Uniting America

[240 is Back]

Okay, as some may have read, I have gone from being a pro-Bush guy from 1992 through 2005, to being a conspiracy guy, examining the many inconsistencies in official stories of major events, in 2006.

It's 2007, and as I begin to learn the deeper motives behind the wars in the middle east, i am beginning to see things as necessary, however ugly they are.  Some thoughts:

Neocon Republicans - The WMD story was a bunch of bullshit.  Stop defending it.  The record shows we had major plans for afghan pipeline, we got burned by the taleban, and we invaded.  We had plans to invade from Russia in 2000, so this was way before 9/11.  We're not "liberating" anyone, so stop losing your credibility with that transparent lie.

Moderates and Dems - Yes, there is no immanent threat in Iraq/Iran, and yes, we are losing 3 to 5 men a day there to referee a civil war.  But we have to do it so there's a reason for us to stay.  Sure, bush lies and his staff insult us daily with wispy dreams of saving iraq and it's the furthest from the truth, but it's needed.

CTers - Yes, 911 had help from white guys in ties.  And the coverup invstigation was a complete sham.   The USA has always been run on a "greatest good for all", or utilitarianism appraoch, and the media has always helped maintain that.  The web has killed that.  The web has unraveled the lies which USED to allow the govt to handle things like resource procurement under guises.  And the CTers are right on their facts.


Bottom line - we have to unite.  As much as I do not like him, we gotta support the Bush Doctrine.  The war is bullshit, but if we don't use it to acquire afghan/iraq/iran oil, someone else will.  Is it morally reprehensible?  Absolutely.  But if there was a famine, would you eat your neighbor's children to feed your own?  Yes, you would. 

Our adversaries in the country know what we're doing.  China is practicing taking out satellites with missiles.  jordan wants nukes so they're not #5 or 6 on the US Conquest list.

In 2008, IMO we should elect a person who will acquire middle eastern resources with as little greed/corruption as possible.  I don't know who that is.  It's weird waking up (again?) like this, to see that both sides of the aisle are right, and both are wrong.  but they're all americans.  Okay, rant end.

[Hedgehog]

I dunno mang.

I think someone with the diplomatic skills of guy is what USA needs right now.

Nixon was a crook. But he had an understanding for effective diplomacy.

With a president with good diplomatic skills, the overall political turmoil globally will settle down.

And USA and the rest of the world will experience continued financial growth, and hopefully will be able to focus more on the environmental issues instead.

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

If the US were to leave the region via diplomacy, would it be 2-3 years before other nations would try the exact same thing we did?

[Hedgehog]

If the US were to leave the region via diplomacy, would it be 2-3 years before other nations would try the exact same thing we did?

That's a hypothetical question.

But I would guess: No.

Why not? Because USA would still have presence via Saudi Arabia, Turkey et al.

You seem to think that China or Russia would roll in with tanks in Bagdad, Teheran or Kabul, the minute USA leaves Iraq.

Russia has become expansive again, but not military expansive. They are economically expansive, using Gazprom to build a powerbase globally.

China is economically expansive as well rather than military expansive.

If anything, USA is wasting resources in Iraq.

Instead of befriending and creating bonds in the region, USA is becoming pariah.

Which is bad. Not only for USA, but for the whole world, since USA is the number one economy and leading nation in the world.

USA is numero uno and it is in the interest of everyone that USA is doing fine.

-Hedge

[GroinkTropin]

China has the money to buy oil at the mo, and russia has their own. If russia suddenly lost its spine and stopped drilling because psycopath left wingers cry about it constantly, theyd be a lot like us. Liberals are idiots, and this proves it. You can't drill cuz it makes them cry, you can't find oil elsewhere cuz it makes them cry, they just cant be pleased. Unless theyre having gay sex on drugs, of course.

[Tapeworm]

I dunno mang.

I think someone with the diplomatic skills of guy is what USA needs right now.

Nixon was a crook. But he had an understanding for effective diplomacy.

With a president with good diplomatic skills, the overall political turmoil globally will settle down.

And USA and the rest of the world will experience continued financial growth, and hopefully will be able to focus more on the environmental issues instead.

-Hedge

Some noble ideas there Hedge, but a tug of war over oil distribution is inevitable.  The US won't gain total control over the oil through military conquest.  All parties will have to continue to receive their supply and those who control the oil will have to "play ball" if they want to maintain their control.  A complete embargo against China or anyone would never be tolerated.  IMO, this war is designed to give the US and allies the advantage in terms of oil control - perhaps the "first world's" last bargaining chip with the rise of the populous "third world."

The diplomatic solution you speak of would only be as strong as the word of the parties involved.  They might even mean it when they shake hands on some particular agreement, but circumstances are ever changing and old handshakes and alliances just won't mean much when it comes to oil, I suspect.