|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 10, 2008 20:51:57 GMT -5
It is not hard for me to accept at all, subdjoe, but for the US to use our taxpaying dollars to fund the Georgian govt. for the sake of oil, is questionable, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 10, 2008 21:27:37 GMT -5
Mountains? or Mole Hills?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 10, 2008 21:50:06 GMT -5
Nope, not at all. No different than lots of other deals of mutual benefit to both countries. Study the history of that region. Oh, that's right. History is meaningless unless it paints white or Christians as evil.
If nothing else, we helped stabalize the area for a while (as stable as it has ever been, which isn't very).
Of course, since Georgia is a mostly Christian, mostly white nation, I can see why any US aid to it is anathama to leftists.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 10, 2008 22:16:40 GMT -5
It is not hard for me to accept at all, subdjoe, but for the US to use our taxpaying dollars to fund the Georgian govt. for the sake of oil, is questionable, don't you think? So long as Democrats in Congress continue to stand in the way of us trying to develop the resources within our own borders, no, it's not quesitonable at all for us to reach out to the Georgian Republic. The oil and gas has to come from somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 11, 2008 0:48:39 GMT -5
It's time to challenge the intellectual honesty at the foundation of the "war for oil " argument.
Oil runs the world. Period. It runs every economy, every society, every modern organized system on Earth.
It is no less essential to the survival of billions of people than water. Without it, all of our works would collapse. An honest case can be made that the free exploration for & trading of oil is as natural & right a proper function as farming.
There is absolutely nothing even on a drawing board that is less than 30-50 years from replacing oil. As experimentation yields possibilities, investment will follow. One century or so from now, Americans will study the era of oil much as they study the era of trains or ocean liners; horses & schooners; as a logical technological step on the road to whatever they are using then.
This world; as it really is; right now; oil drives the engine. And it will for the foreseeable future.
An inconvenient truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Aug 11, 2008 12:07:39 GMT -5
It is not hard for me to accept at all, subdjoe, but for the US to use our taxpaying dollars to fund the Georgian govt. for the sake of oil, is questionable, don't you think? As Harpman said, the world runs on oil. So, no, I don't think it is questionable for our government to support a country that will help us to maintain a steady flow of energy to support, not just our economy, but the economy of the entire world. Mink, please paint us a picture of the world you envision, where aggressive countries are allowed to hoard their petroleum reserves as a weapon against us. You have seen the disruption and anguish in our economy when oil speculators pushed the price to $145 a barrel. Please describe what things might look like if oil went to $250 a barrel. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 11, 2008 21:41:52 GMT -5
So, now, you all admit it! It is the oil! All during the Iraqi -unilateral war , with the exception of harpman1, you all stuck with the case Bush laid out for you and the citizens of the United States, lie after lie after lie......and now, we can all acknowledge, it is all about oil.
The competition may cause a war, some civilian lives and our own soldiers lives, make some super rich, make some super poor and you guys don't even question it. It's is fine, ok, acceptable.......
This is sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 11, 2008 22:53:23 GMT -5
Why is it sad? Does this one particular commodity have an immoral aspect to it, like heroin?
And if oil is one of many reasons that shape U.S. policy, why do you elevate it to a position above all others?
Environmental concerns are another thing that drive U.S. policy. If I disagree with some of them, is it intellectually honest of me to focus on only that, to the exclusion of all others?
Oil is not a "gotcha", much as you may wish it to be.
Wars are fought for lots of reasons. Am I a bad person with warped values if I want the U.S. to come out on top in all cases?
I believe the key to your attitude re: oil is revealed in your post. i.e. "make some super rich, make some super poor...".
If the wealth of others really, really bothers you, you may be a communist. (Apologies to J. Foxworthy)
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Aug 12, 2008 11:08:07 GMT -5
Mink, again I ask:
You have reduced the overthrow of Saddam, which was backed by numerous Security Council resolutions, and even a resolution in the US Senate, to merely a war for oil. As we have refuted this point numerous times in the past, if all we wanted was the oil, it would have been cheaper to just buy it from Saddam. Please respond to that specific point.
|
|
