Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azure
Why should the US free them? Why doesn't France or Germany?
Its much cheaper to just by the Oil, then invade the country and never really have control of the Oil, but just to be able to buy it.
But maybe the US should go into Taiwan, and do what? Africa? Why is the military needed there? Humanitarian work would help best. Tibet? Sure, lets start WW3.
If Bush 2 wanted to be like Bush 1, he would have never taken out Saddam.
|
France and Germany aren't in Iraq either. Plus France and Germany have already been heavily affected by world war, so they have history supporting them on reasons why not to participate in an unjust war. Plus, some might consider countries like France and Germany a somewhat balance of power in global affairs.
Oil has a lot of political and military clout, on top of economic. By controlling the oil, you control movement of troops. By having control over oil reserves, you have political power. Are you denying the power oil companies have in political processes? Even in Alberta, the royalties for oil are the lowest in the world. What is the number one reason Kyoto will fail? It isn't because climate change is a good thing, it isn't in the best interest of oil companies/economy.
The reason why the U.S. should go into Tibet/Africa is the same reason why you are proposing they are in Iraq in the first place. If this war was really about liberating people, there are many, many more places in the world where many more people could be saved by invading them.
If Humanitarian aid is so useful, why do thousands of children die per day in Africa? Clearly the philantropist face you're trying to paint on the Americans does not apply to those nations who aren't economically, geographically or politically powerful.
Bush Sr didn't get Saddam, although he tried. We all know Dubya is his Dad's bitch, just like a fanatical hockey-Dad living precariously through his son/daughter.