England and Bush Sitting In A Tree
January 20th, 2003 5:33 pm

rumDawg.jpgAccording to the BBC, England is sending 1/4 of their military force to the Gulf. Many of these “Desert Rat” troops will be stationed in Kuwait. The British puppets echo Bush when they say on one hand, that “war is not inevitable,” while sending more and more troops to the region every day. Is Donald Rumsfeld (pictured: Bush’s Bulldawg) really the man you want deciding whether or not we go to war?

I honestly don’t know what the British are getting out of this. I can’t see how helping us storm the shores of Iraq…wait a minute. Doesn’t Britain supply a great deal of oil to the US from its North Sea drilling? And if the price of Middle Eastern oil skyrockets, won’t the gas-guzzling soccer moms of the US demand that America turn to Britain to bolster the rapidly draining oil stockpile? It seems cynical but world politics and the oil market weren’t built on glad-handing and open, honest relationships. Britain has everything to gain and very little to lose. If they join us in a war there, and the war turns for the worse and ends up like Vietnam, few will remember that the British were in it up to their necks. All that history will tell is how MadDog Rumsfeld and Baby Bush conspired to finish what Daddy Bush started.

Even if that scenario plays out, Britain wins out. The oil prices go up. More oil gets bought through the North Sea brokers and only some lives of British people are lost. There in it for the big picture, the long-term survival. Bush can barely see beyond the tip of his nose and the British are thinking decades out. It’s frightening how infantile and small-minded President Bush is.

I would love to get my hands on the lobbying checkbooks of some of these Defense contractors. Of course, Bush is in bed with the oil men, but he seems to be buddy-buddy with the missile and aircraft makers, too. Certainly, they are putting a bug in his ear about going to war. What sells more airplanes? Training crashes now and again or droves of F-16’s shot out of the sky with US-made Stinger missiles?

I know that it’s cynical, but it’s business. You can’t sell the newest, greatest people killer until some of the older stuff you built gets blown up. It’s the law of supply and demand.

And in this case, the economics are all backwards because the leadership of this country is supplying us with a war that none of us are demanding.

Posted in World News by Alex Ezell
RSS 2.0
Cosbysweater
January 20th, 2003 5:42 pm

This reminds me of “Canadian Bacon,” which was the movie in which the U.S. government, badly in need of bolstering the economy, created a war with Canada.

Only in this case, we have the chance to bolster the economy and distract people from how bad the situation really is. All while avenging Dubya’s Daddy and ignoring North Korea.

Cosbysweater
January 20th, 2003 5:47 pm

And, BTW, is it just me or is the rhetoric spit by Ready to Rumsfield and Big Bush oddly familiar to that of The Rock and Triple H of WWE fame? I keep waiting for Rumsfield or Bush to threaten Saddam with a steel chair smackdown in the squared circle.

Fyre Knight
January 20th, 2003 6:13 pm

Yeah, too bad Iraq doesn’ have many oil fields. That whole war for oil argument is the most shallow bullshit I’ve heard. Why do you think that Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first place? Saddam needed to pay off debts and kuwait had some nice oil fields. The fact is, when desert storm started Iraq was only months away from having a fully functional nuclear weapon. As in two or three months. We set him back about 5-8 years but its been 11 so he very well could have a bomb now. We don’t know, and we won’t know until he uses it. By creating a small conflict we are avoiding a nuclear war.

And Bush is ignoring N. Korea, publically, because he knows that they won’t try anything. They know that if they do, their country becomes a parking lot for China. We are, however, pressuring China to do something because they don’t want millions of refugees pouring through their borders. N. Korea thinks that they are hot shit now that they have nukes, but bush is just giving them the finger and telling them to fuck off. We’re doing something about Iraq because we don’t want him to get nuclear weapons. Oil has nothing to do with it so why don’t you guys find a better argument that is acutally legitament.

Al Maw
January 23rd, 2003 9:12 pm

Oil has everything to do with it. If Iraq had stayed in Kuwait then it would have become easily the largest oil producer in OPEC. Only 14 countries in the world have oil supplies greater than 10 billion barrels, and Iraq is one of them. How do you think they could afford to fight a war with Iran for a decade? And then invade Kuwait in the first place? And then put up a sizable defense force of SAMs, etc. bought from Russia?

It’s not due to links with terrorists, either - Al Quaida wanted to go into Kuwait and kick Saddam’s butt. There’s no love lost between them.

It’s also not due to these “weapons of mass destruction”, either. Many, many countries have them. France failed to comply with international law regarding testing of them, but did we see the US invading France? What about North Korea? What about Pakistan? If you ask me, the threat of nuclear conflict is far larger due to the situation between India and Pakistan - that’s far more worrying.

No - it’s about oil. Iraq still hasn’t managed to resume full oil production since the Gulf War. Stopping them from doing that is in America’s interests, and controlling the entire supply would give America much better leverage in securing sub-contracting projects in Iraq.

Of course, the US want an excuse to reconstruct the whole of the Middle East. Last year it was Osama, this year it’s Saddam, and next year it’ll be someone else.

India, among others, stands to lose out. They get a favourable deal on oil from Iraq at the moment, and they stand to lose that. This would put America in a nice position for bargaining should the need arise regarding Pakistan.

Iraq has reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, which is second only to Saudi Arabia. The figures speak for themselves.

You only need to look at the suspiciously strong links that Bush and Cheney have with the oil industry to spot motivation for this.

Wake up and smell the crude. :)

Al Maw
January 23rd, 2003 9:24 pm

Additionally, read this article on The Guardian’s web site.

Fyre Knight
January 23rd, 2003 11:46 pm

The Guardian? Isn’t that the internet equivalent of the National Enquirer? Show me an article by CNN or ABC and I’ll lean toward believing it.

Al Maw
January 24th, 2003 1:17 pm

The Guardian is a reasonably well respected English broadsheet. Similar to The Times or The Independent. No matter what you think of the paper, if you were to follow the link you would discover a set of statistics on oil production. They’re not lying about them.

I was merely bringing your attention to the inaccuracy of the statement, “Yeah, too bad Iraq doesn’ have many oil fields.”

ButtMonkey
January 30th, 2003 3:45 pm

don’t you think it’s possible that north korea knows we won’t try anything because if we do, south korea and its capital will become a parking lot?