Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

[mxlm]

You miss the broader point. Sure, Iraq was about reshaping the Middle East.

Why reshap the Middle East and not, say, the Congo? Because the Middle East is vital to American interests.

Why is the Middle East vital to American interests? I'll give you three guesses, but you'll only need one.

'Blood for oil' is a painful oversimplification, but 'Iraq had nothing to do with oil' is intellectually dishonest.

[ç i p h é r]

Most of us blue folk already live low impact lifestyles. But you red folk keep buying Hummers. It's going to take a lot more than voluteerism to change our oil needs. It's going to require strong policies that punish using gas hogs and reward installing solar panels on your home. A lot.

I don't own a hummer, but I'm also not a registered Republican (or Democrat for that matter). Do you mean to tell me that the rich folks in the Democractic party don't own their own automobile fleets or live in over sized mansions? That the poor folks in the Democratic party don't wish that they could enjoy that kind of lifestyle?

I live in a blue state yet I don't see many people driving hybrid vehicles or anyone installing solar panels on their homes. In fact, I don't hear anybody talking about solar panels or even leveraging solar energy. The last time I was exposed to the concept was in college over a decade ago and back then, the technology was too cost prohibitive, inefficient (required a lot of surface area to generate a decent amount of electricity), and climate specific for common use. Certainly technology improves over time, but if the technology has improved to the point where broad adoption was realistically possible, surely people would be talking about it.

[ç i p h é r]

Why reshap the Middle East and not, say, the Congo? Because the Middle East is vital to American interests.

In a broad context, I certainly agree.

'Blood for oil' is a painful oversimplification, but 'Iraq had nothing to do with oil' is intellectually dishonest.

As regards the reasons for going to war, I really can't make the connection to oil, no. We certainly didn't intervene in Afghanistan because of oil and that is very recent precedent for intervention in that neighborhood. I think it's more a connection of convenience for the anti-war crowd than anything of actual substance. But I'm not saying I'm right either or saying that our interest in Iraq subsequent to the removal of Saddam hasn't returned once more to their traditional roots.

[Zakharra]

This might be a redundant question, but what 'evil' was done in going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? The US removed a tyrannical regime in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and a vicious dictator in Iraq. For that the US is hated?

[mxlm]

As regards the reasons for going to war, I really can't make the connection to oil, no

I note you skipped the middle bit of the chain of reasoning. Is that because you'd be unable to state this if you hadn't skipped it?

If there's another reason, I'd love to hear it; simply ignoring it forces me to make assumptions, and those assumptions tend to be unfavorable.

Frankly, it seems intellectually dishonest to me to assume that any actions taken in the ME have nothing to do with oil. Of course they do--it's part and parcel of the Great Game.

We certainly didn't intervene in Afghanistan because of oil and that is very recent precedent for intervention in that neighborhood.

We invaded Afghanistan because a terrorist group based there and connected with the ruling power (such as it was) attacked us in a spectacular way. How, exactly, is that a precedent for invading a nation that, ah, never attacked us in a meaningful way?

For that matter, why do Muslim extremists hate us? Because we've been persuing our interests in the Mid East for decades, and in doing so have pissed off the locals, repeatedly. What interests have we been persuing? Oil.

Hard to say AQ didn't attack us because of oil when one of the things that set OBL off was troops in SA--and troops were only in SA because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which only merited a response because of...oil.

Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be that AQ attacked us as a consequence of our pursuit of our national interests.

[Zakharra]

As regards the reasons for going to war, I really can't make the connection to oil, no

I note you skipped the middle bit of the chain of reasoning. Is that because you'd be unable to state this if you hadn't skipped it?

If there's another reason, I'd love to hear it; simply ignoring it forces me to make assumptions, and those assumptions tend to be unfavorable.

Frankly, it seems intellectually dishonest to me to assume that any actions taken in the ME have nothing to do with oil. Of course they do--it's part and parcel of the Great Game.

We certainly didn't intervene in Afghanistan because of oil and that is very recent precedent for intervention in that neighborhood.

We invaded Afghanistan because a terrorist group based there and connected with the ruling power (such as it was) attacked us in a spectacular way. How, exactly, is that a precedent for invading a nation that, ah, never attacked us in a meaningful way?

For that matter, why do Muslim extremists hate us? Because we've been persuing our interests in the Mid East for decades, and in doing so have pissed off the locals, repeatedly. What interests have we been persuing? Oil.

Hard to say AQ didn't attack us because of oil when one of the things that set OBL off was troops in SA--and troops were only in SA because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which only merited a response because of...oil.

Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be that AQ attacked us as a consequence of our pursuit of our national interests.

Didn't OBL have a long rant about the decadence of the WEst and the US in particular? Of our western ways, our support of Israel? I seriously doubt he attacked us just because we had troops in SA and Kuwait.

[mxlm]

So do I. Hence my use of the qualifier 'one of'

[Grand Fromage]

So do I. Hence my use of the qualifier 'one of'

RAVEL: There is no room for "two" in a world of ones and zeroes, no place for "mayhap" in a house of trues and falses.

D&D injection in off topic omigod :O

[ç i p h é r]

I note you skipped the middle bit of the chain of reasoning. Is that because you'd be unable to state this if you hadn't skipped it?

No. The first two questions just seemed to ask the same thing in different ways and I agreed with you. Generally speaking, our strategic interest in the Middle East is based on oil.

Frankly, it seems intellectually dishonest to me to assume that any actions taken in the ME have nothing to do with oil. Of course they do--it's part and parcel of the Great Game.

But we are not talking about ANY action. We are specifically talking about the war in Iraq and speculating on the true basis for it.

We invaded Afghanistan because a terrorist group based there and connected with the ruling power (such as it was) attacked us in a spectacular way. How, exactly, is that a precedent for invading a nation that, ah, never attacked us in a meaningful way?

It's a precedent for waging war on the basis of national security. Not oil.

Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be that AQ attacked us as a consequence of our pursuit of our national interests.

Yeah, but what nation doesn't pursue their own interests? Hell, the Chinese are stealing our nuclear secrets and nobody says boo. Mexico is exporting Mexicans and everyone thinks we're bastards for objecting.

I guess we just need some disgruntled American citizen to form an international terror organization and lash out at the world so we can begin to condemn the Chinese and the Mexicans for pursuing their own national interests.

You know ... looking at how the sentiment has formed around the world, it's pretty funny. Dictatorships are rarely hated by other nations; They are hated by their people. Democracies are rarely hated by their people; They are hated by other nations. What an epiphany. Tell me this isn't so?!

[mxlm]

But we are not talking about ANY action. We are specifically talking about the war in Iraq and speculating on the true basis for it.

And my point is that every action taken in the Mid East, on some level, relates to oil. Because that's the only vital interest we have there.

Note that I'm not saying 'American policy in ME bad because = attempt to secure oil'. I am saying that it's not inaccurate to say 'Iraq was about oil', in the broader context.

Yeah, but what nation doesn't pursue their own interests?

Um. The hippy communes?

You know ... looking at how the sentiment has formed around the world, it's pretty funny. Dictatorships are rarely hated by other nations; They are hated by their people. Democracies are rarely hated by their people; They are hated by other nations. What an epiphany. Tell me this isn't so?!

Partially correct. Dictatorships that don't attempt to build large empires aren't hated by other nations. Democracies that attempt to influence events in far off lands are hated by other nations.

The reason for this should be evident. Even if the rest of the world is just being ungrateful, it's not hard to figure out why, say, the Iranians would hate us and not the Chinese or Cubans.

[NickD]

I generally have a low opinion of politicians and certainly don't think they care more about the laymen than themselves. But the current situation is NOT good for this President or his family legacy. Knowingly going into Iraq on a trumped up WMD charge is the equivalent to committing presidential suicide. Has there been a single President of a coalition nation that has not paid a political price for Iraq...? In what way has this been good for G. Bush or his family?

Hello? This is George Bush... you know, the person whose family made their money from oil... Who gets a lot of money from the oil sector...? Are you really asking how he personally benefits by oil companies being able to charge much more? Presidential suicide how? He's done two terms, he can't do any more anyway.

In fact, I don't hear anybody talking about solar panels or even leveraging solar energy. The last time I was exposed to the concept was in college over a decade ago and back then, the technology was too cost prohibitive, inefficient (required a lot of surface area to generate a decent amount of electricity), and climate specific for common use. Certainly technology improves over time, but if the technology has improved to the point where broad adoption was realistically possible, surely people would be talking about it.

Solar energy is subsidised in California... mainly pushed through by a Republican governer.

We certainly didn't intervene in Afghanistan because of oil and that is very recent precedent for intervention in that neighborhood.

Drugs. Everyone knows that the CIA doesn't get enough money from the governement to support their alien technology programs, so they resort to dealing drugs to get more income. By controlling Afganishtan, they control the biggest heroin producer in the world.

[Grand Fromage]

Drugs. Everyone knows that the CIA doesn't get enough money from the governement to support their alien technology programs, so they resort to dealing drugs to get more income. By controlling Afganishtan, they control the biggest heroin producer in the world.

And the reptilians primarily eat opium-related products.

[Jeppan]

You know ... looking at how the sentiment has formed around the world, it's pretty funny. Dictatorships are rarely hated by other nations; They are hated by their people. Democracies are rarely hated by their people; They are hated by other nations. What an epiphany. Tell me this isn't so?!

It isn´t so. Most democracies work to have a respectable facade towards the rest of the world, cause it benifits them and their people. This could involve the democracy paying their dues in the UN, giving aid (and no, buy-back is not aid), generally not starting war and inciting civil wars.

Your epihany holds no water but what else is new?

[ç i p h é r]

Hello? This is George Bush... you know, the person whose family made their money from oil... Who gets a lot of money from the oil sector...? Are you really asking how he personally benefits by oil companies being able to charge much more? Presidential suicide how? He's done two terms, he can't do any more anyway.

Yeah but we went to war during his first term. And his dad was a one term President. Surely that was a motivator he wouldn't ignore. He already has money. What he needs is a legacy.

Solar energy is subsidised in California... mainly pushed through by a Republican governer.

Cool. But I don't live in KAH-LI-FOHNYAH!
(obviously the cost issue is still a factor)

Your epihany holds no water but what else is new?

Love you too my communist friend.

[Joos]

This might be a redundant question, but what 'evil' was done in going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? The US removed a tyrannical regime in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and a vicious dictator in Iraq. For that the US is hated?

If those are the reasons you think you went to war for, then I don't hate you, but I despice and loath your ignorance and all that makes you want to believe that. And I am definetly not alone here outside the US to think so.