| |
-
 Originally Posted by Inquartata Yes. You're missing the fact that seeds sometimes take time to sprout and bear crops, and that sometimes the planter has moved away or died by the time they do. Well of course, these events can be attributed to Reagan (very much debatably I'm very doubtful of the "Reagan single-handedly won the cold war" crowd and a bit less of "Reagan hastened and for all intents and purposes caused the end of the Soviety Union" crowd. However, I'm not an expert so I don't think it's fair for me to say he had nothing to do with it.) But I don't think that they were highlights of the years he was in office because they hadn't happened yet.  Originally Posted by Inquartata Having said this, have you thought about waiting a while to see how Iraq looks "in retrospect"? You mean after I'm jaded by further government incompetency leading to violence? I suppose it's possible, but I certainly hope not.
Last edited by mrbiggs; 07-14-2008 at 02:24 AM.
-
Senior Member
Array  Originally Posted by Grimaldi Kosovo was a disaster for several reasons. We bombed an independent nation for an internal conflict that didn't threaten neighboring countries, and under the (as usual) inspired leadership of the UN, we're still there, 9 years later, with next to nothing accomplished. What US interests were at stake? Why did the US have to lead (as usual) when it should have been a European issue? How many more years do we have to waste Soldiers' time and government funds on a meaningless mission? The reason for our intervention in Kosovo hinges on a topic that was discussed in a different thread, namely the hunt to locate and secure remaining oil resources in the era of peaking global supply. Kosovo itself has little or no oil deposits, but it occupies a key location in the route for the planned trans-Balkan pipeline, formally supported by the US since 1994 and scheduled for completion by 2011. The builder and operator of this pipeline is a US company misleadingly named the Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation. The intent is to transport Caspian oil from Bulgaria to Albana for export to the US and Europe, providing more throughput than the current tanker routes permit, and the project has the support of the US Trade and Development Agency as being of stratetic interest to the US. Interestingly, the initial feasibility study for the trans-Balkan pipeline was conducted by a subsidiary of Halliburton (Cheney's former -- and in many ways current -- company), known as Brown and Root Ltd. Halliburton has also been awarded many contracts to support the US troops stationed in the Balkans to protect the pipeline. However, Clinton's hands aren't entirely clean either, as the law firm which he joined after his presidency is also involved. In some ways I can't fault the players in this drama for the decisions they made, as the Caspian oil reserves do undeniably have great strategic significance to the US. But it's insulting to pretend this is all about human rights, when what is really at stake is the control of resources. -
Senior Member
Array They want shale from the Rockies, is it worse to drill into the Rockies to heat up the shale, or worse to drill off shore? I think its worst to drill off shore at this point..... but if they start in the Rockies, they'd better be very careful. I think they can do it if it's not gross looking. The sword of Good and Evil. Similar Threads -
By Josephine25 in forum Water Cooler
Replies: 8
Last Post: 06-23-2008, 08:53 AM -
By Mauler in forum Water Cooler
Replies: 1
Last Post: 03-29-2007, 01:20 PM -
By esskreemr in forum Politics
Replies: 13
Last Post: 03-08-2005, 11:31 AM -
By esskreemr in forum Water Cooler
Replies: 2
Last Post: 12-04-2004, 12:42 AM -
By Jimmy Olsen in forum Politics
Replies: 1
Last Post: 09-01-2004, 10:50 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules |
| |