The Real Reason to Bomb Iraq

by metatron 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  og

  Frankly, I'd rather see someone come up with a new energy supply and let them all regress into the glorious 15th century lifestyle they all aspire to.

  Aren't you more or less admitting here that oil is the reason we're concerned with Iraq. You're comments about the smart people around Bush misses an obvious point - with the exception of Powell (widely regarded as an outsider in this administration) all of Bush's important advisors have a big oil background. Condoleeza has a tanker named after her!

  Your theory also doesn't account for the attack on Afghanistan. Nothing was accomplished re: the War on (some) Terror, and Afghanistan was regionally unimportant, but it is the only route for a major pipeline project which will now happen with the Taliban removed.

  The desire to control oil supply explains everything, IMHO.
• 

  TR

  Give disaffected Muslim youth a car, a job, and pop music
  and things might look very different in ten years.

  This is a major problem. When you have nothing, you're uneducated, and are being taught to kill from childhood, what else are you going to do?

  Whether we like it or not, oil IS a major influence in this matter. Personally, I have no qualms about it. The mid east is a major oil supply that keeps the world running at this point. The U.S. and Great Britain were instrumental in developing that oil supply. It is in our best interests at this point to control it.

  TR
• 

  og

  It is in our best interests at this point to control it.

  I disagree. With relatively little pain, e.g. legislate SUVs for housewives out of existence, oil use in the US could be significantly reduced in the short term, and alternative energy could replace it in the long term.

  I believe the cost of gas should be about triple what it is, to better reflect what it really costs and encourage drastic reduction.

  So our best interests would be to reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels.
• 

  borgfree

  Og,

  I agree with your comment:

  So our best interests would be to reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels.

  I wonder though, what will the left do in each case of alternative fuels?

  When I was a pre-teen in school, we were told that nuclear energy would be the answer for the future. We were told that everything would be powered with a tiny capsule, and that energy would be so cheap that it would cost more to mail us our power and light bill than the actual cost of the fuel bill.

  Protests ended any prospects of that becoming a reality.

  What about wind power?

  I was in California this past summer. Driving around the state I saw miles of wind mills, how long will it be before the left starts protesting all of the landscape being cluttered with machinery?

  How about maybe extracting hydrogen from water?

  You can imagine the protests about that. We would be using the worlds supply of water. We would be threatening the worlds safety, hydrogen after all is a very powerful substance. (Hydrogen bomb?)

  I think we would get the same protesters and complaints no matter what kind of energy source the scientists came up with. It seems that with everything we use, as humans, there will be consequences, and there will be people calling us names for using it.

  I do not have the answers but I suspect that neither does anyone else.

  Borgfree
• 

  Shakita

  IF the bombing does happen, it seems like a lot of human shields will be in harms way.

  http://www.iacenter.org/shields.htm

  It also seems like Saddam will not have to depend on his own people to protect his ornate palaces and compounds in the event of war, he will have the help of people from other countries that he despises.

  Mrs. Shakita
• 

  ISP

  I think they have to sort out the Israel-Palestine issues...first.

  ISP