OT: intent...WAS Re: [Re: Oh baby!]

[skerocdriver@juno.com (Shawn c Meze)]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 06:02:35 +0000 Andrew Basterfield
<list@cemetery.homeunix.org> writes:
> The French & German IMHO want no disruption in oil supply 
> short-term.
> The US is looking for control long term. I'm sure the US consumes 
> much
> more oil/capita than either France or Germany, and the US natural 
> oil
> resources are running out making the US increasingly dependant on 
> the Middle East.


Our oil resources are the worlds oil market and thats not going to run
out anytime soon. With all that is going on with out dependancy of oil,
were looking into other energy sources. Only time will tell of the
development of new sources. There are French and German oil companies
that have current contracts with Irag to proccess oil. Just as soon as
the embargo's are lifted against Irag. You would think they would be
eager for Saddam to be overthrown so they could benefit from the
financial rewards. 


> The US could not just take oil from the Saudis, doing so would be an 
> act
> of aggression. If the US was not dependent on the Saudis for oil 
> they
> would not have bailed them out in Desert Storm. I'm sure the Saudis 
> show
> their gratitude for Desert Storm in trade relations with the US. The
> Bush family business (apart from presidency) is oil, and I'm sure in 
> the
> Bush family the Iraq issue is personal.


Saudi oil accounts for only 6% of oil consumed by the US. Im sure thats
not it. I dont think there is a connection between Bush's biz and oil in
this case or the US media would of been all over it by now. Hell, im
surprised the damn Democrats havent already made a TV commercial about
it. LOL! 


> Public opinion of the US is not good in Europe. Before 11 sep the 
> Bush administration did not try to make friends in Europe. 


For someone who served in the cold war in europe, I take minor offense to
the "were not trying to make friends with the europeans" comment. You
make it sound like we owe europeans something? 


> After his previous
> isolationist behaviour Bush now has little support from the UN. 


How so?


> Europe we preferred Clinton.


Ahh, this is why europe is riddled with problems. :)
Its funny how europe sees a Republican president as a war monger and a
democrat president as a peacenik. Clinton was a lair and a fool who
definately did more harm to this country than good.


> The US has supplied arms to Iraq to fight Iran.


Absolutely. We supplied arms to, at the time, our allie. We supplied
conventional weapons and aircraft to Irag. How could we know theturn of
events. I think the practice of arming our friends needs to stop. We
armed the Talliban with Stinger missles too when they were fighting the
Russians. Notice what kind of weaponry Irag used in Desert Storm? All
Soviet built crap. 


> You can't resolve situations by force, you just make a bigger mess. 


I completely dissagree. Ask Kuwait if situations didnt get resolved by
force. 



> The
> UN was set up so all member nations act as one in these situations. 


Right. act as one with authority and get results. What have they gotten?
What have they done in a positive way in the last 20 years? Everything
that they aattemped to do turns to shit. Bosnia, south africa name it,
its shit. 


> The
> US knows if it goes into Iraq against the wishes of the other 
> members of
> the UN it will do so by itself and will damage it's relations with 
> the
> international community. The US wants to lead the UN into battle as 
> in
> Desert Storm, but without UN support it may yet turn into another
> Vietnam.


No, we know better than to allow politicians to lead a war. Since I was
in the military its doctrin that if we fight, the military leads the
fight with the goal of victory. Another viet nam will never happen. This
war will be fast, not as fast as Desert Storm was (100hrs) but it will be
quick and decisive. The people of Irag will revolt as soon as the
fighting starts. 



> The UN is not spineless or the US would ignore it and attack anyway. 



Ahh, in 2 weeks I think we will likely attack. The US will ignore
anything that doesnt result in complete compliance with the resolutions. 


> All
> the members of the UN have a commitment to piece, that includes the 
> US and it means it just can't go invading people.



Its been 12 years! HOW MUCH MORE TIME SHOULD WE TAKE? Would you rather
wait until a cansiter of Serin gas shows up on your door step? 


> 11 sep was unrelated to war in Iraq.
> 
> --Andrew22


11 sep has everything to do with what will happen in Irag. Anyone and
everyone assiciated with terrorist groups will be dealt with. The
Talliban has camps in Irag, Saddam supported them with "Heres some money,
just dont attack us". He also pays the family's of suicide bombers. Does
this mean anything to you or does it just sound like more of, how do they
call is... american cowboy rhetoric?

Either way, your either with us, or against us. Lets roll. 


Shawn Méze
86' Jetta GLi 8V   88' Corvette -AS- #30  2002 SDR Solo2 Champion
Scirocco" 84' Scirocco 8V 82' Scirocco RIP 80' Scirocco S 79' "Project
FSP
The Fastest, Quickest, Cleanest and best looking Scirocco(s) in all of
San Diego!
http://www.Geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1308/index.htm


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com