Kick his arse and steal his gas

[LegendKiller]

Ok, you can see that the above word is not supposed to be arse.

Anyway, I am getting tired of the idea that the whole middle east situation is about gas. UGH! When are people going to realize that there are countries in the middle east that we do NOT want to see hurt. I am mostly taking about Israel, who we have pledged BILLIONS of dollars every year in military aid for the past 40 some years and into the future. Mostly this is due to the protectionist feeling we have towards the Jewish people that dwell there because america is an idealist country, seen as the "good guy", that feels somewhat guilty about the holocaust, not to mention the MASSIVE jewish lobby that exists in this country that influences the government.

Sure, I am not such an idealist that I think that its all about the Jewish people, and oil is a factor. However, we still would like to protect those smaller than us.

The US has built itself to be the richest country in the world. We trade with everybody and as that most powerful body, we DO have a duty to protect those less unfortunate than us.

For example, if you were in school and there was a 1-legged 70lb kid who was a senior, would you let everybody beat the crap outta him? I would hope not.

People need to realize that there are others less fortunate and we should protect those people. It is needed, especially in order to keep up the "good guy" image, which guarantee's prosperity for all of us.

/rant


LK

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
For example, if you were in school and there was a 1-legged 70lb kid who was a senior, would you let everybody beat the crap outta him? I would hope not.

I don't know if you were referring to Israel in this analogy, but I would hardly consider them to be the 70 pound weakling. A better analogy for Israel would be a cocky guy with "small man syndrome" who only avoids getting his arse kicked because he has big friends.

[LegendKiller]

I was more referring to the rest of the world and how we aid them. I tend to agree with your Israel analogy .


LK

[Butch]

Any war would not be about only oil . . . the greater goal is stability (of which oil is certainly a part). The US, and every country for that matter, thrives on stability. When things are as predictable as possible, and attention and resources do not need to be focused on managing the "unpredictability" of a situation, then economies thrive.

Of course, the immediate effect of war is great instability . . . but hopefully only in the short term. A good war promotes long-term stability. A bad war fails in that respect - and at its worst, hurts prospects for long-term stability.

Would this war promote or hurt prospects for long-term stability? That's up in the air. Will we successfully be able to bring about a regime change in Iraq and help create a capitalist democracy that serves as a model for other Arab countries? Or will we get mired in a much longer war than anticipated, fail to set up a decent democracy, and in the end simply foment religious fanatics and create one big martyr in the form of Iraq?

[molecularfire]

If we go in with a real goal in mind, I think we can set up a government in Iraq that would help us keep that part of the world stable. Knowing us though... we'd go in, take out Iraq and then the populus would be bored with that and we'll pull out before we have time to do any real good there. How successful we are in the middle east has nothing to do with whether we could take that country down... let's face it... we can. How successful we are there will be based on whether we can rebuild that country back up into something better after we tear it down.


btw: call me cynical but I don't think our actions with Isreal were out of our sense of altruism. We needed a foothold in that area, and Israel was a good excuse.