The Cellar - View Single Post - Afghanistan was all about oil! Oops no it wasn't

Undertoad · 02-08-2003, 08:13 PM

I don't know any of the answers to those...

Is the administration taking world opinion and US public opinion into more consideration than it seems?

The SOTU speech was weird that way. It was full of vim and vigor and promise that we'd do it without the UN if we had to and it was critical to the security of the US and etc. etc. and then finished with "... so we'll go back to the UN..." which was totally anti-climactic to any unilateralist's ears.

Why doesn't the administration dangle WW2 in front of France and Germany and call it a day?

Ah... why not just go ahead, and not spend time going through the diplomatic channels as far as possible? Why spend political capital in China that you might need for N Korea, when you could just say "OK we really need to do this so we're just going to, just like you all would have done and often have done anyways"?

Does the administration really believe in and want the world's approval, even though the US+UK make up about 25 times the military force that France could muster (not including nukes)?

Or... are they doing this because it's more productive than simply waiting for troop movements to complete?

Or... do they think it will underline the uselessness of the UN?

Or... are they waiting for the Iraqi regulars to be completely demoralized... and/or for their other "psy-ops" work to take more effect?

(Follow that second link, campers, it's way cool!)

Or... is there another motive that we don't yet know about?

If the US and UK go off unilaterally, could it result in a backlash against us in the form of tariffs or embargoes, primarily by bigger countries like Japan?

Japan's in favor of the war. (Probable reason: Oil! They don't have any!) Biggest trade partner not in favor of the war: Mexico. (Probable reason: Oil! They have some!)

02-08-2003, 08:13 PM	#17
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I don't know any of the answers to those... Is the administration taking world opinion and US public opinion into more consideration than it seems? The SOTU speech was weird that way. It was full of vim and vigor and promise that we'd do it without the UN if we had to and it was critical to the security of the US and etc. etc. and then finished with "... so we'll go back to the UN..." which was totally anti-climactic to any unilateralist's ears. Why doesn't the administration dangle WW2 in front of France and Germany and call it a day? Ah... why not just go ahead, and not spend time going through the diplomatic channels as far as possible? Why spend political capital in China that you might need for N Korea, when you could just say "OK we really need to do this so we're just going to, just like you all would have done and often have done anyways"? Does the administration really believe in and want the world's approval, even though the US+UK make up about 25 times the military force that France could muster (not including nukes)? Or... are they doing this because it's more productive than simply waiting for troop movements to complete? Or... do they think it will underline the uselessness of the UN? Or... are they waiting for the Iraqi regulars to be completely demoralized... and/or for their other "psy-ops" work to take more effect? (Follow that second link, campers, it's way cool!) Or... is there another motive that we don't yet know about? If the US and UK go off unilaterally, could it result in a backlash against us in the form of tariffs or embargoes, primarily by bigger countries like Japan? Japan's in favor of the war. (Probable reason: Oil! They don't have any!) Biggest trade partner not in favor of the war: Mexico. (Probable reason: Oil! They have some!)