Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
Well, I was hoping to keep politics out of this (naive huh?), but I would like to address that comment - not specifically about the current admin, but in general. Other administrations have been accused of using a war to benefit their friends. -ERD50
|
I think this war is ALL about politics........after all there were NO WMD's, Saddam had NO ties to Bin Laden, and Iraq wasn't threatening, and wasn't in a position to threaten anyone. I wasn't trying to get too political (although I suppose I can't help it) - but it seems that the truth is, this war wasn't JUST about oil - there are many who have profited from this war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
I draw on Ockam's razor - the simplest explanation that fits is likely the correct one. I just think there are far easier, reliable, and direct ways to put some money in the pockets of some cronies than starting a war. It's not like nobody is going to notice. And there sure are risks involved with this 'strategy'. -ERD50
|
There may be "easier" ways, but there aren't any more lucrative. As for the "risks" - I think you're right...we're certainly living them. I'm not sure the Bush strategists were astute enough to consider the risks. The people in charge of developing this strategy saw a huge economic upside from an "easy" war that we would win and then control the vast resources of a resource rich country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
And if you want to extend that to all of Haliburton and all the oil companies, well I'm sure some employees of those company have lost their lives or have family members that lost their lives in this war.-ERD50
|
The employees aren't really the ones that profit the most from this. It's the executives and major shareholders.....and I suspect they aren't sacrificing in any way in this war
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
I just think there are far easier ways to line peoples pockets, without also putting some of those people at risk. How 'bout a bridge to nowhere, etc? -ERD50
|
Well, that's probably not the best example since the "bridge to nowhere" never got built. It all depends on who's pockets you are trying to line. And as for the human aspect of it, the sad truth is that this admin has shown absoultely no concern for putting lives at risk. Examples include lack of body and vehicle armor for the troops. Allowing (promoting?) torture of prisoners. Substandard care at medical facilities for our troops. Stretching the allowable tours of combat duty and reducing the down time between combat for the troops. Where has this admin really shown any concern for these brave servicemen and women other than in their tired rhetoric?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
And if the ME oil supply got cut off, wouldn't that make our domestic oil worth even more? And so what if worlds oil prices rose, these companies just pass the price on to consumers - what do they care? -ERD50
|
It seems that the trick is not to reduce oil supplies- there are still immense worldwide oil supplies. The trick is to
control the supplies, that's how you control the prices. Of course, as we know, you can also control the "perceived" supply....as in China's demand, outdated refineries, hurricane damage, etc. to get prices up, since oil is a tradeable commodity
To gauge the effectiveness of these tactics, look at the profitibility of the oil companies (not to mention gas prices that were <2.00/gal when Bush was elected in 2000), defense contractors like Haliburton, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. over the past 7 years. I'd say Bush is doing a great job for his cronies.....