traitorous SOB

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

No argument...the Coalition of UN nations was defending the
sovereignty of Kuwait. There was no mission against the axis of evil.

You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

Fair enough, was I mistaken when various news sources (including
FoxNews "fair and balanced"...hehe) reported that one way of paying
for our freeing the iraqi people would be through iraqi oil revenue?
Think of it as a thank you. Perhaps we will demand payment as a proper
jesture of gratitude. (So who cares where it is sold, we only need
concern ourselves with receiving a portion of the income.)

How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
will end.

Juvat

"Juvat" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam.

Not really. We gave him back his oil fields, and then the UN laid on sanctions
that prevented him from selling oil except for limited purposes, like getting
money to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people. I'm sure that he cheated,
but he clearly didn't exercise full control over it.

George Z.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

No argument...the Coalition of UN nations was defending the
sovereignty of Kuwait. There was no mission against the axis of evil.

The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
oppressive colonial policy.

You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

Fair enough, was I mistaken when various news sources (including
FoxNews "fair and balanced"...hehe) reported that one way of paying
for our freeing the iraqi people would be through iraqi oil revenue?
Think of it as a thank you. Perhaps we will demand payment as a proper
jesture of gratitude. (So who cares where it is sold, we only need
concern ourselves with receiving a portion of the income.)

The first half of your paragraph is correct. The report, however, was
that the oil revenue could be used to support the reconstruction of
Iraqi infrastructure--in other words the oil of Iraq would build the
free nation of Iraq. Makes eminent sense to me.

There is no "demand payment" or gesture of gratitude involved.

How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
will end.

No one has that crystal ball, but a stable, democratic Iraq would
certainly be beneficial to the region and a stable Middle-East would
be beneficial to the US.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:


Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

No argument...the Coalition of UN nations was defending the
sovereignty of Kuwait. There was no mission against the axis of evil.


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG

George

snipped the rest of a very good post

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG


Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG



Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

Still, we 'Muricans seem to have done a pretty good job of ridding
ourselves of colonalism.

George

In article ,
George Shirley writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG



Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Shirley writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG



Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

And let's not forget the Philippines, which we got from Spain after the
Spanish-American War in 1898. The Tydings-McDuffie Act, enacted in 1934, while
ostensibly providing for their independence, merely formalized their
relationship with the United States in what appeared to be a colonial
relationship. They finally got their independence from us after WWII,
presumably as a reward for being a good, well-behaved colony for a half century
or so.

George Z.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

As noted in another (quicker) response...true since WWI. While I
agree, I know folks that view the basing of US troops in foreign
nations as a form of imperialism.

It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
oppressive colonial policy.

I agree with you; if you inferred that I think we'll be running Iraq
as a puppet, that is not what I implied.

The first half of your paragraph is correct. The report, however, was
that the oil revenue could be used to support the reconstruction of
Iraqi infrastructure--in other words the oil of Iraq would build the
free nation of Iraq. Makes eminent sense to me.

And the sharp debater would ask, "Currently, companies from which
nations benefit monetarily in this reconstruction effort?" The short
answer is the US and UK.

Like you I get emails forwarded from guys in the sandbox telling of
the good deeds that are largely unreported. But I think competitive
bidding amongst global competitors would help bring about a quicker
end to our occupation of Iraq.

There is no "demand payment" or gesture of gratitude involved.

OK, but if we broke it and we get to fix it (whilst getting paid for
it) the latter can be considered payment. I've read posts in this
forum where guys think it is only right US and UK companies get the
contracts because we sent our troops into harm's way. If that isn't
forced "gratitude," I don't know what is.

No one has that crystal ball, but a stable, democratic Iraq would
certainly be beneficial to the region and a stable Middle-East would
be beneficial to the US.

Absolutely, but I prefer democratic to "stable" (the Shah's Iran was
stable)...and peaceful. I want our brothers and sisters in arms to
come home in one piece. I'd prefer this not turn into our version of
Northern Ireland.

Juvat

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.

Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
came to be US States again.

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Keith