Total Motorcycle Community Forums

I won't argue that oil may not be the only driving force, but it is one thing central to this region. It is hard to think it is not "a" driving force. But I think your analysis is pretty sound, and think it actually very similar to my opinion. Having a "friend" in the middle of this zone is clearly a big factor. But lest we forget there was less terrorism in Iraq when Saddam ran the show. He had his own brand of terror, that had few successful rivals. We showed up and every terrorist, or terrorist wannabe moved in. We are a great "cause" to go against in that region.

This seems interesting but I do not have the OP, only a moderators note about moving the OP.

It was there yesterday. It looks like the user deleted the post for some reason. I moved the post here, but did not delete the content.

scan wrote:It was there yesterday. It looks like the user deleted the post for some reason. I moved the post here, but did not delete the content.

I meant to use quote to respond and shortened for brevity. Only after did I realize I must have chose edit by mistake.

Sev wrote:

jonnythan wrote:I don't need "government clearance" to believe that starting an armed conflict with a foreign nation that posed no immediate threat to the US was not a proper use of the US military.

Based upon what? What makes you think it was no threat?

Note, I am not saying that Iraq was a threat, but I am saying that the common man doesn't know enough to know that he doesn't know.

You are more right than you know. I have quite a few friends that are currently in the service, and ex military that wound up in the Intel sections. One spends a large amount of time in a rather large hollowed out mountain, looking at little buttons on a control board.

They think it's a total "fudge" up over there. By that I mean the way the thing is ran.

But for the most part they agree that it WAS a good idea to go.

Personally I don't know. My government hasn't given me the real scoop on what the hell is going on since around the 1700's. It seems governments are in the business of secrets. And the keeping thereof. Until I know personally, I withhold making a decision on whether or not it was right.

I respect this point of view. The one that says, “how can we know what is going on, so how could we even comment”, which is sort of what roscowgo is saying here. The machinery of politics, war, and world events are so large and there is likely no one who understands all of the little pictures, let alone the big one. But just the same I endeavor with my limited knowledge to try to grasp as much as I can with as many sources as possible.

With that said, I’d like to say at my core I think we should keep our noses in our own business. That is to say, we have borders around our country that need to be protected. We have points of entry that need to be secure. We have products that come here that need to be inspected. We have humans that come here that need to be investigated before they can be assured as low risk. None of those things I just mentioned, even after 9-11, are up to the task at hand, or staffed as they should be. It cost too much money, and we have our money spread thin. We can’t afford to take care of problems at home because we have to spend so much everywhere else in the world. Crime is still high. Poor folks still need help. Sick people, who don’t need to, still die. Again, at my core, it seems to me we should worry more about this piece of land and let other fires burn, burn-out, smolder, or fizzle.

But, with that said, I am not naive. I have lived for many years on this earth, 42 at this point, and have spent a lot of year reading, watching news and commentary, and talking to other humans with varied opinions on world events. I understand that you sometimes get involved in another man’s fight, or another man’s issue, because it will affect your own in some very serious way. For example, I can’t just let my neighbor dump garbage and toxins in his back yard. It is his yard, true, but it will eventually kill me. In some cases, if you don’t stop a snowball from rolling down a hill, it will become too large to stop. This has been the case, for example, of getting in World War 2. We could have sat back and watched it keep going on, and we would eventually have had the war in our lap, against one or two much more powerful enemies. Again, that was not the only factor in getting into WW2, but it was a good reason to wake up and help other countries that would surely have fallen without our help. In fact, it was how we became sheriff at that point in history. The big gun of the world if you will.

So, with that in mind, I understand we have always kept our nose in the affairs of other parts of the world, and even though there are hidden agendas, how can one small man, or one small organization, or even one small government, really understand? But the flip side is, can one man just sit back and just let “The Great Oz” run the machine, flip the switches, and control destiny, without wondering, or trying to understand? I do know that we made things more violent in Iraq then they were, and that they have more terrorist in Iraq then before we were there. I know that doesn’t sound good. I hope in the long run the man behind the curtain is “really” trying to get that country onto its own feet, and not trying to make a new puppet to control. We will never be able to control that region, short of a very hot, and high radioactive explosion.

Hey, cheer up.

Meanie wrote: I also agree with the hidden agenda but I strongly disagree with the issue being about oil. I'm actually sick and tired of hearing/reading people indicate they know it's about oil when I'm willing to bet that was the farthest from his mind, though none of us, can speak for him. 1. Revenge. Bush wanted revenge against Saddam for the attempt on his fathers life brought about by Saddam.

International warfare is not like a punch-up in the school playground. It involves vast resources of a kind one man or even a gang of men cannot marshall. It requires the backing of interested corporations and power centres who are willing to fund it. It is a massive, collective operation - not a private fight.

Meanie wrote: 2. Aiding terrorists. Though most of the middle east is encased with Muslim terrorists, this helped Bush provide a more legitimate excuse to conquer Saddam. One, for the revenge and two, there is NO WAY to conquer one country to fight terrorism, obviously, since they are all over. Therefore, taking control of a country and leader, whom Bush hated, was an opportune time to bring the terrorists to him. The main goal of the terrorist is to "kill" Americans. Let's face it, they hate us. Therefore, filling a country with American soldiers brings the terrorists to them.

The fact is it wasn't legitimate - as you then go on to vaguely admit. And let's not get sloppy in the language: 'Bush' did not 'conquer' Saddam. The American state invaded Iraq and killed and is continuning to kill innocent Iraqi citizens. The threat to the US is probably real though equally probably hugely overstated. It is not nearly as big a threat as the US is to the middle east.

Meanie wrote: 3. To somewhat agree with a controlling government, though, I believe more to keep tabs on the surrounding countries for obvious reasons.

As for the oil issue, I still refuse to believe that was a high motive for the invasion.

To which the simple answer must be: Middle-Eastern oil has been a very high priority first for British, Russian, French and American interests for the best part of a century, why should anything be any different now? Especially now, when control of oil is becoming an ever increasing factor in Western policy - and Chinese and Russian policy too.

Since the time of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, European and American commercial interests have been carving up the area and manipulating the local ruling elites to control this resource. This is a very traditional foreign policy decision.

The building of five massive permanent US bases in Iraq is now nearly complete - which might tell you something about long-term intentions. They are all close to the major oil fields (which might tell you something else). With other bases in Afghanistan and in the Post-Soviet 'Stans'; with the co-operation of the Turks and (for the time being) the Saudis, and not forgetting our old friend, the armed American outpost in Israel, the U.S. looks fair set to dominate the region. Economic imperialism is well understood here.

Meanie wrote: Perhaps on a smaller scale he may have said, "hey, I'm doing this to kill Saddam and a plus would be to get cheaper oil" but not the soul aim. Since Iraq is number 7 on the Crude Oil import chart with 481 thousand barrels to date this year, compared to 1853 thousand from Canada, 1427 from Saudi Arabia, 1448 from Mexico, 1025 from Nigeria and 1120 from Venezuela, I highly doubt there would be much of a benefit from oil in Iraq. Hell, even Angola imported 524 thousand to date.

It's the world's cheapest oil for god's sake. Poke your finger in the sand and up it comes, and there is a huge amount of it. Saudi Arabia has been in the pocket of the US since they established the Saud family as rulers but that regime is looking increasingly unstable with forces hostile to American interests likely to supplant them. Venezuela is not looking quite so rosy as it used to either.

Meanie wrote: But this is simply my opinion and nothing based on facts except for the oil imports.

This is just my opinion, too, Meanie. But the idea that the U.S. has purely benign and purely defensive designs on the middle-east passes all credibility. The idea that economically competitive states act benignly towards one another that the US government is an exception to the general rule is really completely unhistorical and defies the facts I've ever come across.

This is probably the worst and most inappropriate thread/category/post on all of the TMW. The fact it is allowed over here in America and that we speak English in America and not German or Japanese or still pay taxes to England is a testement to the American soldier. (I state that because I am pretty sure this is a Calgary based web site)

Has nothing to do with motorcycles. You will always have 2 distinct groups, possibly 3 who will not only never agree but not even be able to come to some kind of compromise.....the group who support the Iraq/Persian Gulf war efforts 110%, the ones who do not support the Iraq/Persian Gulf war efforts 110% and then those who could care. And this thread will go on and on and on spurred by at least the 2 polar oposites arguing back and forth.

For the record and as a US Army Veteran, all anti Persian Gulf/Iraq war personnel can kiss my arse. If I had my way we would drop as many nukes as necessary to eliminate said issue and throw in all the anti Iraq/Persian Gulf war personnel too. Collateral damage is hell and it can't be helped.

sv-wolf you don't know what you are talking about, let me know when you hear that popping sound......that would be the noise your head makes when it comes out of its arse. We have much bigger problems here in the USA and with our Constitutional rights being taken away in leaps and bounds. Did you know there are now tracking chips in the new passports?

You are just one more example of why I really have never liked anyone from England that I ever met.

Have another beer and a cigarette (cigarette) on me.

badinfluence63 wrote:This is probably the worst and most inappropriate thread/category/post on all of the TMW. The fact it is allowed over here in America and that we speak English in America and not German or Japanese or still pay taxes to England is a testement to the American soldier. (I state that because I am pretty sure this is a Calgary based web site)

Has nothing to do with motorcycles. You will always have 2 distinct groups, possibly 3 who will not only never agree but not even be able to come to some kind of compromise.....the group who support the Iraq/Persian Gulf war efforts 110%, the ones who do not support the Iraq/Persian Gulf war efforts 110% and then those who could care. And this thread will go on and on and on spurred by at least the 2 polar oposites arguing back and forth.

For the record and as a US Army Veteran, all anti Persian Gulf/Iraq war personnel can kiss my arse. If I had my way we would drop as many nukes as necessary to eliminate said issue and throw in all the anti Iraq/Persian Gulf war personnel too. Collateral damage is hell and it can't be helped.

sv-wolf you don't know what you are talking about, let me know when you hear that popping sound......that would be the noise your head makes when it comes out of its arse. We have much bigger problems here in the USA and with our Constitutional rights being taken away in leaps and bounds. Did you know there are now tracking chips in the new passports?

You are just one more example of why I really have never liked anyone from England that I ever met.

Have another beer and a cigarette (cigarette) on me.

Bad, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of anti-war/anti-soldier/nuking idea, but I have to disagree with your statement about this topic. Even though this is a motorcycle forum, many people are still interested in other topics, which, is why the "Soap Box" category was formed. Did you ever participate in a group ride or just ride with friends and discuss motorcycles all day? That would be boring after awhile. Therefore, we discuss other issues, which, of course, is how we become familiar with other people as well as learn other opinions. In most cases, we hope to learn new ideas and input, but for the most part, most people are too damn stubborn to change their opinion.

I agree, there will always be differences and there is nothing we can do about it. If it's about politics, abortion, religion or even motorcycles, opinions vary. It's a way of life. It's senseless to become upset over it. As you may have noticed, Wolf stated his "opinion" which differed from mine. Frankly, I don't care, they're his opinion and it doesn't hurt me one bit. After all, consider the source, lol. There is no need for me to rebut. I stated my opinion, he stated his, simple. The people who usually argue are those who most likely suffer from an inferior issue and need to prove their worth by being right. You can either be dragged in or just watch and laugh. For the most part, I prefer to laugh, though, I have been dragged in a few times, but that's "my" fault and nobody else.

meanie,

You're not such a meanie, that was well spoken. Point made and point taken.

Sure is hard though to read some jack off from another country spout off stuff about your country that he knows jack sh*t about. That shows disrespect to anothers allegiance to ones country.

Politics, religeon and something else are usually highly flammable topics best left for other web sites that cater to that venue, in general. Some jack off from England starts slamming my country makes me want to fly over there, find where he lives, knock on his door and hit him on the head with a tire iron when he answers it. Or ignore him. One choice is very rewarding the other very costly. I didn't say anything negative about England or the door knob or is it door lock tax? or there funny meaning of words "camping and cigarettes"?

I don't go out much. I don't play well with others. I'll best stay out of "soapbox".