When's the Crusade against Terror going to be over and victory for the United States going to come about?? I'd like to know your opinions.
When is the US going to be victorious on its war on terror?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
It's never going to happen.SaugaGames
i hate to share his opinion, but i believe it's true :(
I don't think there can be a victory as such. At least, not until all the loonies misunderstanding Islam have blown themselves up.SolidSnake35
muslim extremists are only a fraction of the real terrorism that takes place.
The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.KillaHalo2o9
Seem to failing on that front too.
[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't think there can be a victory as such. At least, not until all the loonies misunderstanding Islam have blown themselves up.ThrillTorn
muslim extremists are only a fraction of the real terrorism that takes place.
They make the most mess. It's not pleasant peeling them from the sidewalk.
Never, Muslims don't like the west (most of them anyway) *flame shield up*...
it will never end...
[QUOTE="ThrillTorn"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't think there can be a victory as such. At least, not until all the loonies misunderstanding Islam have blown themselves up.SolidSnake35
muslim extremists are only a fraction of the real terrorism that takes place.
They make the most mess. It's not pleasant peeling them from the sidewalk.
But political organisations like the Taliban don't use such tactics and they've had tremendous success in Afghanistan. It's basically false to say all terrorists do is blow themselves up, if that was the case the US would have won by default. In actuality they're fighting against a strong resistance.
Never, Muslims don't like the west (most of them anyway) *flame shield up*...
it will never end...
battlefront23
And many in America and the west seem to absolutely detest the Muslims, goes both ways. Not that the majority on either side seem to fit either camp.
The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.KillaHalo2o9
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Never, Muslims don't like the west (most of them anyway) *flame shield up*...
it will never end...
Hoobinator
And many in America and the west seem to absolutely detest the Muslims, goes both ways. Not that the majority on either side seem to fit either camp.
We detest them because of what they do... like 911...
When the US realizes it's become a terror to other countries! :otbone29
:o Just like I Am Legend!
the same time they win the war on Poverty and Drugs.Hewkii
Exactly. Its one of those wars that can't really be "won", but has to be fought.
The war in Iraq is actually going very well right now. I see us out of there in the next year. The Iraqi army is now going on Raids by themselves and helping US troops. I see that they are almost ready to take over the security of the Country. ferrari2001
Contrary to what the US media has fed you recently the recent raids again Moqtada Sadr's forces were humiliating for the Iraqi army and the US military who backed them.
The safe haven of the Green Zone was attacked very recently, was seen as the safest part of Baghdad.
US has become more dependent on Iraqi Radicals.
Before the onset of the recent violence Sadr had actually called for a ceasefire not because of fear of fighting US forces but because he wants a bigger role in Iraqi politics, especially once the US forces are gone. He's basically trying to legitimise himself.
Sadr's forces have not been defeated or even close to being defeated.
And here is what Seymour Hersh says on the role of US media reporting on Iraq, they like lying.
Don't believe it everytime the media says the US is doing well in Iraq. Surge after surge after much vaunted surge and nothing.
The "war on terror" is not well defined.rimnet00
Most people interpret it, incorrectly, as a war on the ideology of terror and every individual who uses it. However, any government official will tell you it is actually a war on organized terror groups, specifically al-quida. All battles an effort to take over or destroy their assets and resources and kill their leaders until the organization can no longer sustain itself and collapses. Then we've won.
[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.Tolwan
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
I don't think it can ever be "won", there's always bound to be a few nutters. But from what I understand, most of it is funded by Saudi Arabia, so I'm guessing there will be much less terrorism once we find an alternative fuel that we don't have to buy from Saudis.
[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Never, Muslims don't like the west (most of them anyway) *flame shield up*...
it will never end...
battlefront23
And many in America and the west seem to absolutely detest the Muslims, goes both ways. Not that the majority on either side seem to fit either camp.
We detest them because of what they do... like 911...
You are willing to judge 1.3 billion people because of the actions of a miniscule minority? there should be awards for generalisms of that magnitude.
[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.KillaHalo2o9
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.darkmoney52
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
Like I say this is the United States of Corporations.
[QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.darkmoney52
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.Tolwan
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
Agreed, to expand and maintain are power in the world.
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]Never, Muslims don't like the west (most of them anyway) *flame shield up*...
it will never end...
Junkie_man
And many in America and the west seem to absolutely detest the Muslims, goes both ways. Not that the majority on either side seem to fit either camp.
We detest them because of what they do... like 911...
You are willing to judge 1.3 billion people because of the actions of a miniscule minority? there should be awards for generalisms of that magnitude.
That's not a very good judgement you know. I agree with Junkie_man
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
Tolwan
So basically open up Iraqs oil and secure pipelines. Get cheap oil. Set up permanent base in Iraq.
Failing on all threee counts.
[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.Tolwan
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
First off, saying that we would be profiting from the war if not for corporations, is like saying we would suffocate right now if not for air. Secondly, who gives a crap about Iran? What resources does Iran have to make it powerful? None. Iran is just another crappy,crazy, government that real world powers decided to fund. And why worry about stockpiling oil, when we could put money into research that would keep us from needing oil? It's not like alternatives to oil are some kind of crazy pipe dream, there's more than enough advancements to make this a much more attainable dream than "outlasting the rest of the world".
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
Hoobinator
So basically open up Iraqs oil and secure pipelines. Get cheap oil. Set up permanent base in Iraq.
Failing on all threee counts.
Wrong, actually. We are already establishing permanent bases in Iraq and this will be solidified if McCain gets elected into office. No doubt we are also securing oil rights in the country as well, however i highly doubt this would be a readily made public thing given the way people look upon the situation in iraq currently. However, i forsee if Barack gets elected, everything we've done in Iraq will become a complete waste of time as he will abandon the country alltogether. No, i dont really care about the Iraqi's, they have control now. It's US and the US's interests i care about. We certainly need to maintain an expanded presence in that part of the world however if we get a sensationalist like Obama in touting one liners every week we wont get done what *must* be done.
[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.Tolwan
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
So you embrce the fact that the US is a psychopathic super-power that ****s with the rest of the world for its own selfish means:| I hate to insult your views on world politics, but that's a pretty bad perspective. Making the assumption that the US is an imperialistic monolith is a hell of a lot less productive that trying to prevent such. A good first step would be geting warmongers out of the white house.
[QUOTE="Tolwan"]Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
Hoobinator
So basically open up Iraqs oil and secure pipelines. Get cheap oil. Set up permanent base in Iraq.
Failing on all threee counts.
The US depends heavily on oil from the Middle East. Lets say they become overly Imperialistic and tries to invade another ME nation for the counts of 'having WMDs' and WHAM! the whole lot of them boycott oil production to the US. The States would be kneeling on their knees.
Doesn't mean acquiring a plot in the ME ensures the oil demand is met.
[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.darkmoney52
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
First off, saying that we would be profiting from the war if not for corporations, is like saying we would suffocate right now if not for air. Secondly, who gives a crap about Iran? What resources does Iran have to make it powerful? None. Iran is just another crappy,crazy, government that real world powers decided to fund. And why worry about stockpiling oil, when we could put money into research that would keep us from needing oil? It's not like alternatives to oil are some kind of crazy pipe dream, there's more than enough advancements to make this a much more attainable dream than "outlasting the rest of the world".
Actually, if you take college economics you would realise what i said about Corporations is in fact true, The ologopoly that is present is what is hurting america price wise, nothing else. As for iran, it is what's known historically as a "proxy". Other countries who want to counter the US indirectly are funding and supply Iran with money and weapons in order to counter the US and push it back. A conflict with Iran is inevitable. Furthmore Iran is one of the few nations instigating the continuing conflict in the middle east, being one of the more open primary suppliers of arms and supplies to terrorists and constantly pushing for the destabilization of local governments throughout the middle east as Iran attempts to spread it's influence.
We can go on for 100 different reasons Why we will fight iran but suffice it to say, we will. Unless a dem gets into office, anyways. They tend to take a far more anti-imperialist view on the world, which is a flawed view that has rarely succeeded and only succeeded in smaller nations far easier to maintain through socialist programs and strict regulation.
[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
Tolwan
So basically open up Iraqs oil and secure pipelines. Get cheap oil. Set up permanent base in Iraq.
Failing on all threee counts.
Wrong, actually. We are already establishing permanent bases in Iraq and this will be solidified if McCain gets elected into office. No doubt we are also securing oil rights in the country as well, however i highly doubt this would be a readily made public thing given the way people look upon the situation in iraq currently. However, i forsee if Barack gets elected, everything we've done in Iraq will become a complete waste of time as he will abandon the country alltogether. No, i dont really care about the Iraqi's, they have control now. It's US and the US's interests i care about. We certainly need to maintain an expanded presence in that part of the world however if we get a sensationalist like Obama in touting one liners every week we wont get done what *must* be done.
Right now the US is occupying Iraq. Once the occupation ends, which it undoubtedly will, the US will not have the resources in the area left to defend those bases. That's not lies, but brute fact. Militia squads like Sadr's forces already have and will continue to target US bases. Not much of a base if all you're doing is constantly defending yourself from an onslaught. But only time will tell but as of now it is an unfulfilled objective.
Also the cost of running any future base in Iraq will be extremely costly for the US. With economic recession and a gloomy future on the horizon does the US even have the money to spend so much on a few foreign bases.
Also quote: "The Iraq war has become so unpopular in this country that a resolution declaring the US has "no plan to establish a permanent ... military presence in Iraq" passed the House last month without a single Republican "nay."
As for the oil, well let's just say the price of oil hit an all time high recently and will llikely continue getting even more expensive.
So much for US objectives in Iraq. Apart from toppling Saddam everything else is a failure.
They tend to take a far more anti-imperialist view on the world, which is a flawed view that has rarely succeeded and only succeeded in smaller nations far easier to maintain through socialist programs and strict regulation.
Tolwan
though conversely Imperialist nations tend to tear themselves apart eventually (both World Wars should attest to that), and I'm sure that isn't a goal of any nation.
[QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.bman784
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
So you embrce the fact that the US is a psychopathic super-power that ****s with the rest of the world for its own selfish means:| I hate to insult your views on world politics, but that's a pretty bad perspective. Making the assumption that the US is an imperialistic monolith is a hell of a lot less productive that trying to prevent such. A good first step would be geting warmongers out of the white house.
You see, you like to talk as if your ideology is the only acceptable ideology. However, morality is a very subjective thing and in this case it is very different between our two ideologies. Psychopathic? I think not. Imperialism has often helped sustain and advance growing Empire's and nations throughout history. Imeprialism is what GOT america to this point see: 1800's, American Wars, Acquisition of Hawaii, etc. etc.
Imperialism, i feel, is far more productive than hiding in your own little corner as your population increases and your resources diminish while you continue to push forth socialist views that continue to increase the drain on a nation far too large to maintain and support socialist programs.
[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"][QUOTE="Tolwan"][QUOTE="KillaHalo2o9"]The war is not meant to be won, but to secure oil and power in the middle east.Tolwan
First off, i wouldnt put it past bush to have a genuine fear of middle-east terrorists and genuinely be in parts of the middle-east in order to hold them off of American borders, a goal of which he actually has suceeded in (There has not been a single successful attack on America since 9/11).
Howeve,r lets say you're right. How is that bad? For any nation or empire to endure the test of time it needs to expand and acquire new assets and resources. Further more, Imperialism is what made the America everyone here enjoys today. If bush out and out said "Yeah, we do want to break up the organized terrorists groups, but primarily we want to secure strategic locations and protect our oil assets", his approval rating would probably *increase* among republicans, who frequent Imperialist views such as i do. I certainly would not complain.
I never said that it was bad nor good.
The problem with the whole imperialist view, is that to aquire that oil, billions of tax dollars are spent every month and the revenue gained goes to a corporation not America as a whole or our government. Bush's wallet is not the American people's .
The only reason America is not benefitting directly and openly is because the oil industry is run by an ologopoly. A few large corporations of which conspire together to orgnize price raises. Congress has yet to split them apart, due to too many political officials having been bought out by the corporations. Thus the great drawback of a Democracy, rising and rampant corruption through all parties of the political system.
Less apparent the benefits are, they are still there. The more oil we have, the more we stockpile, the longer we outlast the rest of the world, minus russia. We *should* be experiencing price drops with oil gains and yet thanks to our ologopoly we are not. However, as i stated its more than aquiring Oil we are also securing strategic locations for further operations against other enemies, such as Iran. There is also a plus for having permanent bases so deep into the continent that we have more staging areas for any future wars against Europe or Russia.
First off, saying that we would be profiting from the war if not for corporations, is like saying we would suffocate right now if not for air. Secondly, who gives a crap about Iran? What resources does Iran have to make it powerful? None. Iran is just another crappy,crazy, government that real world powers decided to fund. And why worry about stockpiling oil, when we could put money into research that would keep us from needing oil? It's not like alternatives to oil are some kind of crazy pipe dream, there's more than enough advancements to make this a much more attainable dream than "outlasting the rest of the world".
Actually, if you take college economics you would realise what i said about Corporations is in fact true, The ologopoly that is present is what is hurting america price wise, nothing else. As for iran, it is what's known historically as a "proxy". Other countries who want to counter the US indirectly are funding and supply Iran with money and weapons in order to counter the US and push it back. A conflict with Iran is inevitable. Furthmore Iran is one of the few nations instigating the continuing conflict in the middle east, being one of the more open primary suppliers of arms and supplies to terrorists and constantly pushing for the destabilization of local governments throughout the middle east as Iran attempts to spread it's influence.
We can go on for 100 different reasons Why we will fight iran but suffice it to say, we will. Unless a dem gets into office, anyways. They tend to take a far more anti-imperialist view on the world, which is a flawed view that has rarely succeeded and only succeeded in smaller nations far easier to maintain through socialist programs and strict regulation.
Yes I know what a proxy is, and that's precisely why I was saying we should avoid conflict with Iran. Honestly, what's the best case scenario of what happens when we're victorious against Iran? A different country replaces is and becomes a new proxy for countries like Saudi Arabia.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment