traitorous SOB

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

As noted in another (quicker) response...true since WWI. While I
agree, I know folks that view the basing of US troops in foreign
nations as a form of imperialism.

It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
oppressive colonial policy.

I agree with you; if you inferred that I think we'll be running Iraq
as a puppet, that is not what I implied.

The first half of your paragraph is correct. The report, however, was
that the oil revenue could be used to support the reconstruction of
Iraqi infrastructure--in other words the oil of Iraq would build the
free nation of Iraq. Makes eminent sense to me.

And the sharp debater would ask, "Currently, companies from which
nations benefit monetarily in this reconstruction effort?" The short
answer is the US and UK.

Like you I get emails forwarded from guys in the sandbox telling of
the good deeds that are largely unreported. But I think competitive
bidding amongst global competitors would help bring about a quicker
end to our occupation of Iraq.

There is no "demand payment" or gesture of gratitude involved.

OK, but if we broke it and we get to fix it (whilst getting paid for
it) the latter can be considered payment. I've read posts in this
forum where guys think it is only right US and UK companies get the
contracts because we sent our troops into harm's way. If that isn't
forced "gratitude," I don't know what is.

No one has that crystal ball, but a stable, democratic Iraq would
certainly be beneficial to the region and a stable Middle-East would
be beneficial to the US.

Absolutely, but I prefer democratic to "stable" (the Shah's Iran was
stable)...and peaceful. I want our brothers and sisters in arms to
come home in one piece. I'd prefer this not turn into our version of
Northern Ireland.

Juvat

"M. J. Powell" wrote:


Brit expression: Absent Without Leave.

'Official Leave' actually.Mike.
(used in Canada too)
--

-Gord.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.

Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
came to be US States again.

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Keith

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:40:13 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

"George Z. Bush" wrote:


But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
this war rather than those offered by our government.

George Z.

And after all's said and done, everything you just wrote ain't worth a
pitcher of warm spit because even if no WMD's are found, history will
forgive us!


Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
would be a slamndunk).
The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.

Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
came to be US States again.

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence from us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we turned
them loose?

George Z.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:23:26 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
contrived .

But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
this war rather than those offered by our government.

Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

I might add that about 24% of US oil needs come from *all*
Mideast sources combined. A significant amount to be sure, but
hardly enough to bother with such expensive efforts at "control".

Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the top four
foreign providers. I suppose George will think we already
have SA's oil under our control, but how about the other three?

Surely we'd need to control those significant sources of oil.
Are those governments aware the US controls their oil? Or are
they our lapdogs, with overt control efforts unnecessary?


SMH

Juvat wrote:

How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
will end.

I don't believe there was ever any thinking there would be some
direct payment from Iraqi oil sales to the US treasury.

Instead, Iraqi oil would be used to pay for all the things a fair
and decent Iraqi government would need to fund. That would mean
a reasonable military, police, courts, roads, etc. Not dozens
of presidential palaces, WMD programs, suppression of ethnicities
or religious groups within the country, etc.

The Iraqi oil industry ends up not being especially productive at
the moment, so these costs have been transfered to American tax
payers instead.

No payoffs and not much in the way of "control" at the moment, and
probably not for some time to come.


SMH

Charles Gray wrote:

Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
would be a slamndunk).
The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

I think you're comments are generally true.

I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
undermine American interests or security.

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires. I can't say that an Iraq with three (or more)
warring factions is really worse than one with a strong ruthless
central leader openly hostile to the US.


SMH

In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence from us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we turned
them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
from us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
turned
them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.

Keith