A Plan for Peace in Three Parts - Part III

[DRorchia]

TAE....and how do you propose we safeguard our vital interests in the region. Like it or not, we need their oil. That means an open Suez Canal, it means a certain degree of stability and governments that are friendly toward us or at least want to keep selling us the product which our nation currently depends on. If we were free of our dependence on oil, I would have no problem letting them sort out their own problems. Unfortunately, our nation runs on what they sell. For that to continue we need governments that will continue to do business with us

[theaustinescorts]

We buy it. It's always for sale.

In Iraq we didn't gain anymore access to the oil produced there than we otherwise would. The concessions there have gone mostly to non-US oil companies.

The middle east is so far away that I don't think we import much from there. I think most of our oil imports are from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, various west African countries like Angola, Nigeria. Distance determines who we buy from other factors being the same.

Our policies in the middle east have nothing to do with energy security IMHO. I believe that's a pretext sold to the military and intl communities.

There is another set of purposes at work.

[DRorchia]

Saudi Arabia is still our 3rd largest exporter of U.S. Oil according to U.S. Energy site. Surprisingly (for me at least) Canada is the #1 exporter of petroleum and crude oil to the United States.

[S O B]

Drill baby drill. In Alaska and offshore. Stop exporting democracy. Bring our military home and secure our borders.

[DRorchia]

SOB, you realize of course that isolationism has been tried by our country many times before. We tried to stay out of WWI, WW2, and we weren't particularly looking for trouble when 9/11 took place. I know a lot of people think it's as easy as bringing home the troops and not meddling in other countries' affairs. The fact is Capitalism by it's nature requires expansion, engagement etc....and as long as our country "appears" more prosperous than those who can't catch up to the 21st Century, we will continue to be a target for attacks. Even if we withdraw ALL support for Israel, give the Palestinians their own country, do you think that somehow fixes the fact that 60% of all middle eastern males are below the age of 30 and 1/4 of those are unemployed? Does it fix the corrupt middle eastern governments? Does it somehow lessen the Islamic radicals in those countries who believe that Islam is the only true religion in the world and that its their duty to export their radical beliefs to the rest of the world?
These are the issues that people don't want to address. It's easier to simply point at Israel and say..."they're the problem"....or point at the USA and say "we're the problem" yet no one wants to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe all those countries will continue to hate us and will continue to impose their beliefs, through violence if necessary whether we support Israel or not, whether we keep troops overseas or not. Time will tell who's right I suppose.

[S O B]

I never suggested isolationism. We just don't need to be the world police. Catholisism has killed more people than Islamisism. But as an atheist I care not for religious debate. On to their corrupt governments... have you seen ours for the last 150 years? 9/11 was an inside job. And if you don't believe that, then "you sir, are an ass."

[DRorchia]

" 9/11 was an inside job"...LOL.....Ok then, enough said!

[Guest031411-2]

Catholisism has killed more people than Islamisism.

Not intending a religious debate, but I would love to see any form of proof for that statement! One could almost make the debate that Nazi'ism and communism, or at least Hitler and Stalin killed nearly 60 million people, is that in the range of catholisism or islamisism?

[DRorchia]

I was curious about that myself Kittyloveratx. Since SOB said he didn't want a religious debate, I let it drop.
If someone were to argue with me that the Crusades killed more people than Islamic terrorists have today, I would agree. However how is that relevant to today? Hitler and Stalin killed millions like you said. They deserve their place in hell for that. However if I were to tell a survivor of the many massacres that took place in the Balkans in the 1990's that Hitler and Stalin were worse, they probably wouldn't find much comfort in that. That's why I don't understand when some people today try to minimize the threat that Islamic extremists pose to us today by using comparisons to other groups of people decades or centuries ago. How does that help us today? How does that prepare us to defend our country from the current threat we face? I'm sure the families of 9/11 victims find little comfort in the fact that "Catholisism has killed more people than Islamisism".

[Guest031411-2]

Until Israel becomes a secular government like our own this will continue.

Seriously TAE? You think we have a secular government?

[Guest031411-2]

Until we demonstrate that the consequences of attacking us or our allies is more severe than they are willing to accept (think John Travolta's character in Swordfish) nothing is going to change. We have the right devices that could turn that sand into some very pretty glass......not saying we should

[DRorchia]

o.k., but I'm saying it. We SHOULD!

[Guest031411-2]

oh but, dtorchia, what about those poor innocent people that are just trying to eke out a living scratching in the dirt to plant crops? oh but dtorchia, what about those poor people that follow the Koran as intended? LOL - fuck'em. they are just as guilty as the germans that claimed to not know what the funky smell in the air downwind from the death camps was on a daily basis and yet never did anything.

[DRorchia]

Agreed!

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by DTorchia

SOB, you realize of course that isolationism has been tried by our country many times before. We tried to stay out of WWI, WW2, and we weren't particularly looking for trouble when 9/11 took place. I know a lot of people think it's as easy as bringing home the troops and not meddling in other countries' affairs. The fact is Capitalism by it's nature requires expansion, engagement etc....and as long as our country "appears" more prosperous than those who can't catch up to the 21st Century, we will continue to be a target for attacks. Even if we withdraw ALL support for Israel, give the Palestinians their own country, do you think that somehow fixes the fact that 60% of all middle eastern males are below the age of 30 and 1/4 of those are unemployed? Does it fix the corrupt middle eastern governments? Does it somehow lessen the Islamic radicals in those countries who believe that Islam is the only true religion in the world and that its their duty to export their radical beliefs to the rest of the world?
These are the issues that people don't want to address. It's easier to simply point at Israel and say..."they're the problem"....or point at the USA and say "we're the problem" yet no one wants to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe all those countries will continue to hate us and will continue to impose their beliefs, through violence if necessary whether we support Israel or not, whether we keep troops overseas or not. Time will tell who's right I suppose.

In the world wars there were other great powers on the march. Nothing comparable to that could said to exist now, or since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Regardless I personally believe that the US could have easily stayed out of both world wars. Neither Germany or Japan sought to conquer the United States. My interpretation of how the US came to be involved would be too much of a digression.

Your interpretation of capitalism necessarily leading to armed conflict belongs to the imperial era, which thank God we are supposed to have left behind. It is also chiefly the interpretation relied on mostly in Marxist theory, which I reject.