Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?

Texas Straight Talk ^ | September 1, 2003 | US Rep. Ron Paul

[Cronos]

Sorry bud, I don't buy the argument that Saddy was behind 9/11. Yeah, getting rid of him was good and the war was just, but don't insult my intelligence by saying he was behind the attack on the towers or that he supported his foes, the slamofascists.

[Cronos]

Well, you cannot answer it since the WTC bombers were from Saudi Arabia and they were Islamists and not secualr Baathists. You know it very well.

Good point, we're evading the real problem, SA, and unless we get THAT regime along with the training HQ and the HQ for the talibs/alQ, Pak, we're not going to be able to rest easy, ever....

[Cronos]

, Iraq's connections to Al-Qaeda are quite strong.

Well, then, what about our two 'allies', SA and P? The case agains them is so obvious it doesn't need to be proven, they support slamofascists, propagandamullas, have nukes, chem, biowarweapons etc. etc. Saddy may have been many things and the war was just, but not for the terrorista reasons.

[A. Pole]

I know, they all look the same, those darkies (even if some of them have Stalin's mustache).

1. Were the racial comments necessary. Regarding race, I have Mizrachi and Yemeni-Jewish in-laws. Regarding color, my mother's brother is dark enough to be mistaken for a middle Easterner. (He was actually born in Warsaw)

You see, so it is in your interest to promote rational attitude and NOT to promote insane generalizations and hysteria. Don't you know how some Sikhs were attacked as a revange for September 11?

If aggresive fools can confuse Saudi terrorists with Sikhs they can confuse them with you or your relatives. Watch out what attitudes you are promoting.

As far as Iraq's involvement in 9-11, that is still an open question.

Yeah, and so the many theories about JFK assasination are still open.

[MEGoody]

"statecraft"

What the heck does this mean?

"weren't so unwilling to do what it takes to get past the "Oil Age"

What would it take to get past the 'oil age' as you call it - in dollars, roughly speaking. How does that impact the individual consumer as relates to prices paid, jobs lost, etc.? How long will it take?

And what does the 'oil age' have to do with Iraq? You still haven't answered the question - how would you have handled the problem of Iraq without 'empire' as you call it?

[bayourod]

Hello Justin. How's the anti-Bush swarm doing now days?

[Iris7]

I said, "When we start with reality as it is, now, our foreign policy is being handled brilliantly." I can rephrase. Considering the international hand the Bush administration has been dealt, that is, the reality of the situation, they have done very well.

The Iraq conquest is necessary for at least three individually compelling reasons of which one is the interconnected nature of the Iranian, Russian, French-German, African, Chinese, and North Korean situations. The Bush administration is doing this very well.

My use of the word "statecraft" was meant to make my statement clear from the begining. It means the art of power and diplomacy, and the art of government. The "craft" of "state". Perhaps I shouldn't have used "statecraft" as it is not commonly used in America, as it has connotations unpleasant to much of the electorate!

Restating, the Bush administration foreign policy actions show an acute understanding of the international situation. When I first understood what they were doing in it's entirety I was amazed that this could be the American government I was watching! Not the usual doofuss Animal House!

As far as moving out of the "Oil Age", this would be, relative to just continuing to import oil, expensive, politically difficult, time consuming, and a lot of work generally. Many powerful groups and people would prefer the status quo. The science is pretty much there, but the technology would have to be developed, and the implementation would have to be a series of steps. How long it would take depends on the willingness of the people to get the job done. It is a very large project, bigger than World War Two, more the size of what the Chinese have done since 1920. Such a large project that execution definately requires statecraft!

[Iris7]

You asked, "How does that impact the individual consumer as relates to prices paid, jobs lost, etc.? How long will it take?" That depends on how you go about it. A multi-generational approach would be less disruptive, if the project could be kept on track. The economy would have to be rebuilt nearly from scratch, with existing assets being used as salvage. As they are anyway! (over time)

It would be a big job, plenty of work for everybody. I see no reason that adequate food, shelter, clothing, and health care would need to be sacrificed if we make this change. If we wait to do it until we are forced to make the change from the "Oil Age" then the sacrifices will likely be bitter.

[MEGoody]

"A multi-generational approach would be less disruptive."

Great, I have no issues with finding new technologies that would reduce our dependence on oil (as long as the average familiy's budget isn't busted just to be able to afford a car to drive to work).

But you still haven't answered the question about how you would handle the Iraq problem. I'll presume you don't have an answer. :)

[Iris7]

OK, now I see what you are looking for. I try not to think about what I would do in someone else's shoes unless I am fairly certain, through specialized knowledge, that I understand the situation adequately, or at least as well as the person whose shoes I am putting on. Even then I find that all too often the person I criticize was correct enough in what he was doing to get the job done, as he saw the job.

[rmlew]

Well, then, what about our two 'allies', SA and P? The case agains them is so obvious it doesn't need to be proven, they support slamofascists, propagandamullas, have nukes, chem, biowarweapons etc. etc. Saddy may have been many things and the war was just, but not for the terrorista reasons.

The Saudis are difficult. It is possible that Prince Turiq al-Faisal was involved in 9-11 and in the recent attack on UN HQ in Baghdad.
3 of the more fundamentalist princes died in the week after 9-11.
The Pakistani government is officially helping us. However, the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) is full of Islamists. (they created the Taliban and are running terrorist operations in India).

The problem is that Pakistan has Nuclear weapons and is allied to China.
We can't hit Saudi Arabia until we get alternate sources of oil. That may have been a reason to hit Iraq first. (the Saudis should worry if we take out Hugo Chavez of Venezuala)

[rmlew]

You see, so it is in your interest to promote rational attitude and NOT to promote insane generalizations and hysteria.
When have I over generalized?

Don't you know how some Sikhs were attacked as a revange for September 11?
I hope the people who did so are prosecuted and put away.

[A. Pole]

When have I over generalized?

When you imply Iraqi guilt for Islamist/Wahabi crime just because they are in the area and are Arabs you over generalise same way as those people who blamed Sikhs because they had turbans.

[bc2]

no. we can not and should not occupy Germany, either. Are you detecting the patern here?

[rmlew]

I wrote:
When have I over generalized?

A. Pole responded:
When you imply Iraqi guilt for Islamist/Wahabi crime just because they are in the area and are Arabs you over generalise same way as those people who blamed Sikhs because they had turbans.

I would suggest that you retake readong comprehension classes in english.
I did not implicate Iraq because of its location or the race of the 70% of its populace. (The rest are Kurds, Turkmen, and Chaldeans) I implicated Iraq because of its funding for and training of Islamist terrorist including those associated with Al Qaeda.

You lost that arguement.