theworldofdreams.com

I'm sure all of you are quite aware of the (apparently) sudden turn the Iraqi conflict has taken in the past few days. If it was not clear before it is official now, our nice little war of "Liberation" has officially become a war of "Occupation."

Until recently, White House officials led the American public to believe violent opposition in Iraq was primarily the consequence of al Qaeda opperatives and some left-over Baathists, operating largely without the consent of the majority of the Iraqi people. Recent events have demonstrated this notion to be innacurate (at best).

With both, sunni and shiites building up a country-wide armed resistance against "foreign" forces (i.e. our armies), it won't be long before our troops find themselves enmeshed in a bloody conflict of national liberation and independence (this scenario sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?)

Professor Fawaz Gerges puts it best . . . (click link to read the entire article)

And at the end of the day, regardless of what you think of the political configuration in the country, there is no military solution to the violent struggle unfolding in Iraq.
We must think of a political exit strategy, a political solution, political solutions to deal with the situation in the country.

I would say that the US can leave any time.Their job is done. They liberated and now they are just occupying. Just like when they first got into Baghdad and wrapped the US flag around the Sadam statue. Talk about arrogance, that spelled occupation not liberation of Iraqi people.

If war breaks out it could be a major problem for us. It's kind of hard to get gas out of a war zone. Unless you want to play $6/gal we best stay, even if my brethren are dying for an unjust cause.

Whether anyone beleives we should have been there or not...whether we should be there right now or not.. the unfortunate situation is, we have taken down the countries government (if you can call it a government) now we are stuck because well, you just would be leaving the country to the "shadowpacks", if you will, of the middle east. No governing body strong enough to run and keep the country safe from predators.

OR I might just be niave and not understand that this HAS in fact turned into an occupation of the country and the US is in fact just occupying it for the "gold".

Or maybe that was, again unfortunately, a "fruitful" turn of events. We now occupy a "fruitful" country and it "looks" like we are there for the people of Iraq.

Bottom line is, we stripped them of what little governing body they had... I don't feel that we can just say "Well, you're on your own now." I mean that is like stripping one of your characters of all clothing and weapons and sending you down to the good ol' Famine dungeon.

Like it or not, the US is in a peculiar spot... if they leave, they are condemned. If they stay, they are condemned.

Like the song goes..."should I stay or should I go."

Macitor wrote:Bottom line is, we stripped them of what little governing body they had... I don't feel that we can just say "Well, you're on your own now." I mean that is like stripping one of your characters of all clothing and weapons and sending you down to the good ol' Famine dungeon.
Like it or not, the US is in a peculiar spot... if they leave, they are condemned. If they stay, they are condemned.
Like the song goes..."should I stay or should I go."

Damned if we do, damned if we don't . . .

Well yes, I agree. The article I quoted wasn't suggesting the U.S. leaves the job half-done (no, simply toppling down the former regime wasn't enough). Whether you agreed with the justification for Iraqi war or not (whatever that may be), we find ourselves now in a very difficult situtation. We've 'liberated' Iraqis from an oppresive and dictatorial regime. Kudos to us! Now we need to make sure another one doesn't take its place.
At this point, leaving the Iraqis to 'fight it out' on their own (because, mark my words, there WILL BE civil unrest/war if we just leave now) would be morally wrong and irresponsible.
On the other hand, like Professor Gerges stated, further show of force and military 'might' is only going to aggravate the problem further. We know full well how things will turn out if we go down that road (we've been less than a year in Iraq and a PLO-like organization has already been created by the nationalists).
We need to pull our troops out of Iraq, yes. But we can't leave just yet. This is stage two of the U.S.-Iraqi conflict. American 'forces' must put down the M16s and AK-47s and pickup new weaponry, that of diplomacy and negotiation. The Iraqi conflict as has been handled thus far is over. U.S. intervention in Iraq is not.

simon wrote:If war breaks out it could be a major problem for us. It's kind of hard to get gas out of a war zone. Unless you want to play $6/gal we best stay, even if my brethren are dying for an unjust cause.

Material things such as petroleum are a poor substitute for life.

Bayn wrote:Material things such as petroleum are a poor substitute for life.

Well said. And besides, it is a little known FACT that OPEC and NATO have enough stockpiled oil reserves to last nearly 40 years at the current rate of consumption. Screw the oil, save our boys. My husband was over there, and lemme tell ya, he can attest that it's no picnic... Eerily similar to another "police action" America undertook back in the late 60's... They don't want us there, and don't appreciate anything we've done for them. Time to move on and bring our boys home... let the "shadowpacks" have em. Let's, for once, take care of our own...

Cel

IF the us turns and tucks tail i would expect the turks would move into northern iraq and occupy the kurdish areas lest they become a base to support turkish kurds. the south would likely wind up in the hands of the iranians and wouldn't that just make the saudi's ecstatic. the central part of the country is anyone's guess.
i'd be interested to know if there was any documentation of this 40 year oil reserve.

Bayn, why are you telling me that, I didn't invade the man's country?

The bottom line is if gas prices get any higher we could be looking at serious economic recessions or even worse depression. It’s not just your car you need to fuel, it’s that truck that hauls the goods, them trains too. Bush is such a great leader; he led us to a dead end with no room to turn around.

i'd be interested to know if there was any documentation of this 40 year oil reserve.

She's saddly mistaken, there is no way any one has a 40 year supply of oil for the entire earth on hand. Why would NATO and OPEC stockpile oil together?

simon wrote:

i'd be interested to know if there was any documentation of this 40 year oil reserve.

She's saddly mistaken, there is no way any one has a 40 year supply of oil for the entire earth on hand. Why would NATO and OPEC stockpile oil together?

I heard the U.S. has enough stockpiled gas to have no imported gas into the country and last 5 years at current regular usage.

Kobayashi wrote:I heard the U.S. has enough stockpiled gas to have no imported gas into the country and last 5 years at current regular usage.

Enough to get Bush off the hook, especially if he gets reelected now, he doesn't have to worry about another election and can do whatever he wants for the next 4 years (that is, more so than before). I think a serious oil shortage might be a good thing in the long run. It would FINALLY force us to SERIOUSLY look for other sources of energy. So far oil companies and their congressional lobbysts have downplayed the need for research&development of other consumable sources of enery. Heck, I hear Bush himself was in the oil business so I'm not surprised he's got his sight set on the ol', trustworthy oil fields of the middle east. I think it is high time we get our engines running on something other than fossil fuels. It'll be a great help to the environment too (another one of those 'pesky' little issues Republicans would much rather ignore).

the US does indeed have a strategic oil reserve which is set aside for fighting world war 3 or china or whatever comes along. there is a lot of oil in that reserve but it cannot be replaced once it's used as the taxpayer is never going to spring for pumping oil back down the holes in any quantity.
releasing oil from the reserve would drive down the prices in fairly short order for a while. it won't last long but it may be enough to shift the election in his favour.

I doubt that it would win an election for anyone. With any luck gas will stay in the 1.50 range for now. However there can't be much more then 40 years of oil left in them there hills and it will take 15 - 20 years to get new trucks and trains, plus power plants up and running, so we best get in gear.

I'm taking a very hard look at a Civic Hybrid. Not just because of the 52/mpg but it looks ultra nice, inside and out, for a 21 grand car that is.

I googled honda hybrid and went to the first site on the list. Hondacars.com and I got this message.

You may experience difficulty accessing certain sections of this Web site because of one or more of the following reasons:

You are running an outdated or unsupported browser.

We recommend Internet Explorer 5+ or Netscape 4.7+ for both Windows and Macintosh platforms.

Download the latest version of Internet Explorer.

Download the latest version of Netscape Navigator.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

There's not even an email address to complain that it's their site that is outdated. Since I'm using the Mozilla Firefox browser which is the best browser available that site is laughable at best.

I went to Honda.ca instead and saw the hybrid. I like what they are doing but I'm not that fond of the look of most new cars. It's all personal preference.