Pacridge said:
Wow, so we're basically evil and really just trying to use people for their resources?
Evil is a concept. Is the wolf evil for eating the rabbit? Or the rabbit deserving because he wasn't capable enough to survive?
The far left would have you believe the former, the far right, the latter. Most of us just shrug and say "Who cares?" Because we know some rabits are going to die and some wolves are going to starve. All in all, it's not really our concern.
Pacridge said:
I don't see it in terms quite that black and white myself. Yes, some people profit from war, always have , always will. Nature of the beast. I tend to believe other people firmly believe they're trying to the right thing here, however misguided and or misinformed their attempt may be.
That's all well and good. But my point isn't interested in the will of the people. Most Americans wouldn't even be aware of Iraqs existance if not pointed out by our resent and slightly past "wars" with them.
Proof: Castro lives. His people starve. We do nothing. Even tho this dictatorship lives just a short hop from our own shore and we could crush his army like a rotten egg.
Why? If we are so interseted in the liberation of others why not start with our closest neighbors and work our way out?
Which brings me to my point. Being the fact that we'll only do such a thing when it benifits our own interest.
It's not "evil". Just "human".
Pacridge said:
As far as our troops never being able to leave Iraq, there were those who said that same thing regarding Vietnam in 1968. Tell me again the number of troops we currently have in Nam? My concern isn't if we leave. It's how soon, on what terms and what the entire region looks at once we do pull out.
I've little idea of the present condition of veitnam. Don't really care to be honest. Didn't we attack vietnam in an attempt to stifle the "domino effect"?
An "effect" now greatly dissipated. Ie: Not "of great interest".
Pacridge said:
In regards to them being forgotten once the oil runs out- maybe. Maybe the Iraqi. Maybe the Afghanis. But I doubt the Saudi's will be failing off the world radar anytime soon. Oil has bought them a nice large chunk of the worlds and the US economy. They'll be around for a while even after the oil has dripped it's last drop.
Connections are only valid so long as power and convinience is there. We've certainly broken enough treaties and argeements just in the last few years because they were no longer useful to us or our current agenda.
The Saudies really have little but oil. Some mineral deposits I understand, but nothing "long term".
They'll have what little political/economic ties they create while strong which will wither as thier power does the same. At the same time, their population is mostly stagnate. Ie: Not growing at a rate large enough to enduce a consumer economy.
They may have some other resources I'm not aware of but, nothing seems to be pointing to them having any real ability beyond the production of oil.
We're there for intersts in oil. Either the consumption or control of said. Oil = power in this day.
But, not for much longer. And once the oil dries up, so will our interest.