your zarqawi benefit

[mr d]

hello

 

it say first up, this question will be taken by many to be in bad taste, or heartless and politically incorrect.

the question however is what has been the direct benefit to you by zarqawi's death. currently living the united states, and have found the price of petrol has dropped from approx. $3.35 a gallon to $3.02 a gallon. as since the man's death gas prices have fallen as world producers feel there will be a more stabile supply, hence more competition so the need to lower prices.

so everyone says this war in the gulf is a war over oil\gas, so we the western nations are eliminating people who could disrupt our fuel supplies. if you accept this is a war over oil and not terrorism.

so what is the cost benefit in your area of the world from this man's death? mostly just gas prices, though many items are petrolium related, and transport cost related to them is cost to you.

is this way of talking about mr. zarqawi is consider flipant

i disagree. though i can't not say i' over sad at his demise, i believe he would have preferred not have to die for his cause, and would have been quit pleased to know he could be costing westeners increased out of pocket expense.

 

mr d

[ecoli]

how do you know the gas price dropped specifically because of Zarqawi??

 

More likely, (in my home state of NY, anyway) it's because they just repealed a state law that taxed gas.

[YT2095]

what do I Personaly get from the guys death (while maintaing the crass note)?

 

a percentage or so LESS Violence reported when I watch the News.

[scicop]

My benefit..knowing that we have another dead terrorist.

 

My sadness...knowing we have many more like him in the making.

[mr d]

hello

 

check crude oil prices leading up to and after his death. also he had made mention how he wished to carry out operations, and was,against oil supply interests in iraq. including past attacks on the oil pipe lines.

so while people who profess we must do this war to secure oil supplies, then they must also except that people will be killed for this purpose. and if you killed someone to keep your oil prices low, you should enjoy the benefit resualting.

this also applies to goverments. many goverments decry the 'american war' to their people, but are quite pleased that the united states is helping to keep oil prices low, to the benefit of their people and economy.

 

 

mr d

[Pangloss]

I don't believe the purpose of killing Zarqawi was to lower gas prices, and consider that suggestion to be pretty far below our debate standards here. It's intellectually dishonest, predicated on a speculative assumption, and insufficiently supported.

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with noting correlations between events, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[gcol]

There's certainly nothing wrong with noting correlations between events' date=' but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.[/quote']

I presume you are a non-smoker.

The original quote (possibly by W.C. Fields) was more like "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke".

 

I guess this means that a cigar is never just a cigar.

 

Forced to choose between any old woman and a good cigar..... hmm, difficult choice.

[YT2095]

Take the Cigar dude!

Blike gets them from his mate in Cuba, some chap called Castro? we Moderators get one every X-Mas as a bonus, ask him about it

 

on a serious note, one less BadAss is Always a good thing, despite any benefit you may get from it.

[gcol]

Dont I remember the time when Castro was the number one badass? If a certain sainted president had his way, Castro would have been Zarqawi'd, and no cigars.....

[ecoli]

Dont I remember the time when Castro was the number one badass? If a certain sainted president had his way, Castro would have been Zarqawi'd, and no cigars.....

 

I can only assume you are refering to the Bay of Pigs invasion? An operation that was poorly planned and poorly executed. And had a lot less political backing than the current war on terror (AFAIK)

[gcol]

I can only assume you are refering to the Bay of Pigs invasion? An operation that was poorly planned and poorly executed. And had a lot less political backing than the current war on terror (AFAIK)

 

Not really. I meant the ahem "urban myths" concerning various assasination attempts, also apparently poorly planned and (not) executed. I rather think there have been many attempts, unsuccesful, on Al Queda targets that are unreported because unsuccessful (bad PR). As far as the propaganda war is concerned, one swallow does appear to make a summer.

[Sisyphus]

Aw, good old Castro. If only all our "mortal enemies" were so harmless.

[Pangloss]

I presume you are a non-smoker.

The original quote (possibly by W.C. Fields) was more like "A woman is only a woman' date=' but a good cigar is a smoke".

 

I guess this means that a cigar is [i']never[/i] just a cigar.

 

Forced to choose between any old woman and a good cigar..... hmm, difficult choice.

 

(grin) Actually I was thinking of the Freud quote.

[Jim]

western nations are eliminating people who could disrupt our fuel supplies. if you accept this is a war over oil and not terrorism.

 

so what is the cost benefit in your area of the world from this man's death?

 

The United States does defend its strategically important allies when they are invaded. That is why we came to Kuwait's defense in Gulf War I. Gulf War II was precipitated by Saddam's almost suicidal non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire of Gulf War I.

 

Zarqawi's existence did not frustrate the essential purpose of the war - to remove Saddam and change the calculus for those who would act against US interests; therefore, Zarqawi's death does not produce tangible benefits to me as a US citizen.

 

His death does help in achieving the secondary goals of establishing a democracy in place of Saddam.

[mr d]

hello

 

interesting ideas about cigars there. does anyone know the price of a hand rolled havana now adays?

 

the question is phrased as it is because i find it interesting how so many people call the gulf war ii america's war for oil.

how our (western countries) way of life is threaten, which basically comes down to our economic way of life as it is currently driven by oil for heating, transportation and industry.

if you accept that as the true cause for this war occurring then one reason for targeting certain individuals to be killed (no more pleasant terms like neutralize) is because they interfer with our maintaining our economic costs of doing business. we kill them so that we may continue driving large suv's, buying our plastic bottles of water, and the low cost of oil leading to the low cost of refined oil based products into such things as the plastics used in the monitor cases and keyboards as i am currently typing at.

yet to suggest to people we kill to save ourselves a few dollars\euros, and suddenly many who profess it is an oil war begin talking about terrorism and our need to protect people as the cause for the war.

 

mr d

[ecoli]

Mr. D - So why can't we save the world from a terrible dictator, and as a side effect, save ourself a few bucks on gas in the process. you make it sound as if we are only allowed to have one reason to go to war.

[mr d]

hello

 

responding to your question. i do not disagree to your point of doing both. my point is just that if you stand around screaming why this particular war is only because of economical reasons, you must except actions taken during the conflict were done for that reason.

if i may ask, how many people do you know of decry how the gulf war ii is all about oil. yet if someone such as zarqawi is killed, no..no... that's because he's a terrorist and we had to do it to protect ourselves and others from him.

and that's true, but it is also justification. we do not wish to admit to ourselves we would do something so base as to murder over money. no...we are bringing freedom, we are protecting the world from radicals. if we need to use such deadly means, it is only for the most noble reasons.

well, not all actions are noble, that does not mean they are not needed or justified. it is just that i think people need to except such actions for what they are.

and if you are someone decrying we're only over there for oil, then we are killing people for oil, don't try to wrap it up neatly in a glorious idea.

 

mr d

 

ps no i don't think its just about oil. also if you know people who do, then ask the the original benefit question, and see what their reaction is. can they accept death for oil, or do they justify.

[Pangloss]

Well I don't think either gulf war was about oil, so I guess I don't have to worry about this. (shrug)