[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I must admit. . .
At 07:50 PM 12/24/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Reeza! finally got to the point of the matter:
>:, that does not mean I'm willing to allow one
>:expansionist dictator to sanction another country and gain control of
>:enough of the worlds oil supply to impact the well-being of my country.
>I believe this is the the only true argument here. The US (and you) are
>not "pleased" with the fact that the one place on the planet that has the
>worlds largest oil deposits is not beholden to the USG. If Hussein were
>to have remained a US puppet, he could do pretty much as he damn well
>pleased, anywhere he damn well pleased - just as long as OUR oil prices
Lots of dictators around the world do pretty much as they please anyway.
Remember it was a world community effort to force Hussein back and restore
Kuwait, NOT something the US undertook solely upon its own.
> Weren't the old days wonderful? A time when the USG could force
>countries like Iraq to sell oil at or below cost? And isn't that the
>entire point of "allowing" Iraq to sell oil at the rate of some 50 billion
>dollars every six months (IIRC)? On the one hand, we "embargo" all food
>and medicines, for their own good of course, and on the other hand we are
>"willing" to forego that embargo, *if it benefits us*.
The USG could force countries like Iraq to sell at or below cost? You are
forgetting OPEC, the international bankers cartel and other organizations
where the reins of power are really located.
> This has ZERO to do with Kuwait or weaponry, and *everything* to
>do with the US id - we want *what* we want, *when* we want it, and at the
>*price* we want it, *OR ELSE*.
But of course. by manufacturing a boogey man to blame all the evil on, no
one would ever suspect there was a 3rd party involved, now would they?
This is growing old, lets take it offlist if you want to pursue it.