3 ms·

Speaking of the EU, we've seen them in action. It's not clear that they're the best of that sorry bunch. We all know that if the US announced "hey, you're right

Speaking of the EU, we've seen them in action. It's not clear that they're the best of that sorry bunch. We all know that if the US announced "hey, you're right, we're just here for the oil, so we're going to redeploy to cover what we need and let you take care of the rest", they'd be running troops into Iraq as fast as they could get transport from the Russians. (They really ought to have some ability to project force.) Then we'll see how Euros run an occupation. Most folks think that Germany is the most brutal, but I've got my money on France. You're right, except I think the EU would look at the half dozen or so barrels of oil that would be left over once the US had covered what it "needs" and think it wasn't worth it. Sorry, couldn't resist.

anamax 18y ago
> Sorry, couldn't resist. Since only a small fraction of the US supply comes from the Middle East (the US gets the vast majority of its oil from North and South America), perhaps you should have. Maybe the EU can subcontract the occupation to China.... BTW - One of the advantages of having being a superpower is that you have options like "hmm, if the Middle East goes to hell, we'll keep oil from North and South America from being exported outside of North and South America".
- jonny_noog 18y ago
  Since when do yanks not have a sense of humour? I thought you people were all chuckles. I mean, post a roundly ridiculous, off the cuff, nationalistic comment and expect something similar in return, no? If you want to get serious, I'm kind of sick of this "But the US doesn't need the oil in Iraq anyway" argument. I'm sure you know as well as anyone else around these parts that it's not about required resources, it's about control of resources, which in turn provides desired leverage.
  - anamax 18y ago
    Ah yes, joke. Ha ha. It's nationalistic and ridiculous to suggest that the EU should show the US how things should be done instead of criticising? Wowsers. It's not so much control of the Middle East oil resources as stability of the resources so those who actually depend on them (that is, not the US) don't go belly up. Like I said, we have options. It would hurt us if the EU went belly up, but not as much as it would hurt the EU.
    - jonny_noog 18y ago
      Trying to move attention away from the ridiculous and nationalistic parts of your post to a part of it that was less so, isn't going to work. Take a look over your post again and I'm sure you'll see the portions of it that refer to. The fact of the matter now is politics doesn't run on altruism. If you truly believe that there isn't an overwhelmingly large portion of your establishment doing their damn best to make sure the US stays the one and only true super power and that their reasons for doing this are not largely selfish, then you are lost, my friend. Call it "stability" if you like, but it doesn't change what it really is underneath. Need for control, the desired end product being alleviation of fear. I have a problem with anyone telling me they know what's best for me. Smart people in the rest of the world try hard to make a distinction between the US government and the US people (especially at the moment), maybe you should start doing the same.

anamax 18y ago

> Sorry, couldn't resist. Since only a small fraction of the US supply comes from the Middle East (the US gets the vast majority of its oil from North and South America), perhaps you should have. Maybe the EU can subcontract the occupation to China.... BTW - One of the advantages of having being a superpower is that you have options like "hmm, if the Middle East goes to hell, we'll keep oil from North and South America from being exported outside of North and South America".

jonny_noog 18y ago
Since when do yanks not have a sense of humour? I thought you people were all chuckles. I mean, post a roundly ridiculous, off the cuff, nationalistic comment and expect something similar in return, no? If you want to get serious, I'm kind of sick of this "But the US doesn't need the oil in Iraq anyway" argument. I'm sure you know as well as anyone else around these parts that it's not about required resources, it's about control of resources, which in turn provides desired leverage.
- anamax 18y ago
  Ah yes, joke. Ha ha. It's nationalistic and ridiculous to suggest that the EU should show the US how things should be done instead of criticising? Wowsers. It's not so much control of the Middle East oil resources as stability of the resources so those who actually depend on them (that is, not the US) don't go belly up. Like I said, we have options. It would hurt us if the EU went belly up, but not as much as it would hurt the EU.
  - jonny_noog 18y ago
    Trying to move attention away from the ridiculous and nationalistic parts of your post to a part of it that was less so, isn't going to work. Take a look over your post again and I'm sure you'll see the portions of it that refer to. The fact of the matter now is politics doesn't run on altruism. If you truly believe that there isn't an overwhelmingly large portion of your establishment doing their damn best to make sure the US stays the one and only true super power and that their reasons for doing this are not largely selfish, then you are lost, my friend. Call it "stability" if you like, but it doesn't change what it really is underneath. Need for control, the desired end product being alleviation of fear. I have a problem with anyone telling me they know what's best for me. Smart people in the rest of the world try hard to make a distinction between the US government and the US people (especially at the moment), maybe you should start doing the same.