nitelite33
Chillin' like a villain
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Posts
- 1,280
I don't really have a problem with the whiplash dichotomy within the American government.
Much of the grimness is a sad necessity, when considering the tactics our opponent’s employ.
It’s the political tail-wagging and hypocrisy that pisses me off.
This war is about economics plain and simple. If we were talking pragmatically, then I would say this is a war America needs to make. If we were talking philosophically, then I would be strongly against it.
Even though the Iraqi oil-fields are in ruin and there is basically no extraction infrastructure, getting the oil isn’t impossible—just costly. France and Russia are more then eager to step up and bring this fresh supply into their circle of influence (and enjoy the added reward of destabilizing the market).
So the US goes in and organizes another 'friendly' regime that will allow the them to massage the situation to benefit the west.
And so it goes...
It’s dirty tricks for sure, but in this ‘us versus them’ world, it might be necessary. /shrug
We’re not talking about the way things ‘should be’, we are talking about the ‘way things are’.
BUT
The problem is: With memory of Vietnam still fresh, American parents are not so willing to throw a generation of children into the breach to protect the oil market.
Thus a President needs to ‘sell’ the moral authority of a war to parents who will send their children in harms way.
Unfortunately for Bush (fortunate for thinking people everywhere), the public is much more questioning and cynical this go-around, and the true nature of this particular war is *so obvious*. It’s basically insulting that GB honestly believes we would swallow his rhetoric wholesale—and it's even worse when goosesteppers like busybody parrot it everywhere.
Yes, this is a war with Imperialist overtones…
But this is the world we live in. Sad and true.
Just don’t hand me a shit-sandwich and say “mmmmm good…”
P.S. I've mostly stayed out of this circular debate... But its important enough that I wanted to weigh in too.
Much of the grimness is a sad necessity, when considering the tactics our opponent’s employ.
It’s the political tail-wagging and hypocrisy that pisses me off.
This war is about economics plain and simple. If we were talking pragmatically, then I would say this is a war America needs to make. If we were talking philosophically, then I would be strongly against it.
Even though the Iraqi oil-fields are in ruin and there is basically no extraction infrastructure, getting the oil isn’t impossible—just costly. France and Russia are more then eager to step up and bring this fresh supply into their circle of influence (and enjoy the added reward of destabilizing the market).
So the US goes in and organizes another 'friendly' regime that will allow the them to massage the situation to benefit the west.
And so it goes...
It’s dirty tricks for sure, but in this ‘us versus them’ world, it might be necessary. /shrug
We’re not talking about the way things ‘should be’, we are talking about the ‘way things are’.
BUT
The problem is: With memory of Vietnam still fresh, American parents are not so willing to throw a generation of children into the breach to protect the oil market.
Thus a President needs to ‘sell’ the moral authority of a war to parents who will send their children in harms way.
Unfortunately for Bush (fortunate for thinking people everywhere), the public is much more questioning and cynical this go-around, and the true nature of this particular war is *so obvious*. It’s basically insulting that GB honestly believes we would swallow his rhetoric wholesale—and it's even worse when goosesteppers like busybody parrot it everywhere.
Yes, this is a war with Imperialist overtones…
But this is the world we live in. Sad and true.
Just don’t hand me a shit-sandwich and say “mmmmm good…”
P.S. I've mostly stayed out of this circular debate... But its important enough that I wanted to weigh in too.
Last edited:
