It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you have the answer?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
So the other night I was hanging out with this guy from the Czech Republic. Before I go on, let me give you a little background. I'm an American temporarily living in Wales to attend a UK university. Its old information for some that already know me, but now it's squared away for everyone that is trying to decipher just what the hell I'm talking about.

Ok. Reverse. So the other night I was hanging out with this guy from the Czech Republic. He tries to stay out of politics because he thinks it comes between him and his 'energy'. He's New Age, what do you expect? Anyway somehow or another we get on the topic of the War in Iraq. He ask me a simple question.

'Why is America fighting with Iraq'

---
'Oh well its easy, see there were Weapons of Mass...well, not really'

'We wanted to take Sadaam out of Iraq and...well that can't be it because he's out of Iraq and we are still fighting'

'We invaded Iraq because we wanted to capture this guy called Osama...wait, wrong country'

'Um..ah...hmm..*looks around*...We are fighting the War on Terrorism!'
---

Terrorism. The 'blanket all' term for the war in Iraq. But Terrorism is an idea, it's a way of life. It's like saying that we are waging a war on poverty or laziness. It's not that easy to diminsh an ideaology from the world.

So the question that I pose to the AboveTopSecret.com community is:

'Why is America fighting with Iraq'
Because in all honesty, I have no clue


[edit on 11/29/2004 by Simulacra]

[edit on 11/29/2004 by Simulacra]

[edit on 11/29/2004 by Simulacra]




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
Terrorism. The 'blanket all' term for the war in Iraq. But Terrorism is an idea, it's a way of life.

So was piracy along the barbary coast, but a war put an end to that no?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Simulacra
Terrorism. The 'blanket all' term for the war in Iraq. But Terrorism is an idea, it's a way of life.

So was piracy along the barbary coast, but a war put an end to that no?


No. A war didnt put an end to terrorism because we are still fighting against it



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
OIL the backbone of the USA
without oil most the USA would come to a stand still
and funny part
americans would go crazy because they cant drive their RV's to work



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
We are in Iraq for the same reason we went to Korea/Vietnam, except this time its Islamic fundamentalism which is the bogey, instead of Communism.

And before you talk about what a disaster Vietnam was, please name one country that went Communist after Vietnam.

And then there is oil. No, we didn't go into Iraq to steal their oil....we went into Iraq to develop long-term stability of the region.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
OIL the backbone of the USA
without oil most the USA would come to a stand still


But why go through the strenous expense of a war to secure the remaining foss fuel reserves that will only sustain the entire world for only the next 50 years?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Simulacra

No. A war didnt put an end to terrorism because we are still fighting against it


and we will be fighting it for years to come.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by moxyone
And then there is oil. No, we didn't go into Iraq to steal their oil....we went into Iraq to develop long-term stability of the region.


Long Term stability does not usually occur in war torn countries. In fact it's the opposite. The middle east is a breeding ground for criminal war lords to rise up into power with the absence of a stable government.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I think the real reason is being hid from us. It has to be. Only thing that'd make sense.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
We are fighting in Iraq for one thing: Oil.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Freak
I think the real reason is being hid from us. It has to be. Only thing that'd make sense.


Only thing that makes sense is the unknown. With this war, it seems absolutely true.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
But why go through the strenous expense of a war to secure the remaining foss fuel reserves that will only sustain the entire world for only the next 50 years?


because the US uses the most oil on the planet
and with the worlds 2nd or was it 3rd largest fuel reserve under the hands of people under US influance its easy going ( after they sort the mess out )



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
We are fighting in Iraq for one thing: Oil.


I think you should read the previous post. I disagree with you. It's illogical to fight for oil when new alternative energy sources are being created daily. Not to mention the world's fossil fuel supply is going to run dry in a few years.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by moxyone
And then there is oil. No, we didn't go into Iraq to steal their oil....we went into Iraq to develop long-term stability of the region.


Long Term stability does not usually occur in war torn countries. In fact it's the opposite. The middle east is a breeding ground for criminal war lords to rise up into power with the absence of a stable government.


really? let me see....Spain, Italy, France, Turkey, Germany, South Korea...there are a few examples for you to ponder.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
because the US uses the most oil on the planet
and with the worlds 2nd or was it 3rd largest fuel reserve under the hands of people under US influance its easy going ( after they sort the mess out )


This may be just a 'bonus' of the war, but I find it very hard to believe that we would go to war on an 'injustice cause' (as seen by pretty much the rest of the world) and cripple our socio-political ties with the rest of the world just because we want fuel out F-150 pickup trucks down to Wal-Mart. This is a short term solution.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by moxyone

Originally posted by Simulacra
Long Term stability does not usually occur in war torn countries. In fact it's the opposite. The middle east is a breeding ground for criminal war lords to rise up into power with the absence of a stable government.


really? let me see....Spain, Italy, France, Turkey, Germany, South Korea...there are a few examples for you to ponder.


Spain, Italy, France, Germany - WWII era (please correct me if I'm wrong). There was no distinct superpower at that time. Yes after WWII the USA in essence owned the world. But I'm referring to the post-Regan era.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
i heard Saddam tried to assinate (not personally, obviously) GW's Father, and its simply Revenge.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by moxyone
And before you talk about what a disaster Vietnam was, please name one country that went Communist after Vietnam.


Cambodia.

Remember a guy named Pol Pot?

If anything, after vietnam, Communism spread in SouthEast Asia. Vietnam became red, as did Cambodia and I believe either Thailand or Laos.

Just goes to show you that anyone who said the government learned from Vietnam must be hitting the crack.

DE



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 87718
i heard Saddam tried to assinate (not personally, obviously) GW's Father, and its simply Revenge.


Interesting. But to involve an entire nation to settle a personal vendetta with another ruler because he 'hurt his father's feelings'. It just seems too...Hollywood.

Hollywood in the sense that it would make a perfect tagline to a summer blockbuster 'A lone Texas cowboy will stop at nothing to settle a revenge and regain his father's honor. But in a sense, Hollywood is indistinguishable from politics. I mean look at it:

Conan is the governor of California.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra
This is a short term solution.


My response may be a rant, but ....

Simulacra hit the nail on the head. Companies may have long-term plans but they focus on short-term benefits. Why, they're not motivated to think any other way. Politicians only focus on the short term because that's all their constituents either can, or are willing to focus on. Consumers definitely focus on the short term. Everyone says they want renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. Who is willing to pay the $3 or $4 or $5 per gallon it would cost to subsidize this research and development? We complain about $2 per gallon now, well, just wait the oil runs out one day. People will gladly pay $10 per gallon then.

I wanted to get an alternative fuel Chevy Silverado this year. Guess what, central NY had only three filling stations at the time and they were fairly far apart (up towards Watertown, downtown Syracuse, and I think out towards Liverpool). Thus it was not feasible to switch yet. I would pay more at the pump if I could for this new technology; but when there are no pumps to pay at it's really hard to support it.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join