why anybody would give a fuck about them or they would give a fuck about us otherwise.
|
On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." (Alan Greenspan 2007:463)
|
On October 05 2013 05:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:The USA are going to be the biggest oil and gas supplier in the very near future and the imports are falling. They're fracking like there is no tomorrow. (source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579111360245276476.html)I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense. Look up what the wars are costing, even if you would rob all the countries of their oil(what the US isn't doing) it would not be worth it. People seriously need to get over all this oil nonsense. Yes, this is correct. The US will be a world leader in oil and gas within a decade, and could be self-sufficient if it wants to be. Nonetheless, the US still has an interest in oil and gas affairs in the Middle East and elsewhere so as to ensure that prices remain stable and to aid key allies (ie Europe).
I actually feel like the US are more interested in the pacific area when it comes to political interests in the next decades and that they're trying to kind of withdraw from the Middle Eastern region. I think the US wants Europe to take over the responsibility over the Middle East more or less completely.
(Interesting read on the shift of Naval troops here:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577439943137674490.html)
On October 05 2013 05:47 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
Greenspan is a respectable guy, but he has always been highly political and even said about the quote that it was "taken out of context". No one is denying that the intervention of the US in the middle east also secured their trade routes, but it is not 'all about the oil' as people are stating again and again.
|
On October 05 2013 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2013 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:On October 05 2013 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2013 04:45 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no reason at all for anyone to be interested in the region if not oil. if you are doing anything there, it is because of oil. if we didn't care about oil, saddam wouldn't be able to piss us off, because we wouldn't care what he did But for oil the region would be vastly different... yes, and nobody would care about it. it's no longer a middleman between europe and asia, which was the only point of arabia in the middle ages. nobody goes to war over sand. if people care about the region, it is because of oil. there is absolutely no other reason that any Power would bother themselves over it otherwise idk... what if they had a big army? Or flew planes into buildings? Or tried to nuke Israel? Or offered missile bases to an enemy? Or assassinated a major power's leader? the only reason they care about us is because we want to be in the region getting their oil. You think they just do that stuff for fun? Bin laden united islamists in anti-americanism, but most of them before that (and now, after) are really more concerned with regional politics. The only reason they care about us is because we meddle in the region, and the only reason we meddle is because of oil. Anything else is just manichean somebody who thinks that oil doesn't matter please explain why anybody would give a fuck about them or they would give a fuck about us otherwise.
Didn't I just do that? They could have something else of interest.
Edit: On October 05 2013 05:47 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't get why this 'USA is only going to war to steal all the oil!111' crap is so popular on the internet. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, those tinfoil hat wearing internet conspiracy theorists should really learn their facts first. Take this guy for instance, he's only been the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 20 years and under four presidents, so he's obviously just talking out of his ass:
Yeah, and there was no housing bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
