LP Iraq exit strategy

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Guest, Aug 8, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The Libertarian Party has developed an exit strategy from Iraq.

    The LP appears to be on the verge of becoming more pragmatic than purist.

    The exit strategy isn't all that bad.
     
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    The exit strategy fails to take into account a very important priority of the present Administration, viz: to present to its laerge corporate friends the opportunity to reap enormous, taxpayer subsidized profits.

    WE taxpayers will continue pay the cost of making Iraqi oil available to the White House's friends in the energy business so that THEY can profit (at greatly reduced tax rates, too BTW, now that the President has signed the energy bill)

    The beauty is, we will pay three times; once in blood and treasure to secure the assets for the oil companies, once to purchase the oil companies' products, and AGAIN in the form of billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks.

    But Americans being sometimes less-than-subtle, all WE will notice is that the price of gasoline won't go up that much more. So in our ignorance, we'll be happy!
     
  3. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Come on, Nosborne, the whole point of going to Iraq is not the current price of oil but the supply of tomorrow, and to ensure American influence in Central Asia against those who want a multipolar world (US, Russia, China, the EU (ha ha ha), etc,...). American troops will be there for a while after the country is estabilized. This part oft he world (the Caspian sea area) is rich in resources that are controlled by Russians and Chinese. The US is probably trying to limit the influence of these two. Why would then the US try to keep military bases in Uzbekistan, for instance? Do you think that what happen in Ukraine or Georgia didn´t get green light by the White House? In the near future, Chinese, Russians and Indians will enjoy a western lifestyle. They will drive cars like Americans do, their industry sector will be revitalized, they will all have tv´s and fridges, and so on.... Guess what will happen to the demand of oil... And the to its price.
     
  4. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    JLV,

    Historically, your analysis makes very good sense.

    It also does not significantly conflict with what I've written here.

    Unfortunately, it's this international competition for markets and raw materials that lead directly to WWI.
     
  5. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Excellent read - I am glad my party of choice has actually thought this out. Now if only the Republicans and Democrats could actually get their shit together, then we can get out of this boondoggle and get out of dodge. (Iraq)
     
  6. Khan

    Khan New Member

    "The Libertarian Party refutes this argument. The so-called “insurgents” are primarily Iraqis who have taken up arms against the occupying forces in order to protect themselves and reclaim their nation. Evidence shows that the continuing American
    military presence is, in fact, fueling the continued resistance by Iraqi citizens."

    Hmmm, take over their country and they fight back. Who'd a thunk it.
     
  7. As we used to say in the Midwest "no sh** Dick Tracy".... Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one man's terrorist is another man's patriot/freedom fighter....

    Wonder what ever happened to all that flower throwing and kissing our butts that was predicted by George W. & Co. when we "liberated" Iraq from the evil Saddam? Oh yeah..... duh! It wasn't really a "liberation" so much as an "occupation" and not so much an "occupation" as a bald-faced move to pillage and exploit the natural resources of the area for the sole benefit of Bush's corporate friends and funding sources....

    Let democracy rule!!! Hooray!
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest


    As it did under Saddam Hussein?
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    When are you folks going to get off this kick? There is no proof whatsoever Iraqi oil is going to Bush's friends.

    Get over it, Bush won, you lost!

    I have news for you. If the big oil companies wanted control over Iraqi oil or any other nation's oil, they could do so without the U.S. government's involvement.
     
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Sure. Have you LOOKED at the energy bill? Have you seen the pre invasion map of Iraqi oilfields with appropriate assignments?
     
  11. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    If so, we may be then witnessing the preamble of a third one, Nosborne, the time where all the players position their pawns, and prepare a strategy. Even the invasion of Afghanistan could be understood within this context. Well, I hope before that an ingenuous scientist discovers a cheaper, cleaner source of energy. Or better, we learned how to administer better what we have, a finite source of energy.
     
  12. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    If you are talking about the long desired oil pipeline that had to run across Afghanistan but couldn't be built because of the Taliban government, contracts have already been let...
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    A third world war? Like a shooting war? Who against whom?

    -=Steve=-
     
  14. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    It's too early to tell.

    If it ends up being about resources, though, look to countries with growing populations and one or more serious resource limitation.

    Like, say, Japan was before 1930.

    Communist China comes to mind.
     
  15. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Well, the usual suspects, good versus devil or, more succintly, us against them :D
     
  16. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    China, that´s exactly what I was thinking myself. That´d explain that there are American military bases in Central Asia only 200 miles from the Chinese border, and the strong political opposition that anyone (especially these idiots at the UE) sells weapons to China. China is the biggest potential enemy to the US´supremacy. It has a potencial market twice the size of the EU and the US combined. It only lacks, at the moment, the international institutions to control the markets like the US does. But it will if left alone. They still don´t possess the resources to bring up such a gigantic economy. That´s what *I think* the US is doing in Iraq and Central Asia, securing those precious resources from Chinese temptations.
     
  17. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    A speculation

    A shooting war but not necessarily a nuclear war?

    Nuclear weapons are the overshadowing concern. Is WWIII possible without them?

    Maybe. So long as the national existence of a nuclear power is not threatened. Under such circumstances, the inevitable price of a nuclear exchange may be so high that no country will make a first strike. But, of course, if that country's leadership has nothing to lose...
     
  18. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Imagine for a sec that Musharraf wasn´t the president of Pakistan. That would be the most frightening thing it could happen to the world. Israeli and American intelligence reports coincide to point out that Iran still needs ten years to develop nuclear weapons. Korea is also a candidate but they lack the fanaticism. Pakistan already has almost all the ingredients. If a radical takes office there, then they’d have everything else: the hate, the promise of a life beyond the grave, the fact they have no material possessions, .... pure nihilism in other words, what would they care about insignificant things like the earth or its inhabitants? That’s another weak link in the American coalition. They already tried to kill him twice. I would try to protect this man at all cost.

    Regarding China I think American officials will use intimidation together with diplomacy with them, if needed (that´s how it´s been so far). I don´t think they pose a nuclear threat.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2005

Share This Page