The oil industry itself uses the "tensions in the middle east" as one of their favorite excuses. You are saying that the huge price spike on your chart in '90-91 was NOT caused by our war with Iraq? I won't take time now to answer in detail your Dem questions but I will say that I don't feel that Al Gore would have led an invasion of Iraq in 2003. One reason America prospered and the budget deficit was down to nothing during the Clinton years was because we were not engaged in extremely costly, foreign war adventures as we have been under both Bush's. I do find it curious that both Bush's are the ones who deemed it necessary to tangle with Hussein whereas under Clinton sanctions were sufficient. In retrospect, how many Americans feel that our war in Vietnam altered the course of world history in a positive fashion and was worth the high cost and death? Will this be the end result with our seemingly personal vendetta against Hussein? Would Gore have invaded Afghanistan? Maybe yes and rightfully so if 9-11 would have occurred under his regime but even that is not entirely certain to have happened. No one can be sure if Gore's staff may not have paid more attention to Clarke's memos in the last weeks leading up to 9-11. Not blaming Bush or Rice for 9-11 mind you but under different leadership you can't say for certain it would have happened.
"I do find it curious that both Bush's are the ones who deemed it necessary to tangle with Hussein whereas under Clinton sanctions were sufficient." :?: That statement is subject to wide speculation, to say the least.
George, I'll grant you that the eventual outcome of sanctions we'll never know. Before someone says it for me I will state that the first Iraq invasion had merit with me completely because it was Iraq who invaded an ally of the U.S. in Kuwait and Kuwait has strategic oil importance as well. W's invasion of Iraq is now and will always be much more cloudy.
In my mind at least, the sanctions were a complete failure. The lifestyle of Saddam, as we could all see, included new palaces, porno, priavate zoo's, and all sorts of art work, antiquities, etc. Saddam was not suffering, he was using the oil for food money to support his lavish lifestyle. It was only idiot Hollywood types who thought he was "doing the best he can for his people" under the "evil" sanctions. Nothing was going to change the Iraq situation, Saddam was firmly entrenched and not suffering. His party had money. ammmo, and the Shites firmly in control. There was no revolution in the offering. So the Iraqi Oil would still be sitting there only fueling Saddam's lifestyle, ut not much of a player on the world market. We would still be dealing with Megalomaniacs in Iran who's words and actions have more to do with the current spiking of oil than anything we are doing in Iraq. That idiot has created a fear that Iranian Oil will be cut off, and thus the spike in the price of Oil. We would still be dealing with idiot socialists in Venezuela who have created much instability in the oil market. We would still be dealing with the lack of will of the american people to do anything about developing domestic reserves for environmental reasons (real or imagined). We would still have millions of gas guzzling SUV's and Big Trucks on the roads, we would still have families who instead of the 1 or 2 cars of our parents generation have 1 car per person in the household. We would still be dealing with the growth of China's demand for oil bringing into play that old supply vs demand thingy. A lot would be the same including 9-11, as nothing in Clarks books points to Clinton being on top of Al-Queda. In fact the 9-11 bombers were already well into their planning and training when W took office. The thought that Gore would have stopped them just can't be supported. Terry
:shock: Aren't we forgetting something in this discussion? Clinton went to war in Jugoslavia...and he didn't get Congressional approval or United Nations backing to do it neither. He just attacked a neutral country that had done us no harm and that was no threat to us neither... BTW- the balanced budget was because of the Republican Congress. The same Congress he didn't dare to go to with his war plans, because they wouldn't have approved...
Yugoslavia involved mostly air strikes and helped to bring a swift end to a horrific genocidal situation that existed at the time. I venture the cost to do so was miniscule compared to what this war in Iraq has cost the American people.
I can't believe anyone even in Hollywood thought Saddam was good for his people and doing the best for them that he could. That doesn't mean deposing him at such a very, very high cost in human life and limb and in U.S dollars was a worthwhile cause and I think history will yet confirm that.
<i></i> Sufficient for what? Sufficient to get him to comply with his ceasefire obligations that ended the initial Gulf conflict? NOT Sufficient for him to comply with the demands of the international community and UN Security Council resolutions where, in a unanimous decision, he was found to be in material breach? NOT Sufficient for him to not order regular attacks on Allied aircraft seeking to enforce his agreed to international obligations? NOT Sufficient for him to comply with the economic sanctions imposed upon him for his previous transgressions by way of the Oil for Food program? NOT Sufficient for him to discontinue his usage of the mechanisms of state to aid and abet international terrorism and provide bounty money for the murder of innocent men, women and children of the US and our allies? NOT Sufficient enough to prevent him from planning and attemping to implement the assassination of a former President of the United States? NOT MCG, sufficient for what? Terry
Is the attempted assasination of Sr. an accepted and documented event on both sides of Capitol Hill or would you just find the "factual" reporting of the attempt on the side that leans to the right? Otherwise, Saddam is/was a bad guy who was disruptive and did not obey the many demands set forth for him to follow by the international (mostly U.S. led however) community but I view the asshole in Iran presently as much more of an international threat than Saddam was after he was weakened throughout the 90s by the initial Gulf War and subsequent sanctions. Again, my thoughts on taking him out in 2003 and the continued U.S. presence there are "at what cost?". Eight U.S servicemen have been killed just this weekend.
MCG, I assume that you'll take President Clinton's words as "accepted and documented"? The sanctions were clearly not sufficient to force the Iraqi regime to change the behavior that compelled the sanctions in the first place....again I ask, sufficient for what? As it relates to the "asshole in Iran", would you be supportive of military action against Iran if they continue their quest for nuclear weapons? Terry [/quote]
If we had not expended so much money, resources, lives and military might in Iraq for a highly questionable and debatable cause......one that still is in doubt with regard to hidden agendas....I would say absolutely yes if Iran is touting their nuclear development with regards to weapons. On the other hand N. Korea is proven to have and tout/test them as well but what should/could we do about them? I think the fish is rotting from the head down with regard to Iraq and the great majority of Americans agrees with me if not the tilted right majority here on Skybox. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-01-gallup-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA 7. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling these issues? 2006 Apr 28-30 (sorted by “approve”) Approve Disapprove Terrorism 48 50 Overall job approval 34 63 The economy 34 64 Foreign affairs 33 62 The situation in Iraq 32 66 Immigration 26 64 Energy policy 22 71 32% hard-headed too proud, Bush-lovin Republicans approve while 66% of all other Americans disapprove of Bush's Iraq war.
Well it's not surprising that when a war isn't going as planned that people start to question it, that's natural. But those numbers were reversed when we went into Iraq. I thought it was the right thing to do and still do, however as time has gone one I question why we haven't been able to adapt to the way the war changed after the fall of Bagdad. But that's all based on hindsight. Hypothetically if there were still no WMD's found, but instead of roadside bombs, suicide bombers, etc. The Iraqi people had gasped the fresh air of freedom and worked harmoniously with us to build a new government and regain control of their country. What do you think those numbers would look like? Sort of like what the Germans, Italians and Japanese did after WWII. I'm guessing that the approval rating for the war and it's handling would be close to 100% with even those who opposed it to start comming over to the side of it was a good thing.
Are you kidding me? Non-partisan? That whole point of that article is that Iran is oppresssed and given it's geopolicital situation deserves to have Nukes. The natural extrapolation of that article is that everybody should have nukes, esp if they don't have ICBMs (currently). That's the Archie bunker solution to hijacking, you remember give each paasenger a gun. Terry
I don't see in the article that the author is saying Iran or anybody else should have nukes. He does say that he understands why countries like Iran feel in a legitimate sense that they need them considering how Israel, India and Pakistan do have them. Still I don't think he is saying that it is fine for Iran to have them and I certainly don't think that any radical extremist Muslim country should have them either. I wonder if it is possible to continue policing all Muslim countries forever on this issue. Terry what do you think? Do you think we are destined to fight all Muslim countries on a continuing basis for decades to come to prevent the spread of nukes in the Muslim world? That does sound like a Christians vs. Muslims jihad to me so maybe it's underway already. If so the rest of the West had better wake up and join the fray in earnest.
That's a no for now. I don't think we are ready for such a monumental conflict as outlined in the article I link to above. Maybe the next war should be fought by all of us over the hill 50 somethings who all seem so ready to send our kids off to die for causes that sometimes are debated and remain unclear. Looks like Russia will line up against us on Iran: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12623085/
So your foreign policy stance on this issue is to enable a country that has outspokenly advocated the destruction of the US and its key middle east ally the means to do so at a moments notice in direct violation of international law? If the basis of international law that seeks to minimize the threat of world destruction is not to be enforced, do we only enforce the ones that are unimportant and easy? Why waste time with any of them? Under what circumstances would you advocate the use of military force? During what period of our history has that NOT been the case? I'm unaware of any period of time in our history where there has not been a meaningful and vocal opposition to the use of our military in international affairs..... Terry