Article

2007-08-04 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2007-08-04 11:11|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Everybody knows that the Iraq conflict could have been avoided if our leaders better understood the history and current conditions in the region.

Why do I always feel like the slow kid in the class when this observation comes up...
What again would a Saddam and Sons Iraq looked like in 2007 and beyond? Would our airbases be doin business as usual in Saudi Arabbabba still?
Can someone explain to me like I am a third grader how the mid east would be all grins and giggles if we hadn't done a little attitude adjustment?

Posted by Capsu78 2007-08-04 13:24|| 2007-08-04 13:24|| Front Page Top

#2 In the 1970s it was run out of Indochina by Vietcong guerrillas. In the 1980s it withdrew from Lebanon after a terrorist attack. In the 1990s it fled Somalia rather than fight local warlords.

Um...don't get me wrong, but as I recall the US wasn't "run out of Indochina by Vietcong guerillas.", we weren't in a war in Lebanon (and probably shouldn't have been there in the first place), and I do believe that it was the Clinton administration that got us into the mess in Somalia and then didn't have the nerve to smash Mogadishu and the warlords there to rubble after the Blackhawk down incident. Regardless, it wasn't a war either.

In point of fact, America has won on the battlefield every time our troops have been allowed to engage the enemy with ruthless and calculated force and that includes Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.

Also, most of the world's oil doesn't appear to be in the Middle East anymore, but right under our own noses exept that we're not allowed to touch it. We'd much rather throw away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives getting the stuff from the MidEast rather than from under our own lands and seacoasts. Heaven forbid that somebody's ocean view might be interfered with by those pesky oil platforms.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-08-04 14:45|| 2007-08-04 14:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Hey Capsu78, after reading this guys's column, I feel like the slow kid in the 3rd grade. His writing style sucks. He has a couple of points but they get lost in the editorial carnage that he wreaks.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-08-04 17:06|| 2007-08-04 17:06|| Front Page Top

#4 FOTSGreg, We'd much rather throw away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives getting the stuff from the MidEast rather than from under our own lands and seacoasts.

Certainly, but... if there was a way, I would try to suck up as much ME oil reserves in a shortest time as possible. Sure, Soddys fund crap as far and wide as one can look, but they also waste money on a grand scale. Bare the option of taking over ME oil fields, it is somewhat a rational approach. If we won't buy, China will... there always would be a buyer as long as the supply is there. Once the region is sucked dry or near that point, it would slither back into 10th century, economically and become irrelevant.

I am not sure what's over/under for this strategy, it may have a razor thin margin between being successful and having serious negative impact before the sucked up dry status.

I would prefer, though, more proactive approach of both taking over and sucking it up dry as quickly as possible.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-08-04 17:30|| 2007-08-04 17:30|| Front Page Top

23:39 Pappy
23:33 OldSpook
23:30 OldSpook
23:20 E Brown
23:18 Zenster
22:57 Super Hose
22:33 wxjames
22:33 Redneck Jim
22:20 JAB
22:16 Zenster
22:08 AT
21:54 newc
21:48 Zenster
21:46 CrazyFool
21:42 Free Radical
21:35 Zenster
21:34 Free Radical
21:31 Zenster
21:30 RWV
21:25 AT
21:04 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:04 DarthVader
20:48 AT
20:33 Sock Puppet of Doom