US best interest to leave UN. - Page 2

Right now, the world oil markets are missing 3 million barrels a day from Venesuela. There is also a war premium of probably 5 dollars a barrel. Prior to the Venesuelan problems, oil was around $25/barrel for the US benchmark. Iraq's increased production will put them around what we've lost from Venesuela, pushing oil back down around $25. When that problem is finally solved, OPEC will cut production to keep prices up. I'd imagine oil will be around $20-25 when things settle down, but even though getting oil from the US may be more expensive, and not economically viable, we should be ready for something else by being prepared to ramp up US production. Until hydrogen cars and military vehicles become widespread, oil will be a matter of national security, unfortunately.

The quote was Dana Carvey as President Bush, circa 1991.
As far as staying out of the politics of other regions, I agree - as long as it doesn't threaten our national security. Vietnam didn't, in fact, we caused the problem by forming SEATO because the nationalists who beat the French might have been communists. Of course, they became that after we decided to create S. Vietnam. Iraq is a threat to our national security, plain and simple. Saddam sees the solution to domestic problems in international actions. That is what happened in 1980, 1991, 1994, 1998. You can bet he will see that again. There will be unrest against him, so he will lash out again against an international target to secure his position at home. With that region producing something in the vicinity of 45% of the world's oil, that is a national security problem.

This is probably old by now, but check this out <a href="http://www.fuckitall.com/bsh/#" target="_blank">Bush's State of the Union Address</a>

I must say they did a great job altering that speech.

Saddam is not a religious zealot. I recommend going to your local library to read more about it.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq/</a>

Excerpt From CNN.com:

"Since Saddam himself is a secular dictator, his regime tends to support more secular terrorist groups, such as radical splinter groups from the PLO. Iraq tends not to host Muslim fundamentalist groups such as al Qaeda."

This is a little piece I like to call "Why Saiyan Prince is an idiot".

Define allies? are you referring to all your allies or just France & Germany? Canada is an ally, a very good ally, but we don't support this war, are we terrorist? Last time I check when the September 11th attacks happened we were the first ones to come and help.

Immaturity at its peak... Really, calling an entire country a bunch of gluttonous, alcoholic, nymphomaniacs does not support your anti-UN sentiment. Try throwing a relative point to support your thesis and people might actually take your rant seriously... We can all fling childish insults at each other, but it accomplishes nothing in the end. Germany is not mad about losing a war, Germany is happy to rid themselves of their Nazi history. They don't support the war because they refuse to be bullied into it.

I wish their was a stronger word than hypocrite to express my detest for what you have soiled the boards with. Why shouldn't you let the man do what he wants? Its not your country, its not your planet! You have taken the liberty to do what you want and go to war, yet you criticize the man for doing the same. If you support the September 11th attacks, by all mean, go to war. If not, then why do the same to another country?!

People will die, but the people that died for our freedoms in the past were that of our own men and women, not others! Since when is it justified to sacrifice an entire country for that of another. Do you really think that the distribution of fatalities will even remotely even?! No, no they won't. Thousands of innocent Iraqi people will be killed so that you can save 10 cents on ever litre of gas you purchase. My god, if you really believe this crap your spewing then your nothing more than a testament to why people harbour these ideals about your country in the first place!

We don't hate you, we hate the fact that our freedom is being usurped for ideals in which we don't support. Explain to me your definition of freedom, and try to apply it to something other than your ethnocentric view of this world. You are not renting the world my friend, we are independant people of independant countries with freedoms and values all our own.

10% of Iraq support this war, 90% don't wish to die.

This is different from what Bush wants to do how?!

I want to write more, but my head is spinning. This whole concept of "freedom when we let you" makes me ill...

I believe that 90% don't want to die, but where did you get this "10% of Iraqis support the war" statistic? If YOU were in a police state and YOU and YOUR FAMILY would be tortured, raped, and killed for supporting a foreign invasion to rid YOUR country of a tyrant, would YOU support this war?

My statistic come from my years in political science, sociology, & social welfare education. The Iraqi people face the same problem the United States does in regards to being represented by a fragment of their population. Not every American supports this war on Iraq, yet the media generally refuses to acknowledge this population. If YOU were a dictator and controlled the media would YOU put people didn't support your cause in front of the camera? No, probably not.

In regards to your other question, I don't know what I would do, I'm not in that situation at the moment and I hope I never will be. What I do know is that I don't support war, I don't support genocide, and I don't support the mandatory assistance being requested by Bush because he wants to fill his gas tank on a $20 bill.

This idealism has been done before, you think that we would have learned from our mistakes in the past. We failed to acknowledge this land as property of someone else when our ancestor took it, just as we fail to realize that what Iraq chooses to do with their resources is their decision.

50 years from now, when oil has been depleted from this country, our children's children will look upon us in disgust if this war ever comes to pass...

I can see why your convictions are shaping your views, but I just don't believe that the majority of Iraqis wouldn't want to be rid of Saddam. He's killed millions of his own people, they suffer so he can use UN money for his palaces and mosques, he only cares about the Baath Sunnis, he has been in charge of the worst deliberate ecological disaster in world history (draining the swamps between the Tigris and Euphrates) to punish the Swamp Arabs. He indiscriminately rapes, beats, tortures, and kills people if they don't toe the line. If people actually want to live in a nation like that, well, let them follow him when the US invades. Judging by what happened in 1992, I would say there will be uprisings when people see we are serious, and the majority of the country will welcome the conquerors with open arms.

Riding Iraq of Saddam is one thing, going to war with the U.S. is another. If Saiyan Prince made one coherent statement is his above excrement, it was that innocent people will die. When war happens the innocent will be the first to suffer, the 10% that support Saddam are prepared for this war, the others are not.

I have no doubt in my mind that the people of Iraq want to rid their country of a murderous tyrant, but not at the cost of their husbands, wives, children, & friends. This war is an invitation for genocide under the guise of peace, the Iraqi innocents know this, most other countries just don't acknowledge it.

(Edited for a mistake that would have killed me)

Saddam may have "killed his own people" but they were rebels and "terrorists" against his goverment. They were sunni muslim Kurds. Sunni, as is Osama type fanatics. Saddam is a shite and if the US were not at war with the Islamic world, then Osama himself would be parking bombs in Baghdad. It's all politics and people choose to believe what they want to believe. Both sides here find evidence to support their claims. No better than any politician that doesn't care about the opposition.

The US does plenty of "bad" things to keep us in power. It's all about the struggle to maintain supremacy. Saddam threatens us in a little way so we must destroy him. Nigerian workers go on strike, well now we must pay attention, at least until the crisis is resolved. We have military personnel operating in about 136 nations (that the government discloses) and their primary job is to keep the peace so that American intersts can be protected. What if any other nation at all were to operate on our soil? Noone here understands what it's like to have foreign soldiers on american soil yet we deploy around the world. It's called imperialism.

There is, of course, nothing evil about being imperialistic. We are the super power on earth and we can only stay that way by keeping everyone else down. The problem comes when people on opposing sides argue to the point where any type of action is made less effective. Like it is here. No one can say who is right here. All I see is a bunch of people who refuse to understand the problem in whole. The people who come into this forum already have their opinion decided no matter what the facts are. They refuse to discuss things dispite claiming to do so.

Democracy was an experiment and in a way, still is. Can we make this work? The people in this forum suggest that deadlock is always a certainty. Perhaps a failure of this type will show that democracy is slow and does not work because there will always be people who oppose whatever the majority opinion is. The failure of democracy begins in an issue just like this. One that divides people right down the middle. In a way, this is more interesting to me. To see the animal of man work against himself. To be overcome not by outside forces, but by internal ones. We've built a great nation that cannot be destroyed by an foreign power, but we cannot escape rotting from the inside. I could easily picture similar arguements made in the Roman Senate at the end of the republican era. The left and the right made very similar points concerning foreign and internal policy.

Saddam is nobody in the grand scheme of our civilization. Are we ready to begin the final phase of republican imperilism? To act without the consent of any other nation. To do what we wish at any time and disegard any body of dialogue? If we are, then we must be ready to carry out similar operations in the rest of the world. Saddam won't be the last. The islamic world can breed terrorist leaders from several dozen nations. Most are facist and seciptible to takeover by anti-US elements. Are we ready to commit troops overseas even more than we are now?

Very difficult questions I think.

(Personal view follows)

I think we are. The US is the greatest consumer of natural resources that the world has seen yet. We cannot continue upon this path and expect to maintain the same level of consuming the world's resources and not expect the world to object. Most here are unaware (except for Dev probably) that the bulk of the world lives in a condition that would apall the average American. We are rich, we gods among men. And we let "them" die so we can live like this. It's come to a point where we must decide whether we wish to share our resources or continue taking. Well, we must continue taking and in order to do, all that object to us and wish to kill us, must be killed. We will never stop terrorists until we stop the forces that create them. We must destroy the environments that breed them. We must destroy the poverty that causes them to become fanatics. We must systematically reduce the population of the earth to a level where all may consume resources as quickly as the average american does.

I would propose to elimanate all these threats by maintaining a small population that includes a variety of cultures of the earth. The rest of the world contribute little anyway and are a possible breeding ground for terrorists which should be eradicated for the good of mankind. In the long run, history will not remember them, only that strong men stood up the the useless populations of the earth and stablized its growth. We need to develop a single set of goals and get to accomplishing them. We need to advance mankind and to do that, we need to elimante the portion that does not care about this.

When every man in the world has something significant to lose, they will think twice about disrupting the status quo and risking destroying his life. It will be for the good of all to remove those that have nothing to lose. Many will say that genocide goes too far, but the way we are headed, we must take it all the way. Imperilism must include the total eradication of our enemies or else they will be back to haunt us. Terrorism will never be stopped unless there isn't a single man left to carry it out. We can ensure this by creating an extremely strong economy based on maintaining a very high standard of life for everyone on earth. To do this, we must strategically limit the total human population until we develop the means to expand our environment. I.E. colonize extraterrristrial worlds.

We look at dictators as evil, but forget that it will be the population of Iraq that truly suffers. We would do them well to put them all out of their misery. We destroy ten million lives today, but will save trillions from suffering through the course of history if we prevent future generations from ever being born.

We are Americans. We have arrived at a point where we do not need consent from anyone to act. We are the greatest consumers of material and must do everything we can to ensure a constant supply of that material. We do not care about the billions who live on a dollar a day anyway. We do not truly care for those who live under dictator until we are threatened. We might as well be proud of who we are. We are the inheritors of Rome. We are the greatest superpower in history. We give ourselves the right to decide the fate of the world.

Pax Americana. Sic Pacem, Para Bellum.

Hmmm...and where would we get this kind of technology? Through a competition-based economy? No, of course not.

Howard Zinn, much?

edited: an article in a sentence

You almost had me Imperator GAC, but you lost me near the end...

You deny these countries the ability to run and regulate their own resources, then threaten them with death because they cannot escape the arm you twist.

Define a useless population for me, what criteria fits this description? Is it a population that has been enslaved by your politics, then reprimanded for it? Or perhaps you might define a useless country as one that simply wants to eradicate the existing countries for their personal gain. I take the latter on this...

Every man has something to lose, its what they are willing to give up to keep it. These people hate you because additudes like this that keep these people oppressed. How can they ever get ahead and become a "useful" society when its people like you that have taken away every chance they had a succeeding.

Terrorism will exist as long as oppression, theft, and ignorance remain among the Americas. Its not about people, its about ideals, and the more people you kill the more you strengthen said ideals.

Its about giving something up for the good of society. If the U.S. would loosen their strangle hold on these impoverished nations by giving them back the right to harvest their own resources, then planetary homeostasis can finally continue.

Its about equality and the differing perceptions of it. Every time you drive your car you are taking part in the theft and rape that exists in the middle east. Give them back whats theirs and quit trying to govern the world, thats what Iraq and everyone else wants.

You have no right to dictate anything, you have clouded yourselves with this illusion of supremacy yet your no better than the people you fight. Hypocrisy cannot define your views & additudes, its this mind set that has caused your own people to die in the street. You sir are only one or two paychecks away from living the way you so obviously detest. If your so superior, take the high road and help these people or else be prepared for their revolt, your no better than the people you hate.

You are absolutely right there. We are no better than our enemies. We're just animals just like them. We pretend to be better, but we're not. My post left many details out and I am in no way advocating war. Just theorizing on possible eugenic principles that man may utilize. I do not care for the politics of today. Perhaps it does seem extreme to attempt to regulate the population of the world. I was just theorizing about one possible way to end and endless war.

My words seem very wreckless and insane in this context because we are communicating through an inpersonal medium. I could temper what I've said with more details that make it all seem less terrible, but that's for another day. I only post such Jabba like insanity once in a long while. Thanks for reading.

Imperator, even though what you wrote is scary shit, I respect the fact that you can simply come out and say the truth behind American foreign policy, and point plainly towards its inevitable and final destination.

This is the undercurrent that I've been seeing for months now, and I wish all the bullshit would be cut out, all the lies would be stopped, and you guys would just do what you want/have to do.

This is the true Republican imperialist attitude in its rawest form. There is no debate about it. This is the absolute truth that I believe.

The truth that we hold self-evident.

The rest of the world is already about to be fucked by the American administration...at the very least, please don't tell us you love us before you do it.

Hmmmm...Two years in office does not an Empire make.

I agree that written text leaves much to the interpretation of the reader, but you'll be hard pressed justifying genocide to me. Extermination is the cowards way out of this mess, anyone could do it and start from scratch, but thats not how it works. We got ourselves into this mess, now its our job to get ourselves out.

The problem is that most people don't consider themselves part of a global community, we find ourselves limited to the boundaries which were laid hundreds of years ago. These boundaries, like so many other things today, are out dated and unpractical.

Its the pooling of resources that will be our salvation, not the harbouring of them. We've got to develop relationships based on trust and respect with these countries, not fear and lies. This cold-war could be the perfect opportunity to complete restructure the Americas relationships with the east, but we've got to be willing to give something up as well.

So the word Sovereignty has no meaning in this borderless world? Fascinating.

Sovereignty is an out dated concept. The problem is that everyone is looking for solutions within the mould. The mould doesn't work. It fails to incorporate any humanistic values and is based on capitalism and individualized wealth. Its been proven that there is enough to go around, but as soon as we share, we lose the power and control. Its ridiculous!

99% of our human history we developed in societies based on equality, there is no reason we couldn't go back to that and thrive as a productive modern world.

ooookay...I'll just back out slowly...

Thats the spirit Kronos, make sure to close the door behind you.