I think the answer to your question depends
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
How much money and blood should we invest in supporting something that is inherently unstable?
on what you're investing the blood and money for. Is it a stable democracy? That would seem to merit X amount of both. If the prospect of achieving that is less than good; then X-p or perhaps even 0 would seem appropriate. If OTOH, you're investing those two things in something else and a democracy of some sort is simply a desired but not imperative by product; that sort of changes the equation, doesn't it?
I'm not sure their one in the same
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
True enough, but I think that most of the guys here are fighting for freedom and democracy. It really makes me angry that they're being lied to: even if it doesn't make them angry.
Of course, if most of the people here agree with Ken about the reasons why you're fighting I guess I should have a beer, chill and thank you all for being so nice to me, helping me learn and for all the intelligent conversation.
There has more often than not been cost of blood and treasure in fighting wars somewhere other than our backyards. The fact that the battle is there instead of here and may not result in good ol American style democracy so to speak does not really have anything to do with whether they are defending our democracy. They are doing what they do in order to assure we get to continue to enjoy what we have without suffering at the hands of those they are fighting.
Thats the crux of what Ken is pointing to. It's not always a zero-sum math problem being addressed but more often than not has to do with so may variables in the ether that although one may not be privy to, really do matter a lot to the end result of it all.
I don't think anyone is being lied to and I think most
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
True enough, but I think that most of the guys here are fighting for freedom and democracy. It really makes me angry that they're being lied to: even if it doesn't make them angry.
Of course, if most of the people here agree with Ken about the reasons why you're fighting I guess I should have a beer, chill and thank you all for being so nice to me, helping me learn and for all the intelligent conversation.
of them accept the reality that Ron cites above. A lot of that 'fighting for freedom and democracy' stuff is political hype but it's mostly true if you put it in context. There's also the fact that what may be freedom for some doesn't seem like it to you but to them it's a major change and improvement. Lots of relativity out there.
I'll also suggest one more time that you continue to ascribe thoughts to me that are grossly incorrect, or in this case, placed out of context in a pejorative mode. If you need to do that, fine. :cool:
If you're angry, perhaps you should figure out why you are and work on that. I'm pretty sure most of the guys don't think they're being lied to so if that's all you're angry about, I suspect you can relax a bit.
True. Stability is a myth. Well, not a myth exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Presley Cannady
Democracy's western approximations range from the streets of Sao Paolo and Cali to Germany, Greece and Italy in the 1970s and 80s to the quiet hills of Vermont. At some point, the literature really needs to stop abusing the word "stability."
but it sure is a lot more elusive than most would like -- and even the quiet hills of Ben and Jerry can be disrupted on occasion. Instability is, I think, a pretty normal human condition and we're just sort of spoiled in the greater west, have been for a while -- but there's no guarantee at all that will continue indefinitely...
Other Issues At Play Here? Looks like there are...
...other issues which exist, which are being ignored (or not understood) by the media. For example:
Quote:
Iraq takes licensing step, but E&P fiscal policy murky
Ferruh Demirmen
The invitation extended early this month by Iraq’s Ministry of Oil to international oil companies (IOCs) to preregister by Jan. 31 for exploration and production licensing rounds has no doubt attracted much interest in the industry (OGJ Online, Jan. 3, 2008).
In its announcement, the ministry requested the applicant companies to provide a comprehensive list of information, from company bylaws to tax compliance record to HSE policy. The ministry will use the information to select those companies that will be allowed to compete for upstream projects in the country. The scope of information requested for qualification may set a new standard in the industry.
But IOCs are still mainly in the dark as to Iraq’s fiscal policy. Timing of the first licensing round is also unclear.
Link to Article
Iraq made the first set of awards on 03.27.2008:
1. Royal Dutch Shell - Kirkuk (10 Bil Bbl. reserves)
2. Shell / BHP Billiton - MIssan (3 Bil Bbl. reserves)
3. Chevron/Total - W Qurna 1 (15-20 Bil Bbl. reserves)
4. Exxon Mobil - Zubair (5 Bil Bbl. reserves)
5. BP - Rumaila N and Rumaila S - (16 Bil Bbl. reserves)
Note that (1) is up North, the other four are all in the South. To get the process started, you have to have stability. Basra is the gateway for commerce - if it's substantially under militia control, the whole effort is going to be stillborn.
This could easily explain the Maliki government's abrupt effort to take control from the militia elements in and around Basra.
Then throw in one other factor. The Interior Ministry has been heavily influenced, if not controlled by employees who are allegedly supporters of JAM and Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Could the crackdown possibly be a way for the Maliki government to identify al-Sadr supporters within the different Ministries, and have them fired from their jobs?
Talk about a conundrum - Politics vrs. Religion vrs. Big money economics.
Thoughts?