Caltrops - Motherfucking News





	[quote name="Steven Lollerson"][quote name="I need clarification"] While I applaud your taking a contrarian view in the Caltrops forum, I must give two emphatic thumbs down to your being so stupid while doing it. This whole "France is our best friend"/"France is the DEVIL" argument is stupid in general, even more stupid when put in the context of whether they're helping out the United States at the moment or whether they have in the past, and even MORE stupid when its you doing half the arguing. Ray, of light may be the Klass Klown of Kaltrops that we all enjoy laughing at (or with, whatever), but he was right a few weeks ago when he stated that war is simply another option for nations looking to improve their financial stature or security. Certainly, we (meaning the US) seem far more concerned with Iraq than we do with North Korea, Serbia, the Congo, Israel, or any other potential hotspots around the globe. Since I called you a big fat Rush Limbaugh clone, you can call me an incredibly handsome Ted Rall clone, but it's pretty clear that what Iraq has that all the others don't is LOTSA LOTSA oils. Clearly, there's a huge interest for our country (don't forget, we use more oil than any other country on the planet). But wait a minute. What if France wants to use some of that oil? And what if they think that helping the US overrun Bagdad just so they can later haggle with us over the price of a barrel of crude isn't maybe in their best national interests? Well, then they're the devil, I guess, because hasn't George W. said the God has sided with America, and as I understand it once He makes up His mind, he's very hard to dissuade? Opposing unchecked power by one nation simply because unchecked power by any single nation has ALWAYS proved to be a bad idea may be a bit idealistic for your gargantuan tastes, Rush, but I don't think it's necessarily evil...[/quote] I certainly concede that France's position on Iraq may have quite a bit to do with looking out for thier own best interests. France is one of Iraq's largest trading partners (second to Russia) under it's oil for food program and will probably lose billions in loans if a new government is installed, as well as billions in unsigned contracts (Total Fina Elf). However the cynic in me (see how cynicism can work against other countries, not just your own?) realizes that France's only claims to relevance are its position as a leader of the faltering European Union (keep le fucking pie hole shut Eastern Europe, if you ever want us to let you in) and its position on the UN security council (which Im at a loss to explain). The war for oil argument is laughable at best. If we wanted thier oil why didnt we take it 1991 when we were in a much better position (ie, with thier troops in full retreat) to do so? Why not make a deal with Saddam to lift the sanctions in exchange for oil contracts? With the costs of the military operation expected to reach 60 billion and the cost of the cleanup and stabilization expected to be in the 100 billion dollar range (perhaps higher if Saddam does what reports hint that he is planning to do and sets Iraqi petoleum facilities ablaze), this is harldy a shrewd financial move, especially at the tax payer's expense. In addition, do you really think Exxon and Mobil wants to see oil at less than $20 or so a barrel? They're coorporations trying to maximize profits, not ease your pain at the gas pump. Or perhaps thats not what you were getting at. If not I agree wholeheartedly that this is about oil, in that oil revenues enable Saddam to continue producing weapons of mass destruction.[/quote]