What the Arab news is saying...

[Djinn Raffo]

1.) What is the greatest country on earth?

2.) Have you been to every country on earth?

[ 10-10-2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Timber Loftis]

Djinn: (1) Depends on who you are and what you like.
(2) Nope.

[Ronn_Bman]

In case anyone missed it....my posts about US brainwashing was sarcasm.

***BEST ANNOUNCER VOICE***The views expressed or implied in my post do not, necessarily, represent those of the US populous, it's government or it's officials.

[Larry_OHF]

ROFL!! I bet you would be surprised at how many people either think your post was real, or were already believing some of it prior to your mention of it! Lol!!!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: ROFL!! I bet you would be surprised at how many people either think your post was real, or were already believing some of it prior to your mention of it! Lol!!!

Well, I do think Nos. 2 and 3 strike a little close to the truth. The sense I got growing up in the US from a lot of folks was that foreigners were either idiots or insignificant. They had wierd ways of thinking and doing things that were just so unAmerican.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: In case anyone missed it....my posts about US brainwashing was sarcasm. ***BEST ANNOUNCER VOICE***The views expressed or implied in my post do not, necessarily, represent those of the US populous, it's government or it's officials.

Don't backtrack too fast there Ron. Politicians are politicians you know. Let's say you are a politician and let's also say you have a personal agenda based on your own best interests and that of your campaign contributors. But I repeat myself.

[Larry_OHF]

By the way folks...remember the signature rules...

[Attalus]

To quote the irrepreeible Jonah Goldberg:

The basic argument goes like this: Bush and Cheney are oil guys. They want to get their grubby hands on Iraq's oil. Ergo, this is a war for oil. I guess it could be stated with more sophistication, but why go to all the trouble of putting a dress on a pig?

As Peter Beinart of The New Republic notes in his latest — and excellent — column (registration required), war is not the best means to get at Iraq's oil. If all we wanted was a bigger slice of the Iraqi petro-pie, all we'd have to do, literally, is say so. Dick Cheney could negotiate that with Saddam over Turkish coffee and a few tortured lackeys tomorrow. Saddam has made it known that he'd be perfectly willing to sell a lot more oil to the United States, and that he'd certainly write up some fresh contracts if the U.S. would drop its sanctions and forget about this "regime change" nonsense.

Going to war just to boost Iraq's oil production from three or so million barrels a day to 6 or so million barrels a day involves massive risks, both political and financial. A war on Iraq could ruin Iraq's oil fields. It could foment instability in the region or a civil war inside Iraq. It could easily cost the Republicans the White House if it went badly. In short, if this were all about oil, any good businessman would simply say, "Let's just lift the sanctions." And, as Beinart notes, if all Bush wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion?

In fact, if Bush and Cheney are doing the bidding of the oil industry, someone needs to explain why the American Petroleum Institute lobbied for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks. Also, you might ask why oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the prospects for peace improve.

But, in my mind, the most compelling response to the blood-for-oil argument is a simple one. The people who make it are morons. Oh, I don't mean the folks who say that, as a geopolitical necessity, the U.S. must assure stability in oil markets, or those who (rightly) argue that we need to lessen the power and influence of the Saudis. I mean the people who argue — Cynthia McKinney-style — that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld want to get rich off the war. This is the Carlyle Group argument you hear on Pacifica Radio and in the sweatier fever swamps of the web. The simple problem with this thesis is that it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of rich people.

Rich people who want to get richer do not run for president or vice president. They don't take jobs as secretary of defense or treasury secretary. And, for that matter, they don't run for senator — like John Edwards and Jon Corzine. Such people may have selfish motives, but greed for filthy lucre isn't one of them. They may like the power, they may want to do good, they may want their names in the history books, they may even want to prove something to the third-grade teachers who said they'd never amount to anything. But they don't do it to make a killing in the stock market. Every day, I hear from people who honestly think Bush & co. want to invade Iraq to make a few more bucks. These people are either stoopid or they are trapped in a Twilight Zone where Thomas Nast cartoons seem real.

Indeed, this is the problem with most goofy theories about a war: They reveal a profound naiveté about how government works. If Bush were doing this for oil or for money or for "revenge" against the man who tried to kill his dad, he wouldn't be able to say so in a single meeting. He couldn't say such a thing to his inner circle, let alone his senior staff or the hundreds of people below them who make the policy. Word would get out. Opponents would leak it. Ambitious men would blow the whistle and become heroes. Decent men would blow the whistle too.

In other words, Bush would have to keep all of his motives secret from the people he'd have to convince to go along. Now, since most of these anti-Bush, antiwar types also think the commander-in-chief is an idiot, it's hard to imagine how they think he'd be smart enough to pull off a con like that.




National
Review
[Selections from the 10/28/02 issue]