BUSH MOST ADMIRED MAN IN THE US (page 15)

foreword

OK. let me get this straight.....

Saddam kills innocent civilians, he's bad

US kills innocent civilians, they're good

Makes a lot of sense.

ThiChi

Forward: Your rationalsation only leads to a "False Dilemma" and a Fallacy. Using your logic, no one cannot defend anyone for any outcome if the innocent is involved.

Innocents were killed during WWII. No one would ague that Hitler was the "bad guy" and the Allies were the good guys.....

However, the "Bad Guys" know that thinking like this exists, so the "Bad Guys" like to use human sheilds so the real issues are not considered, but only Straw Man arguments like this one.....

patio34

Yeru said:

and how exactly have our politicians "messed up" these countries? Iraq is in almost all ways better now than before the war...more running water, more electricity...and MUCH more freedom.

The latest Baghdad joke, according to Herbert Docena, reporting from that city for the Asia Times on-line, is: How many American troops does it take to screw in a light bulb? "About 130,000 so far, but don't hold your breath."

Pat

foreword

So then it all depends on who the bad guy is.

This is the way I see it. The US invades Iraq primarily cause it's oil supply is in jeopardy, and it's of national interest to secure some oil since the economy could falter. This was made easy for the US since Saddam was a bad guy. However, because of your motives, I'm not sure how to classify you guys, good or bad.

Of course you don't want anyone to accuse you of doing it for oil, it would almost equate you guys acting like hitler. But to me, it's still what you did, I don't buy your humanitarian twist to justify it.

peacefulpete

I was recently reading how John Adams responded assertively in defending the American merchant ships to Europe from French privateers. What was specially admirable was how dispite incredible pressure from within his party and outside he never declared war and after demonstrating the American resolved to defend itself and it's citizens he sent emmisaries to France in 1800 to sue for peace. As it happened, the French wished also to avoid war,he saved the nation from bloodshed and broken alliances. Sadly he lost reelection that same year for his peace efforts.

Make what you will of this history. I'm sure it can be twisted to fit any agenda. But this was a President I could admire.

frenchbabyface

That is what I have really hard time to understandHow can some people tell "WITH PRIDE", that they "ADMIRE" "Georges Bush Junior" !!! - ??
cause junior is a notorious dumb.

So I guess they in fact are talking about the gov (but they a have problem of assimilation related to the brainwashing -they do assimilate the gov with the president) to be able to say "Georges Bush" precisely instead of the gov (what they think probably for real).

I don't know, it's weird !!!

ThiChi

""The US invades Iraq primarily cause it's oil supply is in jeopardy""

False...this is what I mean...misinformation at its best!

Canada provides more oil to the US than Iraq (3%), It would be a lot cheaper to just invade Canada than Iraq....

DO the Math:

Just rescuing Iraq??s existing facilities (repairing wells and pipes about to fail and already doing long-term damage to reservoirs) will cost more than $1bn. Raising oil production back to 3.5MBD will take at least three years and require $8bn investment in facilities and another $20bn of repairs to the ravaged electrical grid that powers the pumps and refineries. Increasing production to over 6MBD would cost $30bn more.

These are not small sums for a country only earning $15bn a year from oil exports. Yet they represent only a tiny fraction of the costs that the US had been hoping could be covered by Iraqi oil exports. No one knows exactly how much the invasion of Iraq will cost the Pentagon, but the Bush administration??s own estimates begin at $100bn

. The Congressional Budget Office guesses that the price of maintaining US troops in Iraq will be between $12bn and $45bn annually. Iraq??s outstanding foreign debts, which total over $110bn, would need $5-12bn a year to service. Once US officials discovered this, they began lobbying to have these debts, held largely by Arab states, Russia and France, forgiven after the war. Outstanding claims against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait total about $300bn, although the United Nations agency responsible for collecting them does not think Iraq will have to pay more than $40bn - again, because the US is beginning to lobby Kuwait to drop its indemnity (2). No one knows how much humanitarian assistance will cost - but even in peacetime Iraq imports $14.5bn of food and medicine each year.

Even in the most optimistic scenarios, these costs are far beyond Iraq??s ability to pay. The US will have to fund much of the bill for war (including any payments that Turkey may extract for cooperation) and try to get its allies to share the costs of the rest. Driving down the price of oil only makes this task more daunting. So the neo-conservatives, and the Iraqi opposition, supported by independent oil price hawks and Pentagon planners, have now abandoned the idea of breaking Opec. Instead, they are searching for ways to maximise Iraq??s future oil revenues.

Their first step has been a quiet agreement to keep the technocrats of Iraq??s current oil ministry in place, rather than trying to de-Ba??athise them, and to delegate most policy matters to them. This means that the engineers who make the production decisions, and the negotiators who haggle the contracts, will be the people with the most experience and information, rather than Pentagon officials, who are hardly famous for their bargaining skills. This also means that Iraq??s oil will not be privatised. Instead, Iraqi technocrats will try to maximise revenues in the same way their counterparts do in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait: by offering foreign oil firms just enough profit, in very stringent production-sharing contracts, to keep them interested in investing.

The Iraqis and their US proconsuls will want to encourage as much competition among the foreign oil firms as they can, since this is the key to good terms. The US has hinted that it might retaliate against states, particularly Russia and France, that did not support its policy by denying them access to Iraqi oil after the war. This is a hollow threat. The Russians have already made the biggest single investment in Iraqi oil precisely because they are willing to take on riskier ventures than Western firms. Their capital and enthusiasm may prove critical to increasing the profitability of Iraqi oil. Also, Total has invested more than the Russians, and is well positioned to expand Iraqi production. Shell also has a major stake; and British Petroleum, which used to dominate the country, is also eager for a stake.

The US will discover that opening the bidding for what oilmen call the "Iraqi Klondike" as wide as possible will not only maximise revenues but also defuse the charge that the US is just land-grabbing. This does not mean that US oil companies will lack a role. If the political situation stabilises quickly (that is a very big if), Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco will join the bidding, and even smaller firms, such as Conoco, may participate by joining consortia to spread the risk.

But the only sector in which the Americans are actually likely to dominate is in services subcontracts, where US firms such as Halliburton (which Cheney used to run) and Schlumberger already enjoy global pre-eminence for economic reasons. US firms will not monopolise Iraqi oil; it will be surprising if they eventually control more than half of the production.

Multinational oil companies, US and other, have plenty to be ashamed of, from their despoliation of the Niger Delta to their support for state terrorism in Indonesia. But they have not been pushing for a war against Iraq. The Bush administration planned its campaign against Baghdad without input from these companies, and apparently without a clue about the basics of oil economics.

Oil appears in Washington??s calculations about Iraq as a strategic rather than an economic resource: the war against Saddam is about guaranteeing American hegemony rather than about increasing the profits of Exxon.

Stacy Smith

Oh ThiChi you're just confusing the Bush haters with facts they won't read anyway. Why waste your efforts? Do you care what Bush haters think?

Aztec

Okay I'm gonna answer this question quickly and decisively; the incumbent president is nearly always the most admired man despite his party affiliation or what he has done in office. No matter what anyone says, a man is only a man and he only has so much influence and power. I can't stand Bush but I don't think he's got so much influence as to be really feared. His administration is an atrocity against humanity and they do have an influence. I wish they could all be thrown out including Spence Abraham from my home state of Michigan. They are a lying bunch of self serving politicians. I hope Bush, Cheney et al get kicked to the curb in 2004 because I just plain don't like them or the way they do things.

That is all! I don't need to read anymore biased news articles from you ThiChi. Thanks in advance.

~Aztec

Stacy Smith

That is all! I don't need to read anymore biased news articles from you ThiChi. Thanks in advance.
~Aztec

She proves my point Thi. You hate Bush you aren't going to read anything. I'm not so sure your article was biased but since you posted it I guess it must be

I see you just turned 30 Azzy, happy belated birthday.

BUSH MOST ADMIRED MAN IN THE US

Share this