middle east

[soupcan]

ron challenged the government to be honest to the american puplic about the war in iraq. IF the war in iraq is about&nbsp; the U.S.A. controling the middle east ..are you in or not?<br />
<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by soupcan on 10-3-06 @ 12:53 AM</span>

[FUNKMAN]

<p>i said No...</p><p>i don't believe there will ever be &quot;control&quot;, it will be continuous &quot;containment&quot; with alot of casualties on both sides... i strongly feel it will eventually come to negotiations...</p>

[johnniewalker]

So many countries are so fucked up themselves, its so hard to believe in a unified idea to bring them together other than hatred of jews and the west.<br />

[BLZBUBBA]

<p>Maybe&nbsp;the war is about controlling the middle east.&nbsp; But someone told us it was about WMDs and regime change.&nbsp; They didn't have WMDs.&nbsp; And the regime has been changed.&nbsp; I guess pending Saddam's trial outcome.&nbsp; </p><p>...Why are we still there?&nbsp; I say we should've already declared victory and left.&nbsp; That's given the reasons the administration gave for going in the first place.&nbsp; WMD-REGIME CHANGE?</p><p>Another possibility.&nbsp; Drawing Arabs of a terrorist mindset into Iraq and killing them.&nbsp; &quot;Bring 'em on!&quot;&nbsp; Abu Grahib...was it really just an isolated group of nutty soldiers or was it part of a program of provocation?&nbsp; And then there's the fact we're still there.&nbsp; The only problem I have with this kind of reason would be,&nbsp; when you get down to it,&nbsp; we'd be using our troops as &quot;bait&quot;.</p><p>And anyone curious about how truthful our government may or may not be about how things are going should watch the documentary THE FOG OF WAR, or read some Daniel Ellsburg.&nbsp;They would literally have meetings about how bad things were on the plane back from Vietnam,&nbsp; and then get off the plane and smile into the cameras and say how swell things were in Vietnam.</p><p>They're using the &quot;cut and run&quot; phrase for those thinking we should pull out.&nbsp; TRANSLATION:&nbsp; If you want to pull out you're a chicken.&nbsp; But if we've accomplished our objectives...REMEMBER it was about WMDs and regime change...If we've met those objectives.&nbsp; Haven't we won?&nbsp; And how can you be cutting and running if you've already won?</p>

[soupcan]

<p>looks like control to me ,always was, they have Iran surrounded now.&nbsp;&nbsp; Afghanistan to the east Iraq to the west,Saudis to the south.<br /></p><p>To the west of Iraq (U.S. forces' flank) is Syria an Iranian allie. To the west of syria is&nbsp; Israel an American allie. Do not for one second believe that war in lebanon was about 2 or 3 captured israeli soldiers. I believe it was to warn the syrians that if they attack the U.S.flanks, while they are going into Iran, they will have an Israeli army ready and willing to attack THEM....to the east of Afghanistan (U.S.flank) is Pakistan an allie(for now) but the threat of unleashing their nuclear foes ,India, should keeep them in line.</p><p>&nbsp;To the South is&nbsp; Saudi Arabia, plenty of American bases there! ...GOOGLE MAP IT!<br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The question is not wether the american puplic will support this agenda (the government now has laws in place to imprison anybody for unlimited periods of time ,apparently no question asked suveillance , and brand new torture rules?. Got to love that patiots act) but wether Russia or China will tolerate such a massive American presence within reach of THEIR&nbsp; borders. China is in dire needs of oil ,can they stand the U.S. controlling that supply?<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Stay tuned kids this gonna get interesting.<br /> </p>

[A.J.]

<strong>soupcan</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;To the South is&nbsp; Saudi Arabia, plenty of American bases there! ...GOOGLE MAP IT!&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not any more.&nbsp; They've been moved to Bahrain and Qatar.</p>

[Furtherman]

<p>This isn't about controlling the middle east, it is about controlling resources.</p><p>If we lose our already weak grip on the resources the middle east provides our country, we're screwed.</p><p>That's it.</p>

[cupcakelove]

<strong>Furtherman</strong> wrote:<br /><p>This isn't about controlling the middle east, it is about controlling resources.</p><p>If we lose our already weak grip on the resources the middle east provides our country, we're screwed.</p><p>That's it.</p><p>We're screwed, or are the oil companies screwed?&nbsp; Alternative energy sources already exist but nobody is going after them because of all the money to be made in oil.&nbsp; I think breaking our dependence on other countries for our energy would be one of the best things that could happen to this country.<br /></p>

[Furtherman]

<strong>cupcakelove</strong> wrote:<br />&nbsp; I think breaking our dependence on other countries for our energy would be one of the best things that could happen to this country.<br /><p>Let's just say we do.&nbsp; Tomorrow we break ties with the middle east for oil.&nbsp; </p><p>We don't have enough alternative energy sources to keep this country going.&nbsp; Within a week our country's internal working would slow, and shortly thereafter come to a halt.&nbsp; Prices would soar.&nbsp; On everything.&nbsp; It would be the first act of a national collapse.</p><p>Now, if we were to slowly exchange an alternative, renewable energies while downsizing resourses from the middle east over a period of, probably decades, then maybe, just maybe, we could break our dependence.</p><p>But that can't happen.&nbsp; We need them, they need us.&nbsp; There is a lot of $$ there, and the people who control like their lifestyle that they have because of it.&nbsp; It will not be given up easily, and it will be passed on to future generations.&nbsp;</p><p>It would have to be up to the powers that be to start this chain of events.&nbsp; </p>

[BLZBUBBA]

<p>Say it is about controlling resources...OIL.&nbsp; How much is the war costing us?&nbsp; The neo-CONS said Iraq's oil would easily pay for the war.&nbsp; And that idea has since become laughable.&nbsp; </p><p>And I doubt that we could ever become energy independent.&nbsp; But controlling the middle east for the supply?&nbsp; We've got other oil-producing countries that are problems.&nbsp; Venezuela?&nbsp; Does the name Chavez ring a bell?&nbsp; Then what?&nbsp; Are going to start&nbsp;a worldwide whack-a-mole game? Oh don't you dare threaten our oil supply or we'll invade your country.&nbsp; </p><p>It seems obvious that we should let the market decide these questions.&nbsp; All these countries?&nbsp; They need our $$$.&nbsp; They won't do anything to really jeopardize that cash flow.&nbsp; </p><p>Oil?&nbsp; Problems?&nbsp; Our main problem,&nbsp; looking toward the future?&nbsp; It has to be a shrinking (despite the latest gulf discovery) supply and the worldwide increased demand.&nbsp;We should start weaning ourselves off the oil &quot;gluttony&quot;.&nbsp; We should begin doing it in a real sense.&nbsp; That way,&nbsp; those countries still in dire need of oil,&nbsp; will be bargaining from a weak position while we at least might not be as weak.&nbsp; You hear a lot of lip-service about alternative means of energy from Washington.&nbsp; But I really haven't seen anything&nbsp;to make me think it's a priority...especially a top priority.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>And yes...there is still a lot of oil out there.&nbsp; But it's harder and harder to get to.&nbsp; Which means more and more expensive.&nbsp; Starting a common sense plan of conservation and alternative energy development should be a top priority.&nbsp; I really haven't heard it made so.&nbsp; Our auto manufacturers scream about CAFE standards?&nbsp; They produced a line of giant SUVS through the 90s.&nbsp; How well are our auto manufacturers doing now?&nbsp; You have to look toward the future.&nbsp; The future seems to be saying oil is going to become even more of a problem.</p>