[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[Wally Buck]

Heck Brad, can't you tell I love politcal debates. It takes a lot to piss me 
off and even more to offend. I always try to keep a some what open mind and 
some times my opinion can be swayed.
>
>BH......... Ending worldwide terrorism is in the best
>interest of the worldwide economy, not just ours.
>Whether you like it or not our economy is very
>inter-dependent with other nations.  Look at what
>happened to the stock market after the Towers fell.
>While financial health may sound like a bad thing to
>some folks, a failing economy hurts everyone
>regardless of financial position.  Frankly, our only
>stable and reliable ally in the region is Israel.  The
>House of Saud is crumbling and has been the source of
>many of the discontents.  Iraq WAS funding political
>instability in the region.  The radical Muslums have
>proven that they can and will attack us on our own
>soil.  How can you ignore instability in the region as
>a threat?.................BH

Of course ending terrorism is a good thing and obvioulsy our econmoy is 
effected by the world economy. I do think going in after Bin laden was the 
right thing to do. And of course financial health is a good thing. Some 
times I have to chuckle about our ally Isreal. How did we wind up being 
friends with one of the few countries in the middle east with no oil. :) 
Just kidding here. Instability in the region may be a financial threat but I 
don't think it was a threat to our National Security, just our wallet. Most 
of what you say is true and this just supports the claim that oil was one of 
the main drivers of the war.

>BH.........It is a dis-appointment that more Muslum
>countries didn't sign on this time.  Saudi Arabia's
>ruling family is at risk of losing power and took the
>safe course.  Turkey had just installed a new
>government and the vote to join the effort fell short
>by only a handfull of votes. Jordan is now run by King
>Hussain's son as opposed to the King who was married
>to an American during Gulf War 1 but that's just
>guesswork on my part.  Egypt?  Dunno.  It is a
>certainty that Jordan, Syria, and Turkey were dealing
>in smuggled Iraqi oil so maybe it was just financial
>self-interest. I will once again refer to an article
>in the March/April issue of "Foreign Affairs" by Ken
>Pollack that addresses that specific question in
>detail.  I'm not sure if its available on line but if
>I ever get a scanner I'll send you a
>copy.................

Is is not a disappoinment that more Muslim countries didn't help us, it is a 
disappoinment that NO Muslim countries or any country in the area joined us. 
You stated the reasons but did not answer the question. If they are not 
worried about the instability then why should we? I think the answer is 
"oil". My point is that oil is the main thing driving the war.

>
>BH..........We have at least another year of 43 to go.
>  I'll let his record in history speak for
>itself.......BH
> >

My point here is that with out his father greasing the way 43 would not have 
a presidential record for history to judge. He would have not gotten into 
Yale, and most likely not been elected president. He was Commander in Chief 
while we kicked ass on a third rate military.

>BH..........I agree our record of nation building has
>met with mixed results regardless of who was President
>at the time.  I give the nod to Dr. Rice as having a
>better handle on this than me.........BH

I think mixed results is giving our nation building record too much credit. 
What are the success stories? I will admit I am not an expert in this area 
(or any other) but when I look back in modern times it seems we have had no 
success what so ever.

>
>BH.............Their unit supports everyone in that
>area out of Germany.  The primary thrust of their
>mission was to Afghanastan but they made trips to the
>Gulf area as well.  Those boys, fighter pilots,
>transports, etc. all drink and eat together and they
>share a lot of info with each other.  They don't share
>  much with me and I respect them for that.  I think
>what they were referring to was that the "no fly zone"
>kept Saddam from launching another gas attack via
>airborne equipment like he did on the Kurds.  There
>has been a lot of recon efforts in that area for a
>long time and the units are all dependent on each
>other so even though stuff is supposed to be "hush,
>hush" they figure out what the others are doing.
>Still, they keep it from me, even when they're
>drunk.............BH

I buy that but if our recon was so good how come we don't have a clue as to 
the location of a single WMD? I know it is a big country and they have had 
years to hide the stuff. Heck it is probably all in Syria by now.

Brad I guess in a nut shell I feel that Oil is the thing driving the war and 
it seems no one wants to admit it. I don't think we would have lifted a 
finger to help Kuwait if oil wasn't involved. Our economy runs on oil. Bin 
laden sites US meddling in the Middle East as the reason for 911. We 
wouldn't give a shit about the middle east if they had no oil. I say call a 
spade a spade. There are a bucnh worse things going on through out various 
African nations and we don't care, they have no oil.

As long as we rely on foreign oil we will always be at the mercy of 
countries that seem to hate our guts. Our solution seems to be to help prop 
up on regime after the next. They all eventually topple and wind up hating 
us even more.

Wally

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail