After the American Corporate Millitary occupies Iraq I fear the following.

America will have a big say in OPEC, courtesy of Iraq's oil.
America gets short of dough........export prices per barrel could rise.
Americans will be subsidised for oil, as are the present OPEC partners.
America rakes in the dough, as the other OPEC countries are.

Result...........
The A.C.M. gets bigger and more powerfull..........then what?.
The World?........America presently controlls most of it.

BUT....for once America is thinking long term.
I can't credit Dubya for this...he is the perfect 'Plastic President', bend and twist him to whatever the 'ear whisperers' want.

And if some countries object to this?...........

Use some of this dough to develop alternative power ( fuel cells..etc) and corporately sell it because we ALL know oil is a limited resource.
Incoming dough!.
America cant do it without sorting out it's debt problems and what better way to do it than with the A.C.M.
Invading Iraq fixes it......for now.

I suppose us out here can count ourselves lucky America calls the shots.
It could have been the USSR and it perhaps it may still be China.

America wont destroy us unless we stop buying Mc Donalds


Regards.....Alan

You're funny...you should write fiction




Um....no we don't...our democratic values may be present in the World but other than that...




It is




You re SO funny. Thanks for the early morning laugh

Proof of basic economics? Laws of supply and demand?

OK...as requested...

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...%20babies&st=15


That is a link to my analogy of Beenie Babies and oil, from the thread "It's the oil, stupid" And how demand and supply affect price.

--cheers

No...more like proof that Bush's "friends" will pocket the oil revenues?

I want proof of THAT

Alan,
America is a superpower. It's job is to insure the safety of the international community. If we do our job, people say we are overstepping our boundaries, if we back off, people will say we are not using our power justly. So, either you let us do what we have to do [meaning overthrowing Sadaam Hussein] or just get out of our way and stop criticizing.

CP

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Also, take him out now or take him out when he has tested his first Nuclear Bomb

Um....this is a debate forum. Criticism is part of that. Criticize away!

(Notice the irony in that you chose to criticize Alan's opinion through criticism??? )

Jaime, when i said that i was refering to other countries, i.e. France, Germany

CP

America IS the superpower.

The last sentence in this remark sorta sums it all up.
"Get out of our way"......................

Even I know 'lil old us out here don't get a choice.
But we can object, or is that exclusively reserved for Americans?.
I dont think so.
I think (might be wrong on this) that I am the only outsider willing to post my views be they right or wrong.


Regards....Alan

Oh please. John Wayne would be soooo proud.

[QUOTE=Alan Wood,Feb 1 2003, 04:34 AM]
America IS the superpower.

The last sentence in this remark sorta sums it all up.
"Get out of our way"......................

Even I know 'lil old us out here don't get a choice.
But we can object, or is that exclusively reserved for Americans?.
I dont think so.
I think (might be wrong on this) that I am the only outsider willing to post my views be they right or wrong.



Great Britain's helping us out aren't they, we have NATO countries backing us up including Italy and Spain. So clearly we are asking for help. As for lil old you, if you help us, super, we get rid of a maniac together. Plus, since you had a hand in taking out Hussein, you will probably have a hand in shaping teh new government and getting some of the oil you seem to be so concerned about. Or... you stay on the sidelines, let us [Britain, Italy, Spain] do what we need to do. Clearly, you guys have a choice down there, correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard of any remarkable cooperation from the Aussies . Oh, and also, if America's job isn't what I posted before, what is it. To stand on the sidelines and just think about our part of the world, I think not.

CP

No, our job is to send our full troops out to get rid of one guy, and replace him with who knows what. Maybe another Bin Laden or Saddam or worse. We have quite a track record as far as that goes. So we kill a bunch of nnocent Iraqi's in the process...that's not our fault...we're just protecting the world and pretending it keeps us safer from Al Queada which it doesn't.

Nice of you to throw the little Aussie's some scraps if they help out with taking over Iraq with us and deciding what to do with our new country and the oil that comes with it.

And as far as I know they have sent limited troops for Iraq and they've also helped out quite a bit with Afghanistan. Not that it's in our nature to appreciate such things, obviously.

It only takes one guy to press that little red button to nuke Israel or maybe, if we wait longer, us.

CP

Oh, that "one guy" like Kruhschev? We used to say stuff like that all the time during the Cold War and guess, what? NO ONE DROPPED NUKES ON US or ANYONE!!! Who-hoo!

Can we take that chance? Are we feeling lucky, well, do we?

CP

Hey Jaime. I wouldn't be so lighthearted on this subject.

I would wager there were many times in the past when both sides(US and Soviet Union) were extremely close nuclear war.

The difference between now and then.. Well just look at this man Saddam(if you want to call him a man). With the US and Soviet Union if was a big game of chicken, which ended up us prevailing because of the collapse of communism and the arms race.

Saddam is the type of person who won't turn at the last minute in a game of chicken. If he gets the chance to use a nuclear weapon, sadly, he will.


Sleeper

I guess I just don't believe this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enforcing or changing laws. In this instance, Iraq IS in violation of an agreement they said they follow. Their violation of such constitutes a breach of contract. Part of the contract said that a cease-fire against Iraq would be made if Iraq complied with x,x, and x of the UN resolutions.

It is becoming rather apparent that Iraq is in violation of these resolutions. That being so, using this kind of logic, the UN must cease the cease-fire. Of course, using this same kind of logic, one might argue Iraq was under great duress in signing such a contract and therefore is no longer valid.

I think I've been working in law firms too long??

Either way, I don't believe Iraq will nuke the US.

I dunno, I see Saddam as more of the kind of man that likes his little set up with all the palaces and his own little country...sure he would have liked to expand but that didn't work out because he got his *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** kicked by us when he tried.

Can we take that chance? Are we feeling lucky, well, do we?
Here is who we have to watch out for...CASTRO. think about it. We ALL know how evil he is and he did allow nukes to be aimed at us from Cuba! Cuba is an imminent threat to America! Maybe even more than Saddam...or wait! WHAT IF Saddam sells weapons to Castro? Castro can actually reach us with WMD's! It's so obvious that we must attack Cuba. Why isn't Bush dealing with this crisis before the mushroom cloud hits?

Castro?
Evil, maybe
Gasses his own people, no
Hates America, maybe
meglomanic, no.
Plus for right now Hussein nuking the US is not the fear, we have enough nukes to blow the world up how many times over. No body, except maybe a terrorist would nuke us. And if Sadaam isn't considered a terrorist, who is?

CP

Maybe someone like...hmmm...BIN LADEN? You do realize they are not the same person right? You do know that it wasn't Saddam who sent planes flying into the towers and Pentagon, don't you? The USS Cole? Not Saddam. The embassy bombings? Nope.

And please list your medical credentials and the personal time you spent diagnosing Saddam. Otherwise I say Castro is more insane than Saddam and poses a bigger threat. You have no real back up to say otherwise. You point to history and Castro has it in spades. You point to motive he has that too. Several assisination attempts would *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** anyone off.

How can you say that Saddam, so contained and so far away is more dangerous and deserving of an attack then Castro? Of course Castro is an evil dictator and has commited crimes against his people. Why shouldn't he die first?

Castro is close to dying

The guy is a walking ad for death

Must be from all those Havana Cigars

But we must act now! If he's sick that only means he has less to lose...It's our responsibility to bomb Cuba. Can you believe people actually VACATION there? Under a madman like Castro. One little war...it would probably be over in less than a week. Why take the chance? Everyone knows he will try to take revenge before he dies and then he will hand over his country to Bin Laden. They will have a base to launch chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. I bet Al Quaeda is vacationing there now. If we rush this through the UN maybe we can catch them there....nevermind, screw the UN.

This thread is starting to look like a Monte Python show.

I'm not amused...

Sadly, that proof will come only after the war because any meetings regarding US energy policy creation are closed to the public.

The proof will be found in the corporate records of oil companies that end up controlling the Iraqi oil. That this will happen is beyond doubt--someone has to control the oil, and if Saddam is gone, that leaves the oil companies that are not Iraqi. I imagine that deals will be cut with whatever government forms after the war.

This is speculation based upon historical records of corporate behavior in the ME. It is speculation in the cynical sense, and the cynicism comes from the closed-door energy policy creation meetings. Secrets are being protected--from whom? Our enemies or our citizens?

Unless I'm mistaken Sadaam has history too. Second of all my medical crudentials, I don't have any, but what are yours, you just got done telling me i need medical credentials for calling Sadaam a meglomaniac, then you went on to say that Castro is more crazy than Hussein. Also, has Castro gassed anyone lately, Hussein has already usd biological weapons on his own people and Iran, he is more susceptable to use them than Castro.

CP

Conservpat- I think you're missing what Danya was trying to do in bringing up Castro. It was the same thing I did in bringing up Kruhschev. Sometimes one needs to get dramatic in order to prove one's point. I seriously doubt she would actually advocate we go after Castro.

Danya?

I do not hate Cuba and do not wish to kill Castro. But my arguments for doing so make more sense then any of the ones regarding Saddam. Think about it. If you are saying, "what if" why not consider Saddam selling Castro nukes? If Castro wanted to he could do some serious damage from where he sits. It's possible and it's just as likely, I'm sure Castro hates us and would help Al Queada if they asked him to.

I'm sure he's done heinous things to his people and anyone those who disagreed with him. Who cares if he used gas or torture? He was ready to allow a nuclear attack from his soil...which is more than Saddam has ever done to us. So, tell me why would anyone argue against war with Cuba? It makes so much sense.

Where and when did you here of trade between Iraq and Cuba? I wnat some facts, that looks like a lot of speculation.

CP

That's exactly what I said when we targeted Saddam instead of Bin Laden. It's like we're on the same wave lentgh now.

What? We took out the Taliban and hunted down Al-Quaeda before we moved on to Iraq, that whole Afghanistan conflict was all about hunting down terrorists! Plus we are still tracking terrorists as we speak. As for being on the same wave legnth, sorry, not today, lol

CP

Afgahnistan, now there is a victory, huh? You're right. Al Queada and Bin Laden are dust. Now, who do you think should be after Saddam? I say Cuba. North Korea is much to messy and there's nothing to take when it's over. And we might have to get out of our planes and actually fight which is too messy, we know we couldn't do it in Viet Nam so we better stick with little desert nations.

How about...Libya? Who knows what they've been doing lately. Probably stockpiling weapons. I think we should wait on Iran because they'll probably expect it and we may be able to throw them off.

After Sadaam... hmmm. WE probably need to cooncentrate more on individual cells, after SAdaam. North Kore is too smart to nuke anybody, and Iran is struggling towards a democracy.

CP

YAY...CUBA IT IS!
Glad we got that settled.

Sounds good to me

CP

Mythical extract from Dubyas war diary.

How about nuking Germany?, better not leave them out after all they have a proven track record of instigating war and they upset us.
Should be easy enough, they dont have nukes that could hurt.

How about France?.......they upset us as well..........no hang on.... they've got nukes that might hurt a bit.

Are you comparing France to Iraq? Geeze, I'm no France fan but I'm pretty sure they haven't used those nukes. Whereas Hussein used his biological weapons.

CP

[quote=Danya,Jan 26 2003, 06:10 PM] [

He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Only I am not damning him. Yet. [/QUOTE]
The next attack will surely be blamed on Bush and rightly so. Regardless of what he does with Saddam the attack will likely be from Al Queada which he apparently thinks is interchangeble with Iraq. Nothing but speculation and allegations support Saddam has any ties with Al Queada whatsoever.

Worry about two of our enemies combining for an attack is only intensified the more enemies Bush adds to the list with his lack of diplomacy and aggressive unilateral behavior.

[/quote]
Let's see, no terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 11, 2001, over a year and a half ago. Bush's tough stance against Al-Queda and Iraq, a refreshing reversal from the wimpy, do nothing approach of the CLinton Administration is proof that Bush way is the right way. Bush isn't "damned" no matter what happens. If Hussien forces a war, he will be overthrown and a new ruler will rule Iraq. If he gives up his weapons, then that is great as well. Seems like a win/win to me.

Let's see, no terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept 11, 2001, over a year and a half ago. Bush's tough stance against Al-Queda and Iraq, a refreshing reversal from the wimpy, do nothing approach of the CLinton Administration is proof that Bush way is the right way.

So if he keeps it up for seven years he will tie Clinton's accomplishment of 7 years from 1993 to 2000?

Al Quaeda attacks on their own time table. You may think Bush has stopped them but I don't think so.

He may not have stopped them completely, but he crippled them severely

Terrorism against americans predated clinton by several presidents and Clinton responded the same way his predecessors did, with limited strikes and criminal probes. Im not saying this was correct or incorrect, just standard behavior for a US leader.

Dubya just happened to be around for the first *major* attack and almost any president would have responded the same as he did. There was relatively little political risk for dubya in going to war after 9/11, the greater political risk would have been for him to do nothing in the face of ~2800 dead americans.

However Clinton screwed up when he had the chance to get terroists, i.e. Osama bin Ladin.

CP

Then what do you say about people who provided Osama Bin Laden with arms and financing like Reagan? If Clinton had killed Osama Bin Laden all that would have happened is the terrorists would have struck even earlier. Martyring an islamic fundamentalist terrorist is always a risky proposition.

However, Al-qaeda would no longer have a leader. Since Afghanistan, we 've taken ouut the third and second in command. THey'd be crippled without bin Ladin.

CP

Al-Queda's crippled already

Even if Osama's alive, Al-Queda can't get it's stuff together to launch a full-scale attack on the U.S. but will just pay someone to knock off some U.S. diplomats in Jordan

I think we are missing a point here..........

Who wants Dubyas War?.........
Few enough of the people outside of America.

Could it be that the 'American Corporate Military' is being used to maintain the declining wealth of a nation who EXPECTS to live in the way it is accustomed and will brook no austerity measures to improve it?.
Nothing wrong with that, if you are American

Forgive the sarcasm... but.....'GOD BLESS AMERICA..Uhmm...only until it asks Americans to pull in the purse strings'???.

Europe has already done this after WW2 paying off America and BUYING essential foods from a friend who lived in a luxury only to be imagined back then.
Sure America pitched in, eventually when it saw the writing on the wall.

America has a visionary war on TWO fronts.
Economic domination.
Military domination.

The 'Economic Vietnam' which America is loseing to the rest of the World.
The other being the occupation of 1/3 of the known oil resources under the banner of 'terrorism' using the only dominant utensil remaining....Brute force.
The latter fixes the former.
The whole becomes 'World Corporate America'.

A majority of folks out here know one thing for sure, what America is doing is for the good of America and perhaps we get the crumbs that drop off the table.

A pity.......but we have no choice and of the evils American domination is the lesser but please don't expect us to love you for it.

An interesting 'Orwellian' insight to American conceptual visions towards the future of Europe was written in the late 1980's at The United Nations University...Tokyo.
A few things have changed since the time of writing but the overall concept remains.
You be the judge.

Scroll down to.....#5...The US strategy and Alternatives for Europe.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu38...00.htm#Contents

Regards..........Alan

If we wanted "World Domination", we would have done so years ago

You did try on the economic front..........and failed.


Now its time for brute force........

Yes a few things have changed. The authors 1988 perception of Japan as ready to overtake the US reminds me how much perceptions have changed. America is successful because we have a superior economic system than Europe and Japan. It allows us to waste 100's of billions on the military and still have a remarkable standard of living.

Yes a few things have changed. The authors 1988 perception of Japan as ready to overtake the US reminds me how much perceptions have changed. America is successful because we have a superior economic system than Europe and Japan. It allows us to waste 100's of billions on the military and still have a remarkable standard of living.

I agree entirely with this statement.
Beyond doubt America has the most remarkable economic system in the free World.
Entirely based on debt.Japan being a major equity owner, and creditor of America.

American standards of living are bolstered by massive Federal and populace borrowing.
A little like using your house as equity to buy a new car, pool etc and then waking up one day and realising you own nothing, but owe lots.
Borrowing is based on the ability to pay and as is often the case not on claimable assets.
At the moment America has the ability to pay, but that option is getting down to the pointy end of the stick.

Check this if you doubt me.
It was posted by Stefan in an earlier post.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Scrolling down to........'Grandfather Economic Report on Federal Government Debt' opens a new 'can of worms'.

Regards.........Alan