Originally posted by Maverick
I already answered a part of it and yet you do not wish to recognize it. Let me reinforce what I was saying. The world is not a place where a nation can exist in peaceful isolationism. That period past after we became so dependant on industrial and commercial benefits that we can no longer produce within our own shores all the materials we need to maintain the current technological level of society.
This is the case for pretty much any nation in the world not based on a totally agrarian society (example Amish and I mean society not nation with that group). No one nation can maintain itself without trading with some other part of the globe. If a critical material is controlled by a hostile power or can be manipulated by a hostile power there exists a significant economic threat to all nations that depend on that commodity. If you need an example look at the current price of oil and how it jumps everytime there is a mere threat to a portion of the production of any country that is a source of it. Even the loss of offshore drilling and refining capacity in this nation alone caused a price increase and a significant impact on the economy. Since our economy is also tied to other nations we were not the only one to feel the pinch.
You really didn’t have to broaden on your previous post. I understand the workings of a global economy. Every change in the supply or demand of a product has global ramifications. I just think you’re greatly overestimating the global economic impact a nation like Iraq can make.
Ask the Europeans or Asians if they “feel the pinch”. Gasoline prices in Europe have risen a whopping $0,3 since the summer of 2000, and is actually on the decline now. The rampant increase in gas prices in America is much more a result of domestic factors like increase in demand and the lack of refining capacity, than any foreign influence.
Originally posted by Maverick
Leaving a hostile power in control of a significant portion of that critical commodity is a significan5t weakness to our security and economy. Even if there were simply a single nation embargo by that hostile nation the entire globe would be effected economically due to the price fluctuation from the decrease in overall supplies. This would be the case even if other non-hostile nations decided to increase production to take up the shortfall form the one nation’s embargo. In fact a similar situation still exists as the oil production from Iraq is still not up to full production and the mere threat of reducing it further from terrorist attacks continues to cause economic fluctuations across the globe with the overall price of oil.
If that hostile power were able to gain direct control, the threat is even greater to nations that the power is hostile towards. Even if you wish to ignore the specific impact of the oilfields that were controlled by Iraq and Kuwait alone. The take over of that single small country had an impact that far exceeded the borders of that nation. This also included the supplies of other nations that may or may not have bordered Iraq and Kuwait. The mere threat was enough to cause a significant impact on the world both politically and economically.
Now going back to what I said earlier in another post. Yes there is certainly precedent for military action by one nation towards another if the political process cannot do so peacefully. Given the possible threat to the economy and the risk of a collapse of the entire nation due to a severe enough threat to the economy, again like the depression of the 20’s, it is certainly justification to express political power through military means.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Remember 1973? When all the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria cut production and shut down oil exports to America, Western Europe and Japan because of the Yom Kippur war? It didn’t create another 1920’s depression here or anywhere else, and now you’re suggesting that Iraq alone could? Please, that’s beyond absurd.
Iraq did in no way pose a significant economic threat to us or anyone else.
Originally posted by Maverick
If you cannot see the potential here there is really nothing I can do to convince you of it. Like I said, I do not think there is any chance an isolationist concept will succeed. Even if we did wish to close our borders totally the rest of the world’s economies will certainly do their utmost, and successfully in our case, to open those borders either through direct or indirect action. FWIW economic action IS direct action and can be as devastating as military action to a nation.
I am not an isolationist, but there’s a big difference between non-isolationism and military adventurism.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq cannot do what all the Arab oil producers already tried and failed to do. You are justifying a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives on nothing more than a modest increase in gasoline prices (compared to the ‘70s). And most of that price increase has nothing to do with Iraq.
Originally posted by Eagle Eye
People Like this make me long for the days when Hanging was allowed
That says more about you sir than me.
Originally posted by Toad
“Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?”Alone this would be an ad hominem attack.
“They could have been 10 times as many and it wouldn’t have mattered. As long as they were held in small groups without the right to mingle and communicate with others, no real rebellion could be started. You should look up the word “slave” some time, I think you’ll find the definition lacking of any resemblance to the Iraqi population. The Iraqi Shi’ites were citizens of Iraq and made up a significant portion of the Iraqi army.
Did you just fail to think this through or are you really this obtuse?”This is a valid argument with a slight added for flavor.
Even if every ad hominem attack is an insult, not all insults are ad hominem attacks. Like so many others you fail to se the difference.
Originally posted by red26
I think if you live in a country you should back it no matter what they do. I am one of the guys that thinks every person should have to serve at least 2 yrs in the Armed Forces at 18 or upon graduation. And most will say that being a COMMIE. but its not its called giving back to your country and also taking pride in your country. If you want to run this country down then MOVE go to another country and run down this country form there. When out fore father's sighned the bill of rights and they put freedom of speech in it they had no idea that our country would turn the way it has.
Many Germans once thought the way you do, and the world paid a heavy price for their lack of vision.
