Pfft...we've been throwing money at Haiti forever...the only time that place is getting fixed is when the country is dissolved and the people move to other countries. So yeah, I'm saying it wasn't worth it.

We didn't rush into Kuwait because we wanted their oil, we did it because we were their allies.
Remember it was a U.N.-authorized coalition force. We were protecting their sovereignty because they couldn't.



That would involve the rolling back of 90% of modern society.

So people have a choice:
1. accept brutal reality and flawed humanity for what it is.
2. Sit around holding hands and sing John Lennon songs.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Oh yeah, the country created by Britain after WWI with a monarchy was our ally. Every time someone would ask who the US's biggest allies were pre-1990, the answer would immediately come "Britain, France, and of course Kuwait, but that goes without saying!"

Haiti on the other hand, no reason for us to ally with them. What with they're being located within a couple hundred miles, and having been the first place in the New World to rise up against slavery and foreign control. Why would they be our allies worth protecting? We have nothing in common with them. Our help would have just been a waste. Defending freedom? Well, that just cries out fighting for a monarchy half way across the world that hadn't even existed for 100 years. I mean, how obvious can it be that we were protecting FREEDOM? It had NOTHING to do with oil. The fact that Haiti was the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and Kuwait had one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world was entirely coincidental. And they would have been in the same position with us if they had no oil. They still would have been our allies. How could anyone think differently?

you're right, it wasn't a UN mission.
I bet good old W. put his Dad up to it.



Funny, guess who the other 4 main participants in the coalition were? Britain, Egypt, France, and Saudi Arabia.
Wow, you don't say.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

If you think problems and concerns over oil resources didn't play a huge role in that war then I have a water front resort in Haiti I want to sell ya.

_________________

Saddam's lust for oil caused that war, not ours, which is what's being implied.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Because there is no other resource in existence that can do what Oil does.
It's not just about plastics, silicon based products, machinery, metal protection, fabric creation and so on.
Simply put, the worlds population has exploded since the introduction of Petro-Chemical Fertilizers. This is the end all be all of the product. With out these petroleum based fertilizers a great portion of the worlds current population would eventually starve to death.

The world doesn't pray to Allah, God, David, Jesus, Buhda or any other diety, we all have Oil as our God, whether or not you know it is another question.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

Hmmmm... Whatever could have linked those countries with a common interest?

Honestly Cross, I'm not saying Saddam was OK in doing it. But if you seriously think oil played no part, much less a major one, then there's not much real conversing we can do.

And as for the W. comment, I mean, don't you realize this isn't some anti-GOP diatribe from me? I realize it would have been no different under Clinton or some other democrat. That doesn't change the fact that all those countries you mention (with the possible exception of Egypt) have either major weight to throw around in the UN, or a serious interest in seeing the international trade status quo maintained, and all of their economic interests were threatened.

My best debate material for the day may be behind me. I'm on X-mas break and on my 3rd trippel of the afternoon. I'm quickly becoming not sober enough to run a server.

So you have a problem with the international trade status quo? Fine.

Yeah, oil is a big friggin deal at this point in our global history.
Yeah, countries have fought to protect it and to protect the market.
We've done the same for sugar cane and tobacco.

So?
Did you know Venezuela is selling it to China for $5 a barrel and weapons right now?
When that monster raises its head will it still be the fault of the US and capitalism?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

fair enough.
I've got 750ml of the Bruery's Rugbrod with my name on it.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

What a minute here Stuuuuu.
Why not just say the truth, one of the foundational components of this once great country (because honestly, the United States of America was founded on great ideals, but those have been thrown to the way side a long, long, long time ago).

The Persian Gulf War (which I fought in) was all about Oil. It had nothing to do with anything else Crosscheck.
And to the comment about W., well, lets be good Americans, use our minds and just say it the way it is.

And here we go.....
The Bush family is entrenched in the oil industry, the circles they have friends in are in the oil industry, the families best friend, and one who was brought up through the ranks of government over 4 decades (Dick Cheney) was the CEO of one of the largest firms to work in the oil industry (Haliburton).

This war was all about Oil Crosscheck, pure and simple, and men who were in the inner circle of the industry that happened to be in leadership roles which controlled the largest military in the world used that position and the men and women in uniform to protect that resource.

Was it wrong? (And Stuuuuu, this is where you are wrong) NO, it wasn't wrong.
Oil is everything in the modern world, those that have the easiest access to it and can afford mass amounts of it are masters of the planet.

The US has done alot of things wrong, but in this case, I have to say, I didn't like the war, but it was a necessary evil.
The larger issue I didn't like on this was that the Bush's and ilk like them created that mess in the middle east. They supported Saddam Hussien and armed him. Families like the Bush's in the oil industry and the Bush's themselves have cost 100's of thousands if not millions of lives globally over their greedy political careers. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. All one has to do is use common sense with the information at hand to see it.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

I dunno, I'm with Stuuuuu with that one...the first gulf war wasn't about the Bush's, Clinton would have done the same and I'd venture Obama would too.

The impetus is we need relatively reasonable people in charge of the oil...Saddam wasn't and neither is Chavez.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

PSP, Germany can be used as an example against your argument as well. Europe turned a blind eye toward Hitler's political takeover and military build-up until it was almost too late. If not for FDR taking huge Bush/Cheney allegation type manuevers with our constitution at the time, England never would've had the equipment or weapons to defend itself. FDR skirted the constitution on his own accord, after private conversations with Churchill, by declaring a multitude of military equipment/supplies as surplus. It was then sold to private contractors that in turn sold it to England. Otherwise the US was forbidden to assist another country's war effort while not at war ourselves.

Despite FDR's clear liberties against the constitution, Germany still would've taken over Europe if not for Hitler's mad impatience. Just another year or two and Germany would've had the A-bomb and...game over. Leader nations took a major lesson from WWII - taking down a regional/world threat is best done pre-emptively. Only nuclear weapon capable nations are exempt from this strategy.

Until crazy whack-jobs stop brutalizing their way into the leadership of nations and threatening their neighbors or the world, there will be a cold, hard, necessary reality of war, fall-out, clean up, repeat step one. This will always be so, and the details of which nation and what economic system they use is simply beside the point.

Agreed on that point. Like I said, I didn't like the war, but it was a necessary evil none the less.
I often tell people that get angry about fighting over resources that they had better wake up and take a look at how the world is operating. We need the Oil, its that simple. Sure it's not a pretty picture, if the Oil was in our country with ease of access to it and the amount of it, this wouldn't even be debated.
Unfortunately it's not.

_________________
Lord Stanley's Cup is what its all about.
Mr. Pegula, your destiny awaits you sir.

US? no. Capitalism? Not as sure. China is basically a capitalist country now with a repressive government, one much more repressive than ours. Chavez was at least democratically elected and tries to use his petro-dollars to help the people, ECONOMICALLY. He also does some incredibly shady things and tries to silence any opposition. What I'd like to see is a combination of some of that socialism that cares for the people AND the openness and democratic values that this country was founded on. I know it's a pipe dream, but it's my right to have it. What I can't stand about your argument is the way you shove anything you don't like under the rug when the US is cast in a bad light and just talk about how much worse certain governments that call themselves communist or socialist are. Notice how France and Britain (countries that combine democracy and socialism to a greater degree than us) are never a big part of your argument. Yeah, countries like the Soviet Union and China suck. But I would argue that they don't truly represent the ideals they claim to in the same way the US doesn't represent the ideals they claim to. It's not an either/or situation, and you always try to make it one.

We get a bad rap because we're the ones getting our hands dirty for our socialist allies.

Capitalism funds the military might that defends them all.

Otherwise there would be no Kuwait, or Belgium or France for that matter.

/and this country was founded on individual liberties, not guaranteed pensions for all. Our history is ours.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

What good are political freedoms if you don't have bread on the table? You're jizzing all over the UN in this thread. Guess what? The stuff I'm talking about is all included in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It doesn't just talk about freedom of speech and religion, but freedom from want.

I didn't realize we were arguing hunger...I thought this was about war.

You know what? The US is about 6% of the world population. Even so, we account for just shy of 60% of all (as in global) food aid to poor and developing countries.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21279.pdf

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

btw: 10 million US-citizen don't have enough to eat. and over 35 million US-citizens have huge troubles getting enough food to eat.

_________________
HOCKEY IS BACK!

Yoshi...have you seen the average American?
You're trying to tell me 10% of our entire population is undernourished?

I call BS without having to look up any stats at all.

Furthermore, there are state and federal programs available to all who pursue them. Of course there are outliers, weird circumstances and people who won't take help for various reasons (such as mental illness and drug addiction which makes up for a lot of our homeless population), but all countries have those.

Feast your eyes on the American needy
http://www.macon.com/2010/12/16/1379464 ... thout.html

I would think she could just use her giant flat screen TV and Xbox to heat her home rather than seek public assistance.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...