Quake3World

KingManULTRA wrote:What is this? The "American Conspiracy Weekly" newsletter?

seremtan wrote: i must admit i ask myself what there is in iraq that could possibly be worth all this mess, and the answer i come up with is that iraq is situated bang on top of a dwindling energy resource on which america's potential rivals such as europe or the far east/china depend rather more than the US, and that controlling these energy reserves gives the US an effective veto over any rival challenging it for global supremacy. that's what rumsfeld, cheney and wolfowitz were saying in their 'project for the new american century' pieces back in the 1990s. they also said it would take a 'pearl harbor style attack' on the US to provide a pretext for this energy grab that could be sold to the american people, and lo and behold, such an attack took place, and here they are doing exactly what they planned.

furthermore the lack of timetable for withdrawal has nothing to do with the insurgency or anything going in iraq. it has to do with the well-known fact that there was never any exit strategy - for the simple reason that there was never intended to be any exit. the US bases there are intended to be permanent, as a tool of control of the region and its energy reserves

The U.S. will not have a significant military presence in Iraq 5 years from now, and most certainly not one large enough in size to "take control of the region." Such an endeavor would be highly unpopular and very costly. Bush's party as a whole dislikes long, drawn out conflicts with permanent and large scale military installations in the region for various reasons, mostly because of the insane costs associated with doing that and how it contradicts conservative fiscal policy. The U.S. will pull out almost completely sooner or later (as soon as is feasible), period.

seremtan wrote: i mean, this is all so transparently obvious it still amazes me that there are people like yourself who, if they're not actually believing the propaganda, are at the very least giving the benefit of the doubt where no benefit is deserved

This is funny coming from someone (probably) living in Europe where the entire media is like Fox News with a leftist slant on all issues regarding U.S. foreign policy.

Also, I see the Iraq war in a negative light but that doesn't change the fact that mistakes made in the past need to be resolved in the present, and that means seeing the Iraq situation through to the best possible solution.

firstly, some facts:

fact #1: the theory that the US strategy is to control middle eastern energy reserves as a veto on rivals is based on the idea of rumsfeld, cheney, wolfowitz etc that the US strategy should be to do exactly that, given the right opportunity (a 'pearl harbor style attack' - THEIR WORDS). those three guys are now in power. do the frikkin math

fact #2: there never was an exit strategy regarding iraq. this is well known. this FACT fits with and follows on perfectly with fact #1

these aren't conspiracies. these are FACTS.

secondly, there's this:

Bush's party as a whole dislikes long, drawn out conflicts with permanent and large scale military installations in the region for various reasons, mostly because of the insane costs associated with doing that and how it contradicts conservative fiscal policy

holy crap man, does your cave have cable? the iraq conflict is ALREADY a long drawn-out conflict, and while i'm sure bush would like the insurgency to go away, the fact that it hasn't doesn't matter enough to cause a policy change. as for the "insane costs" which "contradict conservative fiscal policy" - fucking hell, the US spends half its federal budget on the military, and what it spends is equal to the rest of the world combined. hello? this "conservative fiscal policy" is tax cuts for the rich and raping what's left of the social security structure in the US

This is funny coming from someone (probably) living in Europe where the entire media is like Fox News with a leftist slant on all issues regarding U.S. foreign policy.

mate, from where your sitting, fucking jean marie le pen would look left wing. i've no idea about continental media, but about half the mainstream media in the uk does not have a left-wing bias (it's right wing, though not as right wing as fox), and even if it did i think i'm just about clever enough to detect propaganda when i hear it, which is more than you can say for yourself by the sounds of things

Also, I see the Iraq war in a negative light but that doesn't change the fact that mistakes made in the past need to be resolved in the present, and that means seeing the Iraq situation through to the best possible solution.

ah yes, i think i've heard this called 'the doctrine of change of course', i.e. "yeah, we made some mistakes in the past, though we never admitted they were mistakes at the time, but now we've changed, so everyone can look forward to a glorious future - at least until some time in the future when we're forced to admit that what we are doing NOW is a mistake" etc.

what's happening in iraq isn't an attempt to fix past mistakes, because from the perspective of US foreign policy there haven't been any mistakes. when did bush or anyone else ever admit that it was a mistake to support saddam when he was gassing kurds? when did he ever admit it was a mistake to arm the mujaheddin in afghanistan and employ osama bin laden as a freelancer against the soviets? the answer is: never. you're confusing your own picture of US history in the middle east with bush & co's picture. what you see as a mistake, they don't