Oh really, then what is this? Please stop lying immediately, friend. You attempted to redefine the argument, after you lost on this point. Now you are disputing the fact that you lost the point? How absurd. You're just not in my league, good friend. May I suggest the Hangout Forum for you?
I know your reading comprehension skills rivial those of an Inner Mongolian stray dog, but I am curious as to how your brain could turn me saying you are wrong that our economey is "highly dependant" on Middle Eastern stability b/c of it's oil into me saying that Middle East has no impact on oil prices ? Show me where I said that M.E. has no impact (like you claimed I said here "You said ...that the Middle East does not impact fuel costs in the American economy") You still failed to quote me saying what you've claimed even after I gave you a chance. What I DID say, at least a couple of times, was that there are many many other factors that have a larger and more direct impact on America's fuel costs in today's world.
sorry charlie, Nigeria and Venezuela are members of OPEC. wanna run those figures again? http://www.saudinf.com/main/d52.htm State membership, Date of membership and Status Iran September 1960 Founder Member Iraq September 1960 Founder Member Kuwait September 1960 Founder Member Saudi Arabia September 1960 Founder Member Venezuela September 1960 Founder Member Qatar December 1960 Full Member Libya December 1962 Full Member Indonesia December 1962 Full Member United Arab Emirates November 1967 Full Member Algeria July 1969 Full Member Nigeria July 1971 Full Member Ecuador* November 1973 Full Member Gabon December 1973 Associate Member * Ecuador left OPEC in 1992
I"m pretty sure the "NON OPEC" modified the "factors", hence "NON OPEC FACTORS", not that the states weren't in OPEC, but I could be wrong.
btw, most of you who responded to my question about why the admin actually went to war didn't really answer the question. you reiterated why you think their reasons are illegitemit, but didn't really say why, in your mind, we acted as we did, except for "political gain." what could he have hoped to gain? it was a tremendously risky strategy, and faced significant opposition. if the admin is as double-dealing as you suggest, why did they really invade.
what Sam said I wasn't saying they weren't in OPEC, I was saying that their production lapses have been due to non-OPEC factors
I've been absent here for the last month due to work concerns but it seems the more things change the more they stay the same. To weigh in on your question I've had a hard time buying the oil argument. If we wanted the oil it would've been cheaper to cut a deal with Saddam to get sanctions lifted. IMO there were a variety of issues behind the invasion that centered primarily around a politically driven timetable, a desire to see tangable results in the war on terror, to manae the prevailing national sense of unease after 9/11, re-assert US dominance and a long standing desire among many in the Admin to remove a thorn in their side. Its disingenous to ask why would they embark on such a risky strategy because practically any military undertaking is risky. As the very article you start off this thread with shows that any war has unpredictable repercussions and its practically impossible to guarentee a "clean" end. IMO the Admin. failed to learn the very lesson that Keegan is talking about. They nearly always spoke about post Saddam Iraq in glowing terms while failing to listen to some of their own senior advisors who warned them otherwise. So why did they take such a risky path? I think they honestly believed that as soon as they came into Iraq they would find tons of WMD lying around, that they would find direct links to Al Qaeda, that the Iraqis really would welcome them with open arms and then go about becoming a pluralistic secular democracy peacably. IMO they believed their own hype that it wasn't going to be that risky. Or to borrow a line of the soon to be ex CIA director it was going to be a Slam Dunk. What they didn't count on was like a Francis to Mobley Alley OOp sometimes the ball doesn't go down the hoop so smoothly or at all.
This is a question that only the GWB can possibly answer. The rest of us can only speculate. I speculate that GWB saw a close fit between the War on Terror (tm) and an Iraq regime change, that Rove saw that rattling the sword at the height of the '02 campaign season would make great political sense, that the spoils of the Iraq War would a great side benefit for his Big Energy political contributers, and that GWB's moral clarity demanded it.
Well it was a clear bromide free answer. I'm not sure that would've convinced the rest of the Administration, Congress or the American people but GW Bush said it in response to a being asked why we should take out Saddam.
Three words - Germany, WWI, & Louvain Belief in your own virtue is not a bullet-proof vest. Louvain polerized the world against the undeniable might of the Kaiser and caused his end of Prussian Germany.
