Military coup in Thailand

by **SavageParrot** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:24 pm

Any way you want to look at those soliders are still getting the shaft.

by **CodeRed68** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
Any way you want to look at those soliders are still getting the shaft.

Yea but they get to carry big guns and shoot people. That must at least make up for some of it.
It's Jar-Head heaven.

by **Darknut** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:21 pm

Originally posted by TiNM@N
The civilian is still making out. If they werent making a shitload of $$ they wouldn't be over there.

The civilian probably gets health insurance and has a some kind of plan to take care of his family just like the soldier/sailors/airmen do if they are killed.

its the fleecing of america.

They have to make an assload of money otherwise they wouldn't be over there. They are still having a hard time getting people to fill those jobs. A $100,000 - $300,000 thousand a year contract job sounds great but then you have to think that you might not live long enough to even get that money or you might come back with less limbs than when you had to start. So, given there is a chance of death or loss of limb, is $100,000 - $300,000 worth a year in Iraq?

Medical is paid for but that is mostly because your options for medical are military hospitals and life insurance varies from company and position held. Housing is free because it is either a tent or semi-hardned facility. Taxation varies, but on average $80,000 is tax free.

by **Gen. Ouch** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:47 pm

ah the good old days when people fought wars for glory and prestige; like the days of Mithridates of Pontus or Julian of Rome or Attila of Hunnia. when the leaders of empires fought alongside there soldiers and where looked apon as heros or with feer. now people look apon there leaders with disdain and even pity in some cases. we now fight wars for oil of all things. even world domination i can understand but oil? common thats just not right. even religious wars are better than what we have now. at least the people fighting the crusades actually believed in what they where fighting for.

there have been examples of wars fought for the right reasons in the last little while. not to say war is right by any means but the reasons behind it can be. the UN's war against Al-khida(SP?) in afganistan. Isreals war agains Lebanon. these conflics had valid reasons behind them. i could name more but i wont, i've already made my point. I have great pride in Canadas involvment in Afganistan and after reading what Harper had to say about it I at least respect him.

by **jingleBoy** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:38 am

WHAT THE media doesnt tell you is the coup is being led by a muslim hmmmm

by **SavageParrot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:04 am

But Muslim doesn't mean extremist. He a moderate, that's why they aren't telling you.

by **Darknut** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:26 pm

Many wars were fought over resources, land being the most common reason for war. The Crusades were more about land and control than religion. Religion was used to motivate people to fight. Seriously, they were telling people that if you fought you'd go to heaven and if you paid the church enough you could buy your way into heaven.

Oil is a resource Iraq has but I don't think that it was the primary reason for war, more of a benefit. After all, if the president wanted more oil there are many other places to go than the middle east. Alaska, Antartica, the Carribean, Russia, et cetera.

by **SavageParrot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:24 pm

Yeah but the populations of those places don't look feasibly agressive enough to provide a decent enough excuse.

by **Darknut** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:01 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
Yeah but the populations of those places don't look feasibly agressive enough to provide a decent enough excuse.

Well, first off you don't have to start a war to get more resources. You can bargain and in some cases nobody controls the area so you can avoid a second party altogether. Secondly, if you were dedicated on war as your solution for getting more oil it would be better to take it from somebody who doesn't have a long history of insurgency. You'd want the enemy to submit and accept their position. So, Iraq would not be ideal.

But let's look at the oil situation in Iraq. Before the war even started we were buying oil from Iraq in the "oil-for-food" program. Once the government of Iraq was defeated and oil refineries were brought back online the US resumed purchasing Iraqi oil at market value. The US nation oil reserves were and are still under supplied. The price of oil per barrel has gone up every where. There is no radical jump between pre-war and post-war for the amount of oil bought. It is more because it is more every year as the US consumes more oil each year on a per year basis.

In short, there is no evidence that supports "the US went to Iraq for oil" theory. Also, as I tried to illustrate earlier, there are many places in the world we can go for oil without having to wage war. Hell, we are in possession of huge oil fields that are unused at the moment. If we really needed to we could just drill on our own soil.

The war in Iraq was most likely due to bad intelligence.

by **cavalierlwt** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:13 pm

The US could have just gotten the UN to lift sanction against Iraq if they wanted cheaper oil. The whole Iraq mess was pretty well spelled out in PNAC.
Note, the nutjobs conspiracy theorist types often talk about PNAC (Project for a New American Century), but PNAC itself is real and still exists. It's the basic outline of what Bush and his inner circle believe in. Read for yourself:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Some stuff from before the Iraq war, including the infamous 'Letter to Clinton'
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Wiki gives a bit of an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

by **SavageParrot** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:39 pm

Originally posted by Darknut
Well, first off you don't have to start a war to get more resources. You can bargain.[/i]

Not with Saddam you couldn't you'd already ruled that out along with the rest of the UN. Backing out on that would have been politically and potentially economically disastrous.

Originally posted by Darknut
Secondly, if you were dedicated on war as your solution for getting more oil it would be better to take it from somebody who doesn't have a long history of insurgency. You'd want the enemy to submit and accept their position. So, Iraq would not be ideal.[/i]

Very Sun Tsu unfortunately you can't just go around the world invading peaceloving islands which happen to have oil. There are rules even for the 'only superpower' in the world. Persuading people to finish the job on Iraq however was well withing the realms of plausibility though.

Originally posted by Darknut
But let's look at the oil situation in Iraq. Before the war even started we were buying oil from Iraq in the "oil-for-food" program. Once the government of Iraq was defeated and oil refineries were brought back online the US resumed purchasing Iraqi oil at market value. The US nation oil reserves were and are still under supplied. The price of oil per barrel has gone up every where. There is no radical jump between pre-war and post-war for the amount of oil bought. It is more because it is more every year as the US consumes more oil each year on a per year basis.[/i]

You are still looking at it as a short term thing. Sure you haven't seen any rewards from securing the oil fields. The oild companies have made record profits but they sure as shit aren't gonna let it filter down easy. But it has only been 3 years. There's a whole shit load of repair and rebuilding that they had to do just to get it functioning again after war damage and a long period of neglect. It's a long term aim not a quick profit 'snatch and grab' raid.

Long term it still makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by Darknut
Hell, we are in possession of huge oil fields that are unused at the moment. If we really needed to we could just drill on our own soil.[/i]

Trust me post 9/11 it was a damn side easier to sell a war in Iraq than carving up some really rather pretty nature preserves in alaska. Which may or may not have any oil under them.

Originally posted by Darknut
The war in Iraq was most likely due to bad intelligence.

LoL nah the war in Iraq was most likely because Saddam tried to assasinate dubbya's daddy

by **Darknut** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:20 pm

Again, the is no logical reason to start a war in Iraq for oil. If we wanted more oil from Iraq we could have just bought more from Saddam in the oil for food program or done some under the table deal like many other European nations were doing. If we are currently buying the oil at market value then what makes you think that it will somehow become cheaper later on? You think Iraq is going to let go of thier primary source of national income?

As I have stated many times before, if the US wanted only oil they could have gotten it a lot easier from other sources and at a much cheaper price tag as well. While I do not believe that the US doesn't have an interest in oil I do not believe that it was the sole nor primary reason for action in Iraq. Bush just may of had it out for Saddam as you stated.

by **SavageParrot** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:03 am

Originally posted by Darknut
Again, the is no logical reason to start a war in Iraq for oil. If we wanted more oil from Iraq we could have just bought more from Saddam in the oil for food program or done some under the table deal like many other European nations were doing. If we are currently buying the oil at market value then what makes you think that it will somehow become cheaper later on? You think Iraq is going to let go of thier primary source of national income?

As I have stated many times before, if the US wanted only oil they could have gotten it a lot easier from other sources and at a much cheaper price tag as well. While I do not believe that the US doesn't have an interest in oil I do not believe that it was the sole nor primary reason for action in Iraq. Bush just may of had it out for Saddam as you stated.

The world's oil supply is drying up. This isn't about cheap it's about dependable and accessible. With Saddam in charge Iraqui oil was not accessible. Oil for food constituted a tiny proportion of it's potential and despite what you say I don't think there was any way the US could have traded with Iraq without sacrificing a huge amount of support and credibility in the international community; considerably more probably than even the war has lost them (and us before you think I am having a go at america

)

by **Darknut** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:13 pm

The fault of that argument is that Iraq is not the only place in the world that has oil. So again, why invade Iraq and spend a bunch of money on that invasion/occupation when you can get more oil and secure that oil not only on your own land but in other allied countries or international/unclaimed territory for far less money and effort?

by **RCglider** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:35 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
The world's oil supply is drying up.

Scaremongers have been saying that since 1914.

It's bunk.

Military coup in Thailand

Who is online