Job Discussion Forums

[moonraven]

Leeroy, Iraq is not a situation of war--it was an invasion of Iraq by the US and a few of its henchmen with only one goal: to take control of Iraq's petroleum reserves. The Iraqi people killing themselves in car bombings is not a "peevish" rewaction to the invasion, but an indication of their being DEAD SERIOUS about defending their country from invaders.

I am appalled by the cavalier attitude of many posters who support throwing international law out the window when it sets limits on self-interest. Those laws were developed over centuries to prevent precisely the Bully on the Corner syndrome. It's clear to me why Bush will be re-elected in November: he represents the majority thinking--or the lack of thinking, in this case.

[stillnosheep]

Dearest leeroy,

It's black, it's viscous and it bubbles out of the ground with shit loads of pressure behind it. OK?

[leeroy]

I am trying to get away from the "Isn't the US terrible for invading" thing, and move towards "What now?".

There are many Iraqis (and others) who seem intent on destabilising the country - this is simply a bad idea for all involved. The Americans (and others) are attempting to build stability and infrastructure - I know whose side I'm on.

I wonder how long before the US gets it's payback with the oil revenues - after all it has spent quite a lot of money on this little venture hasn't it?

[stillnosheep]

Dear Leeroy,

We're glad that you know which side you are on.

Now could you tell the rest of us because we're getting mightily confused.

sns

[moonraven]

Leeroy said: I am trying to get away from the "Isn't the US terrible for invading" thing, and move towards "What now?".

Well, that's just great, leeroy. If we get away from that I can tell you EXACTLY what will happen next: the invasion of another petroleum-producing country.

Maybe we should be running a betting parlor here on Dave's. We could figure the shortest and longest odds on Iran, Venezuela or Sudan....

Sudan is not really incondition to put up much of a fight, so it's probably the shortest odds.

Iran is a wild card--nobody knows how much fire power it has because the US backed Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.

In Venezuela, Ch�vez has said on a number of occasions that an intervention means the end of petroleum and that venezolanos will fights to the last person. Since he is one of the few world leaders whose words have substance, I believe him.

Guess it's on to Sudan with the troops. Leeroy has given his permission.

[Deborann]

Leeroy, the US is trying not so much to build a stable government, but a government that will do it's bidding - a puppet government. The intended outcome is easy access to OIL - not prosperity for the Iraqi's. That may or may not be a side benefit (and looking at the track record to date - MAY NOT is a better bet).

"What next ' question - the US will continue to destablise any country where it wants to have an influence, particularly in gaining access to resources. It will continue to undermine legitimate governments of countries that do not follow the it's capitalist philosophy.

[pcruz]

I find it amazing what religion has done for the talking monkeys?

Heavenly Inspiration, Divine Thought!

Love all, live today as if it were your last.

pcruz

[leeroy]

[stillnosheep]

Leeroy: You keep repeating that "something good might come out of the invasion"

Everybody else attempts to show how, destabilising a country, possibly a region, causing thousands of deaths, bringing succour and support to violent 'antiwestern' (let's just leave it at that shall we) movements around the globe, increasing the danger for all of us and allowing the rabid neo-cons to fantasise about (=start planning for) the next such oilgrab, are not good things.

And you repeat that all good governments are capitalist and anyway, it's natural to want oil.

Big oil doesn't want the stuff for our prosperity dimwit. It doesn't give a beeeep about us. It just wants to make money.

Please stop helping it do so at the cost of thousands of deaths and the impoverishment of hundreds of millions, who probably include you and your family.

peace

sns

[moonraven]

Leeroy: Don't spend much time checking out what's happening in the world, do you? You asked--I assume rhetorically:

"Can you think of any countries with legitimate governments who do not share the US's capitalist philosophy? I don't think there are any left."

I believe I mentioned Venezuela in my last post. President Hugo Ch�vez has indicated time and time again that the model of savage capitalism has brought the globalization of greed, poverty and violence.

As for Venezuela having a legitimate government, Ch�vez was just ratified as president last month--with 59+% of the vote--after being elected in 1998 and again in 2000--in a completely clean vote (unlike the US 2000 election) audited by both the Carter Center and the OEA.

Venezuela is probably the only country in the world with a real participatory democracy, and its windfall petroleum profits are directed into social programs that benefit all of the Venezuelan people.

NOTHING good is going to come out of the US invasion of Iraq--at least not for the Iraqis. And the world does not need anymore jejune paternalistic thinkers that assume because a country is largely populated with non-whites that they must be prevented from making their own political decisions.

[leeroy]

[justcolleen]

[moonraven]

Leeroy, you said: "But Iraq has the potential to be in a better state of affairs than when it was under Saddam - this will not be something to "thank" the US for per se, rather it is something to be both hoped and expected of them."

Where's the evidence to support that statement? Or do you simply mean to say that every country anywhere in the world always has the potential to be in a better state of affairs?

Frankly, your position makes no sense. If the Iraqi people had been all that unhappy with Saddam they would have gotten rid of him. For them, given the options on the board, he was perceived as the lesser of evils. He doesn't appear to have been a particularly benevolent guy, but he is at least literate, which George W. Bush is not, and his megalomania appeared to have a local and regional focus, as opposed to the global spread of that of Bush.

Iraq was on shaky ground before the invasion--largesly due to more than 10 years of economic sanctions promoted by the US--but as it is in ruins now, it is clear that the situation of Iraq was better before the US invaded it.

[justcolleen]

[moonraven]

Leeroy asked: "Do you want the US to fail?"

Fail at WHAT?

Regarding the betting parlor here on Dave's: John Poindexter (of Iran-Contra notoriety) was canned by the Bush Gang because he set up a betting parlor exactly like that to predict, among other capers, where the US would deploy its invaders next....