Is the Iraq war all about oil?

[wienerdog]

I'd like to see some solid arguments for both sides of this issue. I personally don't see how any thinking person can seriously believe it's about oil, but maybe I just haven't been exposed to the right information yet.

[Pilgrim]

Well I would never say it is primarily about oil but I don't think one could exclude the fact that what is it, 15% of the worlds oil is there, from the equation.

Pilgrim

[Ryokan]

I don't know. I'd say the reason the region is so screwed up because of oil politics, but this particular war is primarily about proliferation. Iraq is going to made an example of for the other stronger, more politically sane Rogue states. Warn them off from supporting terrorists or developing WMD.

[wienerdog]

Here's my thinking (so called):

1. The USA has been weaning itself off of Middle Eastern oil for a while. We now only receive about 1/4 of it from over there, and the vast majority of that is from Saudi Arabia. We're trying to move our oil dependency to our own hemisphere, and perhaps ultimately to our own country.

2. Knowing nothing of how OPEC works, this is totally open to refutation...but generally when the market is flooded with a product, the value of that product goes down. If we're going to Iraq to make its oil more accessible, wouldn't this lower the price per barrell? Wouldn't this make Bush's "oil buddies" infuriated with him?

3. Who stands to benefit the most from Saddam staying in power? Who uses more of his oil, and would lose their contracts and whatever money they're owed if he's deposed? France and Germany. :deal:

[Socrates]

Wienerdog:
Who stands to benefit the most from Saddam staying in power? Who uses more of his oil, and would lose their contracts and whatever money they're owed if he's deposed? France and Germany. Quite so. The Axis of Weasel governments benefit tremendously, because they slog people with enormous excise taxes on oil, so it's a great cash cow for them. The petrol taxes in these countries are far worse than even those in Australia and New Zealand, and these governments are addicted to this ill-gotten cash.

[Hitch]

To any 'No War For Oil' advocates I offer this question



Please explain your position in the light of the US constant and costly support of Israel?

Hitch

[Ric]

If anyone thinks this upcoming war is about oil, they are seriously misguided!

[Epoetker]

This war is not about oil.

But even if it was ALL ABOUT a mercantile control of all the oil in the region, why shouldn't the US, rather than Saddam, be the one to profit? Does the money Saddam gets from the misnamed "Oil for Food" program go toward the betterment of the lives of the Iraqis? Toward greater global security? Toward useful scientific research? Towards anything other than feeding the power addiction of one man?

[flipper]

Ric:

If anyone thinks this upcoming war is about oil, they are seriously misguided!

Well, I would agree with you if that they thought that it was all about oil.

I mean, the other justifications for war that we have been offered have been rather flimsy. Now there might be some hidden smoking guns that link Iraq to Al-Qaeda which we're not hearing about for intelligence reasons, but otherwise where is the justification for an expensive and risky war effort that many of the regional players warn could actually increase Mid East destabilization?

Iraq is a major global oil producer that is hostile to US interests. Furthermore, Iraq's oil provides the means to pay much of the costs of this action.

I suspect (but can't prove) that this action is part of a longer-term game plan regarding oil resources.

[flipper]

....

If you're interested, you should check out the Wall Street Journal from January 16, which reported that White House and State Department officials have met with execs from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips and other petroleum companies to discuss the post-war division of spoils.

Now if the post-war Iraqi government awards the most lucrative contracts to US companies, then would you be prepared to reconsider your position that this war is purely about regional stability and democracy? Remember, none of the above companies have been able to access Iraqi oil since gulf war 1, whereas French, Russian, and German companies have all been brokering Iraqi oil.

[Ric]

02-23-2003 @ 04:17 PM
flipper:

Ric:



Well, I would agree with you if that they thought that it was all about oil.

I mean, the other justifications for war that we have been offered have been rather flimsy. Now there might be some hidden smoking guns that link Iraq to Al-Qaeda which we're not hearing about for intelligence reasons, but otherwise where is the justification for an expensive and risky war effort that many of the regional players warn could actually increase Mid East destabilization?

Iraq is a major global oil producer that is hostile to US interests. Furthermore, Iraq's oil provides the means to pay much of the costs of this action.

I suspect (but can't prove) that this action is part of a longer-term game plan regarding oil resources.

All well said, but what most people don't know is that it is cheaper to just buy oil from Iraq than to just take it from them. And for the USA oil is really not that big of a concern, why? Because we (the USA) are sitting on top of the largest (nonactive) oil field in the world! It's all out there in the Gulf of Mexico just waiting to be pumped up! And I live in Florida and would welcome oil pumping fields in the Gulf of Mexico - it would help our economy and there is no chance of environmental damage!

[flipper]

Ric:

All well said, but what most people don't know is that it is cheaper to just buy oil from Iraq than to just take it from them.

Unfortunately, the US is not a preferred oil partner at the moment for obvious reasons. And taking oil from the Iraqis becomes cheaper if Iraqi oil is later used to amortize the costs of the war, repairs and infrastructure upgrades to the fields, and ensures that the US oil companies are well positioned to use it. Currently, it is cheaper to buy oil from anywhere than to wage war.

Will you be able to say the same 10 years from now?

Furthermore, there's a reason that the GoM is not being tapped at the moment. Yes, there are a large number of untapped deep water oil fields in the Gulf. But deep water oil exploration is much more expensive - uneconomical in many conditions. Furthermore it is very hard to predict the size of these deep water fields. If the oil industry thought that increasing oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was low hanging fruit, they'd be doing it already.

I shouldn't count on the GoM as a magic bullet.

[wienerdog]

If you're interested, you should check out the Wall Street Journal from January 16, which reported that White House and State Department officials have met with execs from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips and other petroleum companies to discuss the post-war division of spoils.

Now if the post-war Iraqi government awards the most lucrative contracts to US companies, then would you be prepared to reconsider your position that this war is purely about regional stability and democracy? Remember, none of the above companies have been able to access Iraqi oil since gulf war 1, whereas French, Russian, and German companies have all been brokering Iraqi oil.

Now THAT'S interesting. I hadn't heard anything about this. While the USA is trying to wean itself off of Middle Eastern oil, I doubt the international oil companies are. But what about OPEC? Doesn't it ultimately fall under their control?

If the war were significantly about oil, I don't think it would be justified. The world's economy, not just the United States', is based on oil. If the leader of a country with oil reserves tried to hold the world's economy hostage, we would be justifiably concerned about it. However, this would not justify going to war. After all, it's his country, he can do whatever he wants with his natural resources. However, I hardly think the US or the world at large would be hypocritical in being concerned about this country.

[b488]

The ousting of Saddam is meant to be a signal to the rest of the Middle East to 'clean up their act' and get on the democracy bandwagon....or else. (who knows, maybe Country X's leader will be the next villain?) Think of it as the hopes for a grand domino effect for 'freedom' as opposed to Communism. I personally think this is not the way to go, but seems to be the way things are heading.
Its also a convenient excuse for the US to try out all of their fancy new weaponry. Its hard for such a huge military machine to remain idle (not test its mettle)



http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030217fa_fact

Ciao! :thumb:

[wienerdog]

Well, I think a good argument can be made for thinking it is a part of the war on terror. By taking Iraq out of the terrorist equation, it would geographically separate Iran and Syria from each other. Colon Bowel's speech to the UN security council a few weeks ago I think made the case for the connection between Iraq and terrorism in general, as well as at least some connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. I think the other things (establishing an Arabic democracy in the Middle East; getting rid of a horrible dictator) are probably bonuses, but not the primary motivations.

But I'd like to hear somebody who doesn't think the war is about oil at all respond to the allegation that Bush and the big oil companies met to decide on how to divy up the Iraqi oil. That would have some serious implications.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 05:43 AM
wienerdog:

But I'd like to hear somebody who doesn't think the war is about oil at all respond to the allegation that Bush and the big oil companies met to decide on how to divy up the Iraqi oil. That would have some serious implications.

The US government, as I understand it, is working with Iraqi nationals (hostile to Hussein) regarding the best ways in which to give power to the people of Iraq instead of moving the turnstiles so that another dictator can take charge. Part of this discussion--so I've heard--has to do with preserving Iraqi infrastructure since the ability of that nation to proper economically (and they don't have a great deal apart from oil export) will help ensure the stability of the new government.

More information regarding the alleged meetings with oil company execs would be nice. Discussing oil production logistics and setting up deals to buy Iraqi oil would seem rather harmless, and in fact probably a good thing, as mentioned above. If US oil companies are getting free rights to pump oil to sell to others and figuring out ways to cut European buyers out of the market--stuff like that--then the activity would be suspicious to say the least. Lacking inside information regarding what was actually discussed at the meetings, we should still be able to exercise reasonable judgement about what went on based on the outcome.

[Ryokan]

I would argue that, knowing he was already invading Iraq, he might as well try to grab some more campaign funding by turning over Iraq's oil to US oil companies. That is the way most politicians work.

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 01:00 PM
Ryokan:

I would argue that, knowing he was already invading Iraq, he might as well try to grab some more campaign funding by turning over Iraq's oil to US oil companies. That is the way most politicians work.

Isn't it simpler to suppose that it is for Iraq's own good to have consumers for Iraqi oil post-Saddam? Hussein might try to sabotage the Iraqi oil industry (petroleum "scorched earth" policy--see Kuwait). Many Iraqis in opposition to Saddam are in the US and part of the reason for their presence is discussion of the establishment of the new Iraqi government and establishment of infrastructure. Sorry, but I don't see U.S. companies being given free drilling leases or anything like that. Maybe they'll be involved in selling equipment, sharing/selling technology, and providing another market to compete with the Europeans. That's bad . . . ?
Getting oil promply to market would be essential to the economic well-being of Iraq, imo. Isn't it appropriate to call on the private sector to accomplish this?

[Ryokan]

It is, but to help Iraq an appropriate oil company would be an Iraqi one, if such a company could come forward.
Also, I am very skeptical of the idea that oil companies act like good free marketers. Suspicions of collusions aren't unfounded. And I wouldn't doubt that the BUsh admin would make sure oil companies favorable to him got better deals.

[wienerdog]

I kind of agree with both of you. What Captain Ochre says makes a lot of sense, but it just sounds suspicious to have the oil companies making what amounts to a profit off of a war. And where does OPEC figure in? Don't they decide what price per barrel is and distribution, etc.?

One of the arguments that has convinced it is not significantly about oil is that there seem to be valid reasons for taking Saddam out.

[Epoetker]

Also, I am very skeptical of the idea that oil companies act like good free marketers. Suspicions of collusions aren't unfounded. And I wouldn't doubt that the BUsh admin would make sure oil companies favorable to him got better deals.

You mean, the non-OPEC, non-cartel American companies that actually sell oil at market prices, rather than a trumped-up amount meant to protect "Muslims?"

The Americans should have quite a bit of say in where the initial oil is going to go for the first couple of years, as they will be the ones most likely funding the reconstruction of the fields and Iraq(Lots of the money from oil sales in the the first year will go for just this purpose.)

And most importantly of all, it will give America the power to break away from the economic grip of the evil, evil, evil Saudi Arabia.

[Hitch]

Yup. A Frog Tax and a Kraut Tax at the well head.

BTW..Epoetker,,, could you spell that phonetically?

H

[HerodionRomulus]

I voted for the main position, though it is not exclusively about oil.
It is also about vindication because Daddy lost the last war with Saddam.

There is very little evidence of a link with al-Queda. In fact, bin-laden calls Hussein a 'infidel."

Oddly, the Sudan has been waging a deadly war against it's Christian citizens, Sudan has strong verifiable ties to al-Queda, yet we are silent.
Of course, the oil industry there, in the areas being ethnically cleansed by the Muslim dictators, are controlled by US interests.

Look at how many people in the Bush Administration have their wealth based on oil--starting with the Bush family.

The ambassador chosen to go to Afghanistan was someone who had once worked for Unocal, back when they were building a pipeline from the Central Asian republics to the sea--across Afghanistan.

All about? No. Much about? Yes.

[Epoetker]

Hitch: I prefer to let people pronounce it in whatever they feel is the COOLEST WAY POSSIBLE.

Check my profile homepage to find out its origin. It's really rather sad: Richard Wein, a hardline anti-Dembski guy whom I once debated on ARN, said he "really liked" my "nom de plume."

Gotta love the accidents of normal naming. I'm liking the "Epo" nick so much that I'm naming the main characters in RPGs I play after it.

[Hitch]

Sounds kinda like Harpo,,,

[Epoetker]

The funniest thing about it is that the "O" is silent. In fact, that's the only rule you need to apply if pronouncing it correctly (in the German sense, anyway.)

Like I said, mentally pronounce it as you will. John Derbyshire of National Review Online's last name is traditionally pronounced "Dai-bih-SHUH," but even he prefers the American phonetic version and uses it whenever possible.

[wienerdog]

There is very little evidence of a link with al-Queda. In fact, bin-laden calls Hussein a 'infidel."

The following is an excerpt from Colin Powell's speech to the UN. I have yet to see any reason for questioning the validity of his evidences.

My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq’s continued flaunting of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on. And that has to do with terrorism.

Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It’s the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it’s no secret that Saddam’s own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam’s former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein’s secular tyranny and Al Qaida’s religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

And the record of Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida’s training camps in Afghanistan.

His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

[wienerdog]

There is very little evidence of a link with al-Queda. In fact, bin-laden calls Hussein a 'infidel."

Yes, bin Laden doesn't like Hussein, but there is a stronger connection between Arab nations than we tend to think. I mean, in the first Gulf War, Saudi Arabia was fully expecting to be invaded by Iraq, but they were still very unwilling to let outsiders help protect them. bin Laden views Hussein as a lesser evil. If he has to choose between the Great Satan (the USA) and some misguided Arab leader, he'll obviously prefer the latter.

[citizenkyle]

02-23-2003 @ 10:16 PM
wienerdog:
Now THAT'S interesting. I hadn't heard anything about this. While the USA is trying to wean itself off of Middle Eastern oil...

Unfortunately, this is impossible. The largest accessible oil field in the US resides in Alaska. If we relied wholly on Alaskan oil for domestic use, we would bleed the entire field dry in TWO years.

As flipper pointed out, the cost of tapping the oil in the GoM is prohibitive. And the bottom line is that we are going to use up the last drop of oil on this planet within 100 years. That might seem like a fair amount of time, but it's not. Because oil production will peak in 2010. After that, we are heading for a steady decline until the bitter end. What does that mean? Outrageous oil prices. Americans can expect prices at the pump to rise 20% PER YEAR after 2010. Don't run out and buy a 2009 SUV. Worse yet, the rich countries are going to outbid developing countries for the dwindling oil supply reinforcing the cycle of grinding poverty and hatred towards the rich countries.

The solution? GET OFF OIL ALTOGETHER. We should've started moving away from oil 30 years ago, but it's hard for politicians to see past all those dollars big oil waves in their faces. Time has been lost but it's not too late to start diversifying our energy economy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, etc). But it's going to take a concerted effort and significant financial investment by the rich countries of the world to build an energy infrastructure for the post oil world. If we don't start soon, it WILL be too late. The resulting energy crisis will bankrupt the world economy.

[ACow]

I'm a skeptic of the war, so forgive me if i think the "humanitarian" reasons are a bit iffy, its in my nature. I'm slightly cynical. But i will say a bit...

Anyone who thinks that oil and the like doesn't play a part in the future war needs their head examined. And its not just the US, for europe's interest seems to of gone largely ignored by most people, including the media but we'll focus on the US first, because lets fact it, its gonna do what its gonna do.

Contrary to romantic ideals, big bussiness is embedded in US politics. Coporations and the US could gain unequaled access into previously "hostile" area's, and as has been pointed out, the US could hence be less dependant on countries which are traditionally "hostile" or problematic. People have said that the US is weening itself off middle-eastern oil, but its still an enormous share, and with the US being the worlds largest consumer, things most certainly aren't going to be changing anytime soon. Future stability and access to future supplies is another thing. Those looking at oil situationo in the here and now are missing the entire point, no matter what side of the fence they are coming from. Oil fields in iraq are never going to be accessed or made use of in the here and now, but in the future. And future supplies of oil under a nations control are never a bad thing, especially when the alternative is future dependancy on said traditionally hostile nations.

Anyone who thinks that oil is the ONLY reason that the US is heading into a war needs to pull their head out of a certain orifice. I don't buy the arguement that he's going in to "avenge daddy". i don't see how any intellectually honest person can. As much as we like to believe world leaders run countries based on an emotional whim, it simply isn't the case. There are voters, there's advisors, there's cabinets, there's think tanks, there's conflicts of interest, there's personal bussiness/money, and there's financial "gifts" and campaign donations. That bush is going in based on gain for america, himself, his bussinesses, or possibly his associates, okay, you can at make an arguement for those if you know your stuff, a good one even, but for "revenge"? Those who believe this i'd have to say are an embaressment to the anti-war camp.

And those who deny that oil and big bussiness have influence in the decision to go to war are an embaressment to the pro war camp. Lets also not forget what the US gains strategically if they manage to set up a friendly democracy/puppet state in the middle east. They'll have a friend. And they'll have power. They'll have influence. Again, in a traditionally hostile part of the world. True, they've got Israel, but it is far from Arab. Even the arab states of egypt and jordan, countries which are RELATIVELY neutral/even friendly to the US are far from soley dependable friends, and indeed, i know first hand from my stay in jordan last month, that while comparatively westernized and accepting, they are still also friends with the other arab states, conducting bussiness with iraq and traditional US enemies. If anything they are "neutral" rather than friendly to anyone in particular. And while i'm not sure about the conditions for US' millitary bases in Saudi Arabia, i'd imagine a new friend in the region will have some effect on either their existance or their usage/meaning/bargaining power/reason for being.

Now i'll lay of the US, and turn to Europe. A brief look at england first. IIRC, a relatively recent british government report estimated a large percent (90%ish IIRC) of fuels and the like coming from external sources within the next decade or so. In case its not obvious, england has alot to gain from siding with the US. I might see if i can dig it up, but i really can't promise anything, it was something i came across during researching an essay for a Polsci essay, and i fully accept that i could be completely mistaken, for my memory is often a bit of a murky thing. But trust me, oil and fossil fuels might have "just a little" to do with englands support. But that's okay, they might also have "just a little" to do with other countries protests as well. In case you have a romantic view of international politics, its time to grow up. Its not a black and white case of "these people are just chicken" or "these people are just gung-ho" or "these people are just anti-american". International politics is very much a bunch of squabbling self interested back room dealing bastards. :teeth:
I'm really quite suprised at the flamboyancy and nerve at which it happens sometimes. The US for instance just recently tried to bribe turkey into letting it use its military bases, yet no one refers to such deals as bribes in the news, despite the fact that a bribe was precisely what it was.

Now, the rest of Europe. In case anyone didn't know, France and French companies have multi-billion dollar bussiness deals with iraq, and heavy energy industry investment in the area. Only problem is because of U.N resolutions, contracts have not been signed, and those that have generally can't move ahead until sanctions are lifted. it should also be known that Russia has also had companies at least recently looking at doing multi-billion dollar deals involving iraqi oil fields, which were only recently cancelled when iraq found russia had started contacts with anti-iraqi factions. So, what happens to the oil well's and deals signed by saddam once saddam and his government is overthrown? Especially if they were to happen to burn to the ground during a war? I'll let you decide.
Now its also known that some german companies have had dealings with iraq in the past, but i can't think of specific ones off the top of my head. But be sure they are there.

I don't know. This is just my thoughts and what i know and what i've seen. I'm probably so far off its not funny, and i don't really have the time to argue about it or debate it. It all really comes down to this:

Everything in this issue is a shade of grey. Bush is not a pure bastion of virtue, truth and goodness. Neither is he evil or adolf hitler as some idiots have said.
Similarly, those states that are openly against a war are not "pure peace-loving people being purely swayed by their love of humanity". But neither are they the "pussy american haters" portrayed by some idiots either.
The US is not purely acting out of selfish capitalistic greed, and Europe is not acting out of pure humanitarian altruism. Everything is shades of grey.

And as forest gump would say, that's all i have to say about that.

[wienerdog]

03-07-2003 @ 04:12 PM
citizenkyle:



Unfortunately, this is impossible. The largest accessible oil field in the US resides in Alaska. If we relied wholly on Alaskan oil for domestic use, we would bleed the entire field dry in TWO years.

My understanding is that we have gone from getting most of our oil from the Middle East to getting a fourth of it from there, and three fourths from our own hemisphere.

The solution? GET OFF OIL ALTOGETHER.

Can't argue with that. My only extra comment is that I would want to maybe do it gradually so we don't cause a lot of problems for those who work make their living off of the oil industry (and here I mean the "little people" not the owners) and the world economy.

Anyone who thinks that oil and the like doesn't play a part in the future war needs their head examined.

Anyone who thinks that oil is the ONLY reason that the US is heading into a war needs to pull their head out of a certain orifice.

Well...hmmm. I think we have good motivations totally apart from oil for wanting to get rid of Saddam. But I wouldn't deny that oil could play a part in our motivations. However, wanting to set up a democracy that would be a good friend to us would hardly qualify as ulterior motive, I think, as long as we have justifiable reasons for wanting to take Saddam out in the first place.

But you're right. I think the human rights violations are the icing on the cake, but they're not the motivation for us going in there in the first place. The looooong quote by Colon Bowel was meant to show that we can justify this as a part of the war on terrorism. The only arguments against his evidences that I've heard basically come down to saying that it must all be a lie because we have ulterior motives.

[Socrates]

Kyle
The solution? GET OFF OIL ALTOGETHER. We should've started moving away from oil 30 years ago, but it's hard for politicians to see past all those dollars big oil waves in their faces. Time has been lost but it's not too late to start diversifying our energy economy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, etc). But it's going to take a concerted effort and significant financial investment by the rich countries of the world to build an energy infrastructure for the post oil world. If we don't start soon, it WILL be too late. The resulting energy crisis will bankrupt the world economy.It would be nice if you were right, but it's not as easy as you think. E.g. hydro is certainly renewable and cheap, but has large start-up costs. And the loony greenies will blast you for building dams on rivers.

Wind would be good in certain places, and Esperance in Western Australia has some wind turbines. Also Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, is famous for its wind, and has a prototype turbine. But even here, the greenies whinge that the turbines are visual pollution, although I like them.

There are many places in my country where solar heating of water would be great. But it's so expensive to install, that even with government subsidies it would take15-20 years to pay off in electricity savings.

An article in New Scientist had an article about a supposedly green-friendly house in Australia. They had solar electricity panels too. But the article pointed out that it would take 5 years to "save" the electricity required to make the panels themselves! Then there are many more years needed to make the electricity savings to the value of the things.

Hydrogen needs to be generated. And the energy cost of extracting it from water is the same as that gained by burning it, even if there was 100% efficiency.

I like the promise of fuel cells, since they can theoretically gain even >100% efficiency from the way it's defined (δG/δH).

[Epoetker]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned nuclear? Besides the obvious terrorism possibilities, of course...

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-06-2003 @ 08:44 PM
wienerdog:



The following is an excerpt from Colin Powell's speech to the UN. I have yet to see any reason for questioning the validity of his evidences.
I have reason to question the validity of it. For one, there is the fact that the UN, whose personnel are much more in a position to know than any of us posting on this board, apparently didn't buy a word of it. For another, it just seems that Bush and Powell tend to be very liberal in making claims to have documentation of all these allegations, but always find some convenient excuse to backpedal when they are actually asked to produce it. "Due to national security reasons, we can't actually show you any of our proof, so you'll just have to take our words for it." Sorry, but that don't cut it!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-07-2003 @ 08:42 PM
Epoetker:

Why hasn't anyone mentioned nuclear?
Because under the Bush administration, it's "nukular."

[Gracchus]

The administration is twisting arms, and offering bribes to build support for its agenda. Imagine how much more power diplomatic efforts would have if the administration could cut off the oil supplies to the opposition. Oil is political power as well as economic power. A corrupt system need not form conspiracies, it can depend on common greed to ensure cooperation. Is there anyone so naive as to think the current administration is not utterly corrupt? To any such, I must inquire how they lost their sense of smell.

[Alden]

offering bribes to build support for its agenda

How about offering facts to build support for your opinions?

Welcome to the board.

[Captain Ochre]

03-08-2003 @ 06:43 AM
Eireann:


I have reason to question the validity of it. For one, there is the fact that the UN, whose personnel are much more in a position to know than any of us posting on this board, apparently didn't buy a word of it.


Uh--how do you know that the UN "didn't buy a word of it"? Voting record? Public comments? ESP?


For another, it just seems that Bush and Powell tend to be very liberal in making claims to have documentation of all these allegations, but always find some convenient excuse to backpedal when they are actually asked to produce it. "Due to national security reasons, we can't actually show you any of our proof, so you'll just have to take our words for it." Sorry, but that don't cut it!

I didn't see the entire presentation, but Powell showed some pretty good circumstantial evidence that Iraq entered the arms inspection phase with the intention of playing games. Will arms inspections work without Iraq's cooperation? Should the UN ignore the fact that the UN had stipulated that full cooperation was a requirement?
It is the UN that is making the UN irrelevant, when they come up with resolutions that have no force.

[Theolog]

Of course oil is the main factor in this war, But the war is about religion. Islam has declared war on the west as they are commanded to do in their unholy Koran.

Because it is a Holy war all infidels are targets.

All Arab governments support this war. Oil is their main source of cash and is driving this war. If we take away their oil then they will have to resort to a sticks on camels type army or they will have to get a job. Either way it solves the problem.

You must remember they have declared on us. They have attacked us. The twin towers were OK but when they attacked the pentagon and targeted the Whitehouse they turned it into a military conflict. We have a right and obligation to intervene.

Hatred for Israel is driving these idiots. Their hatred will not stand against the force of reason and will consume them. If they do not change they will die.

We will terrorize all nations that support terrorism because------ Oh well reason doesn’t always work. :huh:

[Pilgrim]

I rather liked this article by Quindlan. I take objection to here quite often and in this case there were points I would take her to task on (likeher glib comments about entertainers having an opinion, but over all I like this one. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/878833.asp#BODY)

Especially the last paragraph...

What is required of a nation that is not only the greatest democracy on earth at this moment, but the nation by which all other democratic attempts have been measured, the petri dish of individual freedom? That answer is clear: it must live up to its principles, not down to its enemies. The danger in having enormous power is that the ambition to use it for good can so often be subverted by the temptation to use it for dominance. The leader who occupies the high ground, or the bully wearing blinders: I am waiting to see to which nation I belong.

[wienerdog]

With all due respect to everyone, if opposition to a war with Iraq comes down to saying that Bush and the allies must be lying, it's not very credible. Without specific evidence to counter the evidence they presented, such a position just doesn't have much validity.

Now, if I recall, the Security Council of the UN did "buy" Colin Powell's evidences. Their response was essentially, "OK, OK, but let's not go to war about it."

I think the religion factor is not the primary reason we're probably going to go to war with Iraq. I still maintain it's because of the connection between Iraq and terrorism.

[wienerdog]

Two more points: first, the nations who are most adamantly against a war with Iraq are those who would suffer the most financially from a regime change: France, Germany, Russia, and China. At last count, the USA had 90 countries supporting them, and only these four against them.

Second, the UN Security Council approved resolution 1441 which stated Iraq must completely disarm immediately or face severe consequences. Colin Powell reminded them that none of them had any misconceptions about what the "severe consequences" would be: they all knew it meant forcible disarmament. If you have a problem with this, it is an issue to take up with the UN Security Council, not the USA. If you think it's appropriate for the UN to make resolutions, and then actively work against their enforcement, I strongly disagree.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-08-2003 @ 10:01 AM
Captain Ochre:



Uh--how do you know that the UN "didn't buy a word of it"? Voting record? Public comments? ESP?
Just logic. If Powell had something more substantial than allegation and conjecture, I think, as do many, that the UN would not be so staunchly balking.

I didn't see the entire presentation, but Powell showed some pretty good circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence = fancy legal term meaning "2 + 3 + 8 might just possibly equal 4."

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-08-2003 @ 01:25 PM
wienerdog:
If you think it's appropriate for the UN to make resolutions, and then actively work against their enforcement, I strongly disagree.
you're right, and I think the UN should immediately go to war against any and all nations who have broken or defied UN resolutions. USA, prepare to be attacked! Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and any other member state of the UN who still purchases oil from Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolution banning any member state from doing so, prepare to be attacked!

[wienerdog]

When has the UN passed resolutions against any other country that said that this resolution must be obeyed immediately, or it will be militarily enforced? That's the point. Of course plenty of countries have gone against UN resolutions, but resolution 1441 was very specifically a last chance for Saddam to disarm on his own. This has no parallel to any other country or situation in the history of the UN.

[wienerdog]

If Powell had something more substantial than allegation and conjecture, I think, as do many, that the UN would not be so staunchly balking.

But they conceded the points that Iraq has WMD, and has ties to terrorist networks. What they're balking about is how to deal with it.

Circumstantial evidence = fancy legal term meaning "2 + 3 + 8 might just possibly equal 4."

I don't believe you really think this. Circumstantial evidence can be very significant, and in this case, compelling.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-08-2003 @ 05:27 PM
wienerdog:
I don't believe you really think this. Circumstantial evidence can be very significant, and in this case, compelling.
It can also be extremely misleading and very compelling in the wrong direction, which is why in legal circles it's practically a derogatory term.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-08-2003 @ 05:27 PM
wienerdog:



But they conceded the points that Iraq has WMD, and has ties to terrorist networks. What they're balking about is how to deal with it.
When did they concede to the point that Iraq positively has WMD, when the Inspectors themselves have denied finding any as of yet? As for the ties to terrorist networks, that's never been a question. They've known that all along. What Bush and Powell have tried to establish is that Saddam personally has ties to Al Qaida, and that has never been demonstrated. Ties between bin Laden and certain Iraqis have been shown, but that's not surprising when you consider that bin Laden wants the overthrow of the secular government in Iraq, and the best way to do that is from the inside. That doesn't amount to anything when they're trying to establish ties between Hussein himself and Al Qaida.

I do believe Hussein needs to be deposed. And that needs to be done in such a way that the Al Qaida sympathizers and allies don't step right in and occupy the vacant seat of power. But I'm not convinced yet that war is the only way to accomplish that.

[Ishmael]

I hate (not really, I am glad to) to tell you this Eirean, but your quote from Rush is not very deep. I mean, there are lots of quotes from that band, but you chose one that is plain. When I read it I know it is true on its face and I don't see how it could be "quoteable" to anyone. It's so obvious that a high school senior could underand it and think it wise.

If your "views" on politics are informed thusly, I move that you not be taken seriously anymore... Oh, I forgot, you aren't taken seriously already...

[Captain Ochre]

03-08-2003 @ 10:30 PM
Eireann:


Just logic. If Powell had something more substantial than allegation and conjecture, I think, as do many, that the UN would not be so staunchly balking.


"[S]taunchly balking"??? Did you notice that the post above yours truly reports that opposition to UK/US-guided policy against Iraq is coming from those nations with the greatest interest vested in the current Iraqi regime? A majority on the UN Security Council have backed the resolutions formulated by the US. It is a minority with veto power that is throwing a spanner in the works. France is clinging to its last shred of international power, mol. They would allow Saddam Hussein to figuratively thumb his nose at the UN in the name of keeping a symbolic check on the US. It's a bluff that the US is likely to call, too.


Circumstantial evidence = fancy legal term meaning "2 + 3 + 8 might just possibly equal 4."

Short of Powell doing personal inspections without the consent of the Iraqi government, what do you expect? Sell out the firsthand source (spies, if any) for the sake of appeasing the do-nothing United Nations? Get real.
Satellite images of construction on former known weapons sites is excellent circumstantial evidence; a blood sample that matches that of the suspect, if you will, and found at the scene of the crime. Of course the only proof that some would accept is a SCUD missile with personal note from Saddam scrawled on it striking them in the noggin ("It's not proof! The note could have been forged!").

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 01:36 AM
Calvinist:If your views on politics are informed thusly, I move that you not be taken seriously anymore... Oh, I forgot, you aren't taken seriously already...
You completely misunderstood and misrepresented everything I was saying on that TOL thread. But rather than admit you were mistaken, you would prefer to resort to ad hominem attacks. That's very mature of you.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to provide one single instance where I said anything anti-American, anti-liberty, etc. Happy hunting.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 09:50 AM
Captain Ochre:
"[S]taunchly balking"??? Did you notice that the post above yours truly reports that opposition to UK/US-guided policy against Iraq is coming from those nations with the greatest interest vested in the current Iraqi regime? A majority on the UN Security Council have backed the resolutions formulated by the US.
Resolutions, yes. War, no. War is not a UN resolution.

Short of Powell doing personal inspections without the consent of the Iraqi government, what do you expect?
Real evidence. Something they can actually show that we don't have to merely take their word on. This administration has been caught in lies and misinformation so many times already that you would expect them to come up with something more substantial that would actually validate their stance to the UN and to those Americans who distrust them.

Sell out the firsthand source (spies, if any) for the sake of appeasing the do-nothing United Nations? Get real.
It wouldn't have to come to that. But an actual report, on actual paper, detailing actual findings would be a good start ... something that can actually be seen.

Satellite images of construction on former known weapons sites is excellent circumstantial evidence;
Satellite images which the CIA has already discounted as misleading and insufficient. Or did you not hear about that?

Of course the only proof that some would accept is a SCUD missile with personal note from Saddam scrawled on it striking them in the noggin ("It's not proof! The note could have been forged!").
No, but actually finding A scud missile with chemical warheads would be a start. Finding actual chemical warheads, or intact hazardous chemical stores would be a start.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

For anyone unfamiliar with my battle with Calvinist on TOL, let me briefly recap, and let you judge for yourselves whether he has any grounds.

First, I posted a link to an article detailing the arrest of a man in New York because he was wearing a tee-shirt that said "Peace on Earth, Give Peace a Chance." When mall security asked him to remove the shirt because it was offensive, he refused and was arrested. I sarcastically titled the thread "War supporters should be proud," because it was so obviously a case where authority was being abused by people with a pro-war attitude. Otherwise, there is no way someone would take offense at "Give Peace a Chance."

Calvinist responded that I am anti-American because I don't accept that the US is "THE IDEAL" way of life and that we have a God-given right to force our way of life on other countries (he didn't actually include the italicized part, but it is easily inferred from the rest of his post).

I replied that our notion that our way of life is "THE IDEAL" is very subjective, that many other countries who have different lifestyles, different governments and different economies are doing just fine the way they are. There are many kinds of governments, and some work, some don't. Ours is not the only one. The example I used was Sweden, which has a different economy, government and lifestyle structure than the US. And last time I checked, they had the highest per capita income on the planet. And most Swedish people are quite satisfied with they way things are done there. Why would they need the American way of life, when they're doing fine on their own?

Calvinist could not accept that. To Calvinist and people like him, it's "if you don't do things our way, you're wrong."

So, you be the judges. Am I anti-American because I believe that our notion of a US "IDEAL" is subjective? Am I anti-American because I am offended that pro-war people in positions of power will sometimes abuse that power in order to suppress freedom of speech in those who oppose war? Am I anti-American because I am against a war that will be very costly in human lives? And if so, why does that make me anti-American?

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 03:29 PM
Eireann:


You completely misunderstood and misrepresented everything I was saying on that TOL thread. But rather than admit you were mistaken, you would prefer to resort to ad hominem attacks. That's very mature of you.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to provide one single instance where I said anything anti-American, anti-liberty, etc. Happy hunting.

I don't misunderstand anything you spew here or there. I am not mistaken about you at all.

Your attitude is anti-American, you are the kind of person who cheers for the bad guys just to be contrary. You like having your freedom but the rest of the world doesn't matter because then you wouldn't have your "issue." You and people like you are pathetic.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:03 PM
Calvinist:



I don't misunderstand anything you spew here or there. I am not mistaken about you at all.

Your attitude is anti-American, you are the kind of person who cheers for the bad guys just to be contrary. You like having your freedom but the rest of the world doesn't matter because then you wouldn't have your "issue." You and people like you are pathetic.
I have not once "cheered for the bad guys." I have said many, many times that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power. If you "are not mistaken about me at all," you would have been well aware of that. I am not at all opposed to removing Hussein from power. I am opposed to a single-minded agenda that says war is the only way to do this. You apparently haven't been following my posts very closely, which explains why you so easily jumped to the conclusion that I am anti-American. You erroneously concluded that because I am opposed to war, I am in favor of Saddam, and thus anti-American. You were ill-informed when you jumped to that conclusion.

Truthfully, I am very much against Saddam Hussein. I think he is a madman and a lunatic who needs to be deposed somehow. What I am not convinced of is that war is the one and only "somehow." A war will most certainly have disastrous consequences on both sides. Many many lives will be lost. And if the admin's conjecture that Saddam still maintains and produces biochemical weapons and nukes is true, then all of our troops over there will have that to face. Plus, as most of the planet is against war as the only solution to this problem, we run the risk of diplomatic isolation, making ourselves an island. How long do you think the US economy will survive such isolation? Are you really prepared to risk all those consequences for war, when there still may be other solutions available that haven't been tried, or tried hard enough? That's what I'm talking about, which you would have known if you had actually been following my line of argumentation from the beginning rather than jumping on one thread and assuming you knew my whole position from it.

[Ishmael]

This is what you posted:

The War supporters should feel proud!
This happened in New York! War supporters across the country should be proud of the way New York's finest are trampling on the 1st Amendment!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/index.html

cnn.com: man arrested for refusing to take off a t-shirt that said "Give Peace a Chance."

This was my reply:

First of all the authorities at the mall messed up. Americans can wear t-shirts in the mall. This was a mistake.

I thought you had more common sense than you demonstrate here by the way you have spun this story.

"War supporters should be proud"? That's really cute.

As a soldier, this makes me sick. I hope you are not an American given that we seem to have more than enough anit-American citizens right now.

And NO, it’s not because they are protesting a war that they are anti-American, it's because their (most protestor) arguments raised thus far accuse the US of all kinds of nasty things. My God, some protestors are even moving their worthless bodies to Iraq to aid the Iraqis by becoming human shields. I am disgusted.

Eireann, if you want to protest war that's fine. Just try and remember that we are countrymen(women), and that it is our country that is the IDEAL (and if you don’t believe this than you just need to sit down and study some good old fashioned history) of freedom and liberty, even with all the mistakes we (you too) have made in her borders and abroad.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:03 PM
Calvinist:

Your attitude is anti-American, you are the kind of person who cheers for the bad guys just to be contrary.
Then explain why I supported the action in Afghanistan, based on the fact that we actually had facts that time. Explain why I supported going into Bosnia, when the human atrocities going on over there were quite clear. In both those cases, I was rooting for the Americans and our allies. If I cheer for the bad guys just to be contrary, then the Americans must be the bad guys, according to you.

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 04:13 PM
Eireann:


I have not once "cheered for the bad guys." I have said many, many times that Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power. If you "are not mistaken about me at all," you would have been well aware of that. I am not at all opposed to removing Hussein from power. I am opposed to a single-minded agenda that says war is the only way to do this. You apparently haven't been following my posts very closely, which explains why you so easily jumped to the conclusion that I am anti-American. You erroneously concluded that because I am opposed to war, I am in favor of Saddam, and thus anti-American. You were ill-informed when you jumped to that conclusion.

Truthfully, I am very much against Saddam Hussein. I think he is a madman and a lunatic who needs to be deposed somehow. What I am not convinced of is that war is the one and only "somehow." A war will most certainly have disastrous consequences on both sides. Many many lives will be lost. And if the admin's conjecture that Saddam still maintains and produces biochemical weapons and nukes is true, then all of our troops over there will have that to face. Plus, as most of the planet is against war as the only solution to this problem, we run the risk of diplomatic isolation, making ourselves an island. How long do you think the US economy will survive such isolation? Are you really prepared to risk all those consequences for war, when there still may be other solutions available that haven't been tried, or tried hard enough? That's what I'm talking about, which you would have known if you had actually been following my line of argumentation from the beginning rather than jumping on one thread and assuming you knew my whole position from it.

I refer you back to your original post: War Supporters Should be Proud! As far as jumping into one thread: I offered you the opportunity in my post to admit some things about the USA that are demonstratbly true and instead you accused the USA of even more and suggested that the USA was not an IDEAL of any kind. That is flat out not true and you join that ranks of liberal America hating Americans.

[Gracchus]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."--Samuel Johnson

:bonk:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Eireann, if you want to protest war that's fine. Just try and remember that we are countrymen(women), and that it is our country that is the IDEAL (and if you don’t believe this than you just need to sit down and study some good old fashioned history) of freedom and liberty, even with all the mistakes we (you too) have made in her borders and abroad.
Yes, and I disagreed with you about the part that I boldfaced above. For that, you concluded I am anti-American.

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 04:19 PM
Gracchus:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."--Samuel Johnson

:bonk:

There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified and new prejudices to be opposed.
~Samuel Johnson

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 04:20 PM
Eireann:


Yes, and I disagreed with you about the part that I boldfaced above. For that, you concluded I am anti-American.

Yes. In fact, I think that your point of disagreement is arguably the very definition of what it means to be "unAmerican."

The history is there to prove that the world is better and more free because of the United States.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:19 PM
Calvinist:
I refer you back to your original post: War Supporters Should be Proud! As far as jumping into one thread: I offered you the opportunity in my post to admit some things about the USA that are demonstratbly true and instead you accused the USA of even more and suggested that the USA was not an IDEAL of any kind. That is flat out not true and you join that ranks of liberal America hating Americans.

Okay, here was my response wherein you claim I "accused the USA of even more and suggested that the USA was not an IDEAL of any kind." Kindly, point out these "accusations against the US," please, because I'm looking awfully hard and not finding any. And point out how saying the US is not THE IDEAL, but is instead a subjective ideal equates to saying the US is not "an IDEAL of any kind."

From TOL:

Re: Re: The War supporters should feel proud!

Originally posted by Calvinist
I thought you had more common sense than you demonstrate here by the way you have spun this story.
And how exactly have I spun this story? Showing war supporters in positions of power abusing that power in a very real instance? That's not a spin. It's an expose.


As a soldier, this makes me sick. I hope you are not an American given that we seem to have more than enough anit-American citizens right now.

You know what is making me sick? People accusing anyone who is against the war of being anti-American.


Eireann, if you want to protest war that's fine. Just try and remember that we are countrymen(women), and that it is our country that is the IDEAL

According to whom? According to Americans. And this is an objective determination ... how? I think a good many people from a good many nations would disagree. There are a lot of countries that don't have the same kind of government we do, and they're doing just fine. I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-elitist. This "we're holier than the rest of thou" attitude many right-wingers show is a big bunch of hooey.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:28 PM
Calvinist:



Yes. In fact, I think that your point of disagreement is arguably the very definition of what it means to be "unAmerican."

The history is there to prove that the world is better and more free because of the United States.
Because of things the US has done to help them, yes. Because they become carbon copies of the US, no. If the US was "THE IDEAL," as you believe, then you would have to show that our version of Democracy, our version of economic strategy, and our version of government is the only one that will lead to a good life that includes freedom and liberty everywhere else. I stand by my Sweden example as pretty solid proof that this isn't true.

You're correct that the US has helped a great many countries. But to say, as an absolute objective statement that we are "the IDEAL of liberty and freedom" has a different meaning entirely.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:28 PM
Calvinist:



Yes. In fact, I think that your point of disagreement is arguably the very definition of what it means to be unAmerican.
Funny, last time I checked, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the ideals of being American. I don't recall the Constitution or the DoI as saying that "forcing the rest of the world to conform to our form of government, economy and lifestyle" was part of the necessary ideal of being American. When did they put that in there? I sure don't remember seeing it anywhere.

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 04:37 PM
Eireann:


Because of things the US has done to help them, yes. Because they become carbon copies of the US, no. If the US was "THE IDEAL," as you believe, then you would have to show that our version of Democracy, our version of economic strategy, and our version of government is the only one that will lead to a good life that includes freedom and liberty everywhere else. I stand by my Sweden example as pretty solid proof that this isn't true.

You're correct that the US has helped a great many countries. But to say, as an absolute objective statement that we are "the IDEAL of liberty and freedom" has a different meaning entirely.

I know I am right to say this. I am also correct in say that the United States is the IDEAL of liberty. I am not the first to say this and it is true now more than it was when Tocqueville made his journey through our nation. Or were you just unaware of Tocqueville (a Frenchman)?

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or hope from its progress.
~ Alexis de Tocqueville

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 04:40 PM
Eireann:


Funny, last time I checked, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the ideals of being American. I don't recall the Constitution or the DoI as saying that "forcing the rest of the world to conform to our form of government, economy and lifestyle" was part of the necessary ideal of being American. When did they put that in there? I sure don't remember seeing it anywhere.

Let me refer you again to my initial complaint about your thread on TOL as a response to your newest rhetoric:


First of all the authorities at the mall messed up. Americans can wear t-shirts in the mall. This was a mistake.

I thought you had more common sense than you demonstrate here by the way you have spun this story.

"War supporters should be proud"? That's really cute.

As a soldier, this makes me sick. I hope you are not an American given that we seem to have more than enough anit-American citizens right now.

And NO, it’s not because they are protesting a war that they are anti-American, it's because their (most protestor) arguments raised thus far accuse the US of all kinds of nasty things. My God, some protestors are even moving their worthless bodies to Iraq to aid the Iraqis by becoming human shields. I am disgusted.

Eireann, if you want to protest war that's fine. Just try and remember that we are countrymen(women), and that it is our country that is the IDEAL (and if you don’t believe this than you just need to sit down and study some good old fashioned history) of freedom and liberty, even with all the mistakes we (you too) have made in her borders and abroad

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:50 PM
Calvinist:



I know I am right to say this. I am also correct in say that the United States is the IDEAL of liberty. I am not the first to say this and it is true now more than it was when Tocqueville made his journey through our nation. Or were you just unaware of Tocqueville (a Frenchman)?

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or hope from its progress.
~ Alexis de Tocqueville
And how does one man writing in the early 19th century about a nation and government that doesn't even resemble the current nation and government speak for the entire modern world?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 04:52 PM
Calvinist:



Let me refer you again to my initial complaint about your thread on TOL as a response to your newest rhetoric:


Kudos to you for being able to repeat yourself ad nauseum. Again, all you've done is repeated the point that I disagreed with, that we are absolutely THE IDEAL (objective statement). One doesn't prove a claim by repeating it ad nauseum. One proves it by providing support (sorry, but a 19th century frenchman writing before our modern government existed, before most the Amendments were written, and who died before the Civil War even started, isn't support for your claim). For that matter, if you hold forth Tocqueville as a support for the American ideal, then you advocate the ideal he witnessed, which included the enslavery of the African-Americans, since he had been dead for several years before the Emancipation. Is that the ideal you're talking about?

[Ishmael]

03-09-2003 @ 05:04 PM
Eireann:


Kudos to you for being able to repeat yourself ad nauseum. Again, all you've done is repeated the point that I disagreed with, that we are absolutely THE IDEAL (objective statement). One doesn't prove a claim by repeating it ad nauseum. One proves it by providing support (sorry, but a 19th century frenchman writing before our modern government existed, before most the Amendments were written, and who died before the Civil War even started, isn't support for your claim). For that matter, if you hold forth Tocqueville as a support for the American ideal, then you advocate the ideal he witnessed, which included the enslavery of the African-Americans, since he had been dead for several years before the Emancipation. Is that the ideal you're talking about?

Maybe you were also unaware that Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the slavery "revolution"?? :rofl: You are not very well educated are you? Just a drum beating liberal.

[Gracchus]

Reasons for Going to War with Iraq

1. It would give U.S. oil companies a chance to make some big bucks.
2. Control of that much oil would give the U.S. more leverage to make other countries "see it our way".
3. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the sinking economy.
4. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from corporate corruption.
5. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the erosion of civil rights.
6. It would insure that we experience new terrorist attacks, which would be a good excuse for emergency suspension of the Bill of Rights.
7. It would give justification for branding any criticism of administration policy as treason.
8. It would insure increased profits for defense contractors.
9. The U.S. could replace Saddam Hussein with a puppet who would have to depend on us to protect him from his own people.
10. It would insure that a sizable portion of our armed forces would receive only the news as reported by "Stars and Stripes" and the "Armed Forces Radio Network".
11. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the war in Korea.
12. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the war in Afghanistan.
13. It would give the U.S. a good reason to test our own weapons of mass destruction.

If you can think of other reasons, please feel free to add to the list.

GO TEAM!
::yipee: :hrm: :huh: :eek:

[Ishmael]

Dear Eirean:

I am quitting now because I see that it is futile speaking with you. You seem to have the education of a idealistic teenage girl and the rationality of a rock when it comes to this issue. Keep medicating.

Calvinist

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 05:08 PM
Calvinist:



Maybe you were also unaware that Alexis de Tocqueville predicted the slavery "revolution"?? :rofl: You are not very well educated are you? Just a drum beating liberal.
Well, make up your mind. Did he advocate the ideal that he "witnessed?" Or did he advocate a possible ideal that he predicted could happen in the future? You're all over the board here. And your ad hominem attacks aren't adding to your credibility any.

For the record, I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate. But since you only know my stand on one of many issues, you wouldn't know that, would you? But, since you apparently think you have some special power of discernment, it doesn't surprise me that you think you know.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-09-2003 @ 05:16 PM
Calvinist:

Dear Eirean:

I am quitting now because I see that it is futile speaking with you. You seem to have the education of a idealistic teenage girl and the rationality of a rock when it comes to this issue. Keep medicating.

Calvinist
I'm not surprised. I guess you're not used to people who actually think and actually expect you to support an argument as opposed to merely repeating it ad nauseum ("There's no place like home, click, there's no place like home, click, there's no place like home, click) in the hopes that if you say it enough times it will give it validity. When you come back, hopefully you will have an argument that doesn't sound like it was scripted by L. Frank Baum.

EDIT: Although this was in response to a very rude post, I edited out my own rudeness in response. I was wrong to respond to rudeness with rudeness, and for that I apologize. This post has been altered to remove that. Some may still consider the last remark somewhat rude, but it isn't intended that way.

[Alden]

03-09-2003 @ 03:11 PM
Gracchus:


If you can think of other reasons, please feel free to add to the list.



You forgot "It would give the left something to rant about."

[wienerdog]

Is the rant fest over? Oh goody!

Powell's evidences directly linked al-Qaeda with Iraq. Moreover, Iraq's links with terrorism in general is significant, since the USA didn't declare war on al-Qaeda, but on all terrorist groups.

The problem I have with saying that Powell's evidences must not be true because the current administration has lied or been mistaken before is that it doesn't interact with the particular evidence being put forth. I mean, I could say that about anything. For example: the government lies (nobody denies that, do they?) and so therefore the moon landings were faked. Of course, there are conspiracy theorists who say precisely this, but no one takes them seriously, nor should they.

[flipper]

Wienerdog:

Powell's evidences directly linked al-Qaeda with Iraq.

Maybe I missed this. What evidence are you talking about, specifically?

The recent justification of war because of material breach has been rather weak. If the final straw used as an excuse to propel us into conflict is going to be the fact that Iraq owns an illegal drone aircraft, then I don't think we can expect much sympathy from elsewhere in the world.

So, the reasons given to go to war with Iraq are that the Iraqis sponsor terrorism, that they have illegal WMD programs, that they might attack Israel, that they are in breach of UN resolutions, and that they plan unspecified harm against the US.

So here are the facts:

Fact: Syria is not only sponsoring hesbollah, it is giving it free rein, when it suits Syria, to strike Israeli targets.

Fact: North Korea has directly threatened the US with the promise of a declaration of war on two occasions, and with nuclear war waged against it on three, that I am aware of.

Fact: Israel is in breech of a wide number of UN resolutions, but has not received any kind of diplomatic sanction from the US.

Fact: Iran has a massive and sophisticated nuclear enrichment program that is completely illegal under the non proliferation treaty to which they are signatories.

The US response to Iraq seems strange, in light of the above.

[wienerdog]

The evidence is on page 2 of this thread. It's a fairly long quote of Powell's speech before the UN last month. The rest of his speech (which I could post if anybody really wants me to) deals with Iraq's violations and their significance.

All of your facts are well taken. But apart from Israel, Bush referred to all of these countries (I think) as part of the axis of evil a long time ago. I wouldn't be surprised if we went after these countries soon. But we're not obligated to go after all of them simultaneously. It's not hypocritical to go after them one at a time, or go after one of them first because of strategic reasons. I argued earlier that part of the reason for the focus on Iraq may be that it will geographically disconnect Syria from Iran, and thus interrupt the terrorist organization framework.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-10-2003 @ 08:38 PM
wienerdog:

The evidence is on page 2 of this thread. It's a fairly long quote of Powell's speech before the UN last month. The rest of his speech (which I could post if anybody really wants me to) deals with Iraq's violations and their significance.

All of your facts are well taken. But apart from Israel, Bush referred to all of these countries (I think) as part of the axis of evil a long time ago. I wouldn't be surprised if we went after these countries soon. But we're not obligated to go after all of them simultaneously. It's not hypocritical to go after them one at a time, or go after one of them first because of strategic reasons. I argued earlier that part of the reason for the focus on Iraq may be that it will geographically disconnect Syria from Iran, and thus interrupt the terrorist organization framework.
That's possible. Do you suppose that when we do get around to going after those other nations that sponsor terrorism, that Israel will be one of the nations we target? Somehow, I don't see that happening, and then a charge of hypocrisy will be justified.

[wienerdog]

Sorry, my bad. The "apart from Israel" phrase was meant to apply to the whole paragraph.

The whole Israel issue should probably have its own thread. For our present purposes, it was argued earlier that our support for Israel belies the whole "war for oil" argument. I don't remember how, so maybe those who presented it could offer some arguments.

[Vorkosigan]

03-11-2003 @ 02:09 AM
wienerdog:
Is the rant fest over? Oh goody!
Powell's evidences directly linked al-Qaeda with Iraq. Moreover, Iraq's links with terrorism in general is significant, since the USA didn't declare war on al-Qaeda, but on all terrorist groups.


Even if Powell has linked Al-qaeda to Iraq, which the Administration certainly has not done -- although certain gullible types appear to think so -- it does not follow that thousands of Iraqis must be murdered to stop them. That is ethically indefensible.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

03-11-2003 @ 02:38 AM
wienerdog:

argued earlier that part of the reason for the focus on Iraq may be that it will geographically disconnect Syria from Iran, and thus interrupt the terrorist organization framework.

Nonsense. The terrorists do not suffer from geographical restrictions. The attack on Iraq is to acquire the oil resources to break up OPEC, and acquire a land position to move against Iran, Bush already set Iran up in the State of the Union Address. The long-term goal is breaking up the Asian anti-US moslem nations so that gas pipelines can run to and fro across Asia, Iraq is just an innocent victim in that perspective. The pipeline system is the reason we went after Afghanistan, which was not only a major supplier of natural gas, but also the land route for the pipelines between central Asian gas and China and India. That was why the Bush Administration was so eager to get on Enron's case for corporate shenanigans, to hide the even greater crime of triggering the invasion of Afghanistan to service Enron's gas plant in India -- the Taliban was in Washington in August just before 9/11, negotiating for pipelines, but held out for too much and the deal wasn't made.

This is of course why the US has not protested Chinese treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang very seriously. Because, well, after all, they are muslims, and Xinjiang is of course where the gas pipelines will come through.

Gas is also an issue in the N Korean situation. The NKoreans are interested in gas from Siberia, but the pipeline construction contracts are held by US-controlled corporations who need Washington's permission.

The hardest thing to see is what hasn't happened. And in this case, the thing that hasn't happened is war elsewhere in Central Asia. This is because the US has quietly managed to establish a presence in those nations, without fuss. Iraq is merely the very noisy tip of a very large iceberg extending far back into history, the Great Game in Asia, which commenced in the 8th century when the Arabs beat the Chinese at the Battle of the Talus River and ensured that Asia would be Islamic rather than Buddhist or Confucian.

Additional motivations for Iraq are to keep Bush in office for another 4 years, and sundry other things. Of course, there are the fat contracts -- did you see how Haliburton, Cheney's company, has already put in for a $900 million reconstruction of Iraq contract? That's enough money to pay the tuition of half the grad students in the nation, or build 90 new schools, or repave 300 miles of highway, or.....you get the drift. Not a bad deal for the Administration: get a war, stay in office, and make a killing (so to speak) on the whole package, all at taxpayer expense.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Lets take this in a different direction. Pretend, Eirann or Vorkosigan, you are George Bush. You were born wealthy, and through your business dealings have made it abundantly clear your primarary concern in life is not money. And your daddy was in the oil business, you don't really hold for these wacky enviromental types, and you know oil, gas, and other such companies will give you money to help you get reelected. Why? Because no matter what your better than those darned liberals. You have them by the short and curlies, as your frat buddies used to say. So why would you start a potentially disastrous war that could cost you your job, and has made everyone pretty much hate you, just to please these people?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-11-2003 @ 12:36 PM
Ryokan:

Lets take this in a different direction. Pretend, Eirann or Vorkosigan, you are George Bush. You were born wealthy, and through your business dealings have made it abundantly clear your primarary concern in life is not money.
What business dealing would those be? George W. Bush's dealings in and with the oil industry long predate his run for office.

And your daddy was in the oil business, you don't really hold for these wacky enviromental types, and you know oil, gas, and other such companies will give you money to help you get reelected. Why? Because no matter what your better than those darned liberals. You have them by the short and curlies, as your frat buddies used to say. So why would you start a potentially disastrous war that could cost you your job, and has made everyone pretty much hate you, just to please these people?
I've said before that this war is about a number of things, but there are a few things the government says that I don't buy:

1. I don't buy that it is about American idealism, because we've been ignoring too many other blatant instances of human rights violations.

2. I don't buy that it is about protecting American soil, because Saddam has made no threats against America.

3. I don't buy the argument that oil is not one of the important factors behind this war. I didn't say it is the only factor, but several of you are claiming it's not a factor at all, which is complete BS.

[Ryokan]

I am not saying its not an important factor, but I am saying that I don't believe it is the only factor. It is an attempt, for better or for worse, to restructure the world order into something more favorable to the US, trade and security wise. Iraq is going to be made an example of. You either connect with the world, or you are removed from it.

[Ryokan]

And bush WAS in the oil business. He couldn't exploit that now, with out a watergate or white water type scandal. And he collected money from oil companies. He didn't really do any work. Not his style, at least at the time. He put much more time and effort into baseball.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-11-2003 @ 01:08 PM
Ryokan:

I am not saying its not an important factor, but I am saying that I don't believe it is the only factor. It is an attempt, for better or for worse, to restructure the world order into something more favorable to the US, trade and security wise. Iraq is going to be made an example of. You either connect with the world, or you are removed from it.
I agree 100%. Now if the rest of the war supporters would be as honest. There are people on both sides who are trying to make it an all-or-nothing issue: pro-war people saying it's not at all about oil, and anti-war people saying it's entirely about oil. Both sides are wrong, I think.

[Gracchus]

03-11-2003 @ 06:36 PM
Ryokan:

So why would you start a potentially disastrous war that could cost you your job, and has made everyone pretty much hate you, just to please these people?

"I don't care if they hate me, as long as they fear me." Gaius (Caligula) Caesar

Reasons for Going to War with Iraq

1. It would give U.S. oil companies a chance to make some big bucks.
2. Control of that much oil would give the U.S. more leverage to make other countries "see it our way".
3. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the sinking economy.
4. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from corporate corruption. :dunce:
5. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the erosion of civil rights.
6. It would insure that we experience new terrorist attacks, which would be a good excuse for emergency suspension of the Bill of Rights.
7. It would give justification for branding any criticism of administration policy as unpatriotic, even treason. :bonk:
8. It would insure increased profits for defense contractors.
9. The U.S. could replace Saddam Hussein with a puppet who would have to depend on us to protect him from his own people.
10. It would insure that a sizable portion of our armed forces overseas would receive only the news as reported by "Stars and Stripes" and the "Armed Forces Radio Network". (At need we could bring them home to suppress civil insurrection. Hail, Caesar!)
11. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the war in Korea.
12. It would give the U.S. something to divert its attention from the war in Afghanistan.
13. It would give the U.S. a good reason to test our own weapons of mass destruction. :yipee: :bonk: :yipee:
14. It would give U.S. oil companies a chance to make big bucks.
15. It would cause all the knee-jerk "patriots' to rally round the flag. :yipee:
16. It would give U.S. oil companies a chance to make big bucks. :yipee:
17. It would tighten the hold big money has on U.S. politics. :thumb:
18. It would give U.S. oil companies a chance to make big bucks.

[Ryokan]

of course, it is obvious that we should go to war with those reasons, especially since every single person who is in the adminstration is completely and unrepentantly evil, the american political system has failed past hope of redemption, and every war supporter is evil, stupid, or both.
If you truly believe that, why haven't you fulfilled your patriotic duty by taking up arms against the evil and corrupt regime you and your fellow citizens languish under?

[Ryokan]

I am glad we can agree Eireann

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-11-2003 @ 01:45 PM
Ryokan:

I am glad we can agree Eireann
I think we've agreed on a number of things in the past. Since I'm a moderate, I will agree at times with both the liberals and the conservatives. And since I'm loyal to no party, I can agree at times with the Repubs and the Dems, and anyone else at one time or another.

[Ryokan]

Alotta of people, like me, have lost sight of the many commonalities between the sides in this debate. Emotions are running very high. :(

[Gracchus]

03-11-2003 @ 07:28 PM
Ryokan:

of course, it is obvious that we should go to war with those reasons, especially since every single person who is in the adminstration is completely and unrepentantly evil, the american political system has failed past hope of redemption, and every war supporter is evil, stupid, or both.

It is you who said it.

If you truly believe that, why haven't you fulfilled your patriotic duty by taking up arms against the evil and corrupt regime you and your fellow citizens languish under?

I try to to hold to the principles of Mohandas Gandhi. But I have little hope that the plutocracy will listen to reason. They are blinded by their own greed. Even so, the "Patriot Act" indicates that the administration is starting to be afraid, even in their arrogance. They have successfully and openly stolen a national election, but uneasy rests the head that wears the crown.
It may come to blood. You won't like it if it does. It will rip apart ties of love and family. It will transcend national boundaries. Blood will flow in rivers, and tears will fill seas. It would make the 1861 Civil War a pleasant walk in the park. The longer it is in coming, the more blood will flow. And worst of all, no good will come of it. The fall of the Bastille is followed by the terror, the October Revolution, by the purges.

Cave Iram Dei

[wienerdog]

It has been said here that the evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda is weak. The evidence is given by Powell on a post on the second page of this thread. Please at least interact with this evidence before dismissing it as bogus. I am very open (I think) to following the evidence where it leads. But the evidence he gave seems valid to me, and I have not seen any refutation of it, other than ad hominem fallacies.

I would again point out that IF THIS EVIDENCE IS VALID it provides the USA with sufficient grounds for forcibly dismantling Iraq's WMD program. And before we start getting into Bush's ulterior motives (oops, too late), please read the following article:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030310

It was said that it is nonsense to think that taking Iraq out of the picture would disrupt the terrorist organizations that move throughout the Middle East, particularly Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I think this is naive. Of course, they don't depend on geopolitics by necessity, but the fact of the matter is that they currently do. To cut Syria off from Iran seems to be a valid strategic motivation.

As long as a connection can be made between Iraq and terrorists who want to kill Americans, and have, it is a valid target for the sake of national security. To say that "Iraq never attacked us" doesn't really say much. Kosovo never attacked us, but that didn't stop Clinton from going over the UN's collective head and the only people who protested against that intervention were the Republicans who did so out of partisan motivations.

At any rate, it's not a simple issue, and to imply that the other side is stupid or biased is unjustified.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

From the excerpt from Powells speech: "Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."
This is exactly the sort of hand-waving I've been talking about. "According to an Al Qaeda source" ... "a detained Al Qaeda member tells us" ... Who? Where is the transcript of these interviews? Where is the video and audio recording of these interviews? Since they're detainees, there is no need to protect their identity for fear of having their cover in the field blown? The fact that these are people they could easily tell us about, but won't, tells me this is just more hand-waving.

[Gracchus]

Where is the video and audio recording of these interviews?

Maybe they don't look too good after their "debriefings"? :bonk:

[wienerdog]

Well, I just don't think we're in a position to say that these sources are false. As far as I know, none of the UN members challenged their validity, they just challenged what the best response to the information was. At any rate, to just say "I don't believe it" doesn't really advance the discussion, does it? You could say that about anything.

No offense. This is a pretty serious issue, and I don't want to say "Hey everybody! Let's have a war!" if there isn't some kind of evidence that refraining from going to war would be a greater injustice than the war itself. At this point, I think there are at least some grounds that this might be the case, but of course, I'd rather we didn't go to war. I am sane, after all. :dufus:

[Vorkosigan]

03-11-2003 @ 06:36 PM
Ryokan:

Lets take this in a different direction. Pretend, Eirann or Vorkosigan, you are George Bush. You were born wealthy, and through your business dealings have made it abundantly clear your primarary concern in life is not money. And your daddy was in the oil business, you don't really hold for these wacky enviromental types, and you know oil, gas, and other such companies will give you money to help you get reelected. Why? Because no matter what your better than those darned liberals. You have them by the short and curlies, as your frat buddies used to say. So why would you start a potentially disastrous war that could cost you your job, and has made everyone pretty much hate you, just to please these people?

Why wouldn't you, if you can make tons of money, get yourself re-elected, and further extend US power? Not to mention make tons of money, and break OPEC. And make money too. This is hardly the only pro-oil aspect of Bush policy. There's the Alaskan drilling, the hydrogen initiative, and many others. Federal research into renewables has been slashed, etc, etc. Bush has signaled that much needed change isn't going to happen on his watch.

Also I suspect that Bush may well be one of those religious nuts who think the world is going to end soon, and hopes to trigger armageddon in the Middle East a la Hal Lindsey. His religious views are certainly informing this decision, and not for the better.

Since Al-Qaeda and Iraq have no connection -- Bin Laden hates Iraq, which is a secular Arab state -- the reason the Administration has offered is absured. Nothing has changed on the inspections front, and there is no need to bomb Iraq and murder thousands of Iraqis because the inspections have "failed" -- Iraq has no weapons, and the inspections regime is a success. So what's the hurry? Obviously, oil, re-election, etc, are the driving forces here.

Vorkosigan

[wienerdog]

Volkswagen,

Please read the article I linked to above.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-11-2003 @ 05:48 PM
wienerdog:

Volkswagen,

Please read the article I linked to above.
Well, I can't speak for Vorkosigan (I hope he realizes that he'll probably be called "Volkswagen" from here forward), but I read the article, and while it is a nice piece of rhetoric and slant, and it is well thought out, it still doesn't address the one major key issue we continue to raise -- the investigators have still failed to turn up any evidence that Saddam still maintains and produces WMD. The whole pro-war agenda is predicated on the heretofor unsupported notion that Saddam still has WMD. Until something substantial can be shown, the war agenda is based not on evidence but on someone's gut instinct.

Yes, Clinton asked, "What if he doesn't comply" and disarm? And now we are at a state where we might go into a war that will cost thousands of lives, for a hunch. But have you asked yourselves this question: what if we go to war, kill thousands of innocent people, only to find out that he had complied and that he doesn't have the WMD we feared. What will you say then? Oh well, too bad, so sad.

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 01:21 AM
Eireann:


Well, I can't speak for Vorkosigan (I hope he realizes that he'll probably be called "Volkswagen" from here forward), but I read the article, and while it is a nice piece of rhetoric and slant, and it is well thought out, it still doesn't address the one major key issue we continue to raise -- the investigators have still failed to turn up any evidence that Saddam still maintains and produces WMD.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2078992/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45102-2003Feb21&notFound=true

I've heard that an Iraqi drone capable of biological/chemical attacks has been located, which (if true) would confirm another portion of Powell's presentation.

Okay, found it:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/10/174554.shtml


The whole pro-war agenda is predicated on the heretofor unsupported notion that Saddam still has WMD. Until something substantial can be shown, the war agenda is based not on evidence but on someone's gut instinct.


It's predicated on that, and on the requirement that Iraq cooperate with the inspectors. Even Blix frankly admits that Iraqi cooperation has been lacking. Iraq knows how inspections work. Why do you suppose that they expelled UN inspectors last decade?


Yes, Clinton asked, "What if he doesn't comply" and disarm? And now we are at a state where we might go into a war that will cost thousands of lives, for a hunch.


And it will probably save thousands more. Again, see reports of displaced Iraqis hoping to return to their Saddam-ravaged nation when and if a war occurs.


But have you asked yourselves this question: what if we go to war, kill thousands of innocent people, only to find out that he had complied and that he doesn't have the WMD we feared. What will you say then? Oh well, too bad, so sad.

That would be very surprising, imo, given Saddam Hussein's history. The Iraqis who leave Iraq and tell us of Saddam's atrocities must be, on balance, a pack of liars?
Shoe on other foot, what will you say if Saddam uses WOMD to defend Iraq from invasion? Evil U.S. forced his hand?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-11-2003 @ 07:53 PM
Captain Ochre:Why do you suppose that they expelled UN inspectors last decade?
They weren't expelled, and that is one of the arguments that is so thoroughly discrediting the whole pro-war side. The inspectors themselves say they were never expelled or in any other way coerced into leaving. They left of their own accord, because they were getting nervous that some Iraqis were suspecting them of espionage and spying, a perfectly understandable complaint.

And it will probably save thousands more. Again, see reports of displaced Iraqis hoping to return to their Saddam-ravaged nation when and if a war occurs.
Interesting that when a slanted journalist wants to show how horrible life is, he will always find those Iraqis who have a bone to pick with Saddam. Likewise, when a slanted journalist wants to show that the pro-war propaganda is just propaganda, he will always find those Iraqis who say that our media portrayals are terrible exaggerations. Interesting, too, that the former will never interview the latter, and the latter will never interview the former. Point being, if you want to find a source that will provide a particular slant, they are always in good supply.

That would be very surprising, imo, given Saddam Hussein's history. The Iraqis who leave Iraq and tell us of Saddam's atrocities must be, on balance, a pack of liars? Shoe on other foot, what will you say if Saddam uses WOMD to defend Iraq from invasion? Evil U.S. forced his hand?
That wasn't an answer. What would you say if you discovered that Bush's hunch is wrong?

The Iraqis who leave Iraq and tell us of Saddam's atrocities must be, on balance, a pack of liars?
What about the Iraqis who leave Iraq and tell us just the opposite? Must they be the liars, then, sent here to discredit Bush? There are opposing stories coming from Iraqis in America. Who is lying, who is telling the truth? Who knows? But when all we have to go on is rhetoric coming from a thousand different directions, it is safest to rely on actual evidence and let the inspectors continue to do their jobs. And actual evidence is severely lacking.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I've heard that an Iraqi drone capable of biological/chemical attacks has been located, which (if true) would confirm another portion of Powell's presentation.

Okay, found it:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...10/174554.shtml
That is just about the most blatantly and incredibly slanted piece of journalism I've read yet. It resonates very similar to the dead-end "smoking gun" they had a few weeks ago, when they found some old missiles and started an international scare because they "could potentially carry biochemical warheads." That one turned out to be a dud, because it was later discovered that there was no trace of chemical weapons found in the warheads. This sounds strikingly similar to that. Still, if the weapon does prove to hold biochemical weapons, that would mark the first time since this all began that they actually found something, which will put the war in a whole new light. For now, I'll reserve judgement until "could" becomes "does."

[Gracchus]

And why would Iraq need or use WMD's? It's not as though it was going to be invaded by a major power.

Jonah 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

I wonder why he didn't bless our valiant warmakers? :ponder:

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 03:46 AM
Eireann:


They weren't expelled, and that is one of the arguments that is so thoroughly discrediting the whole pro-war side. The inspectors themselves say they were never expelled or in any other way coerced into leaving. They left of their own accord, because they were getting nervous that some Iraqis were suspecting them of espionage and spying, a perfectly understandable complaint.


Actually they were ordered out by their superior, Richard Butler, who cited the uncooperative attitude of the Iraqi government. That song remains the same, apparently.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-iraq03.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/block1297.htm
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/butler3.html

It is important to note, I think, that the issue of how the inspectors departed doesn't change the basic issue. Why do you think that Iraq failed to cooperate fully with the earlier inspectors?


Interesting that when a slanted journalist wants to show how horrible life is, he will always find those Iraqis who have a bone to pick with Saddam. Likewise, when a slanted journalist wants to show that the pro-war propaganda is just propaganda, he will always find those Iraqis who say that our media portrayals are terrible exaggerations. Interesting, too, that the former will never interview the latter, and the latter will never interview the former. Point being, if you want to find a source that will provide a particular slant, they are always in good supply.


Actually, it's not that interesting.


That wasn't an answer. What would you say if you discovered that Bush's hunch is wrong?


"Bush's hunch"? Is that your imitation of a biased journalist?
My answer was at least as good as yours. :smile:
I would say:
"Well, at least we ousted a despot hated by the majority of his own people."
"This should diminish the likelihood that Kuwait will be invaded again."
If France, Germany, and Russia come to their senses, I'll also say:
"It's nice that the UN Security Council proved that their bark has some bite behind it. Let North Korea take note."
Now, what would you say if WOMD are deployed by Iraq?


What about the Iraqis who leave Iraq and tell us just the opposite? Must they be the liars, then, sent here to discredit Bush?


Maybe they merely have family back in Iraq, and fear for their safety, or maybe they're part of the favored religious sect in Iraq and literally favor the present regime.
I can't remember whether or not George W. Bush founded Amnesty International (:smile:), but you may find value in this piece.
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140101999?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ


There are opposing stories coming from Iraqis in America.


For example?


Who is lying, who is telling the truth? Who knows? But when all we have to go on is rhetoric coming from a thousand different directions, it is safest to rely on actual evidence and let the inspectors continue to do their jobs. And actual evidence is severely lacking.

And the Iraqis are continuing their pattern of uncooperation, since the UN is demonstrating that the 'cooperate or else' threat was empty. Hussein, as I understand it, has contingency deals with France, Germany and (surprise) Russia to divvy up oilfields once sanctions are lifted.
What else do those nations have in common, I wonder?:hrm:

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 03:59 AM
Eireann:


That is just about the most blatantly and incredibly slanted piece of journalism I've read yet. It resonates very similar to the dead-end "smoking gun" they had a few weeks ago, when they found some old missiles and started an international scare because they "could potentially carry biochemical warheads." That one turned out to be a dud, because it was later discovered that there was no trace of chemical weapons found in the warheads. This sounds strikingly similar to that. Still, if the weapon does prove to hold biochemical weapons, that would mark the first time since this all began that they actually found something, which will put the war in a whole new light. For now, I'll reserve judgement until "could" becomes "does."

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the find would corroborate Powell's presentation.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-11-2003 @ 11:21 PM
Captain Ochre:



You seem to be overlooking the fact that the find would corroborate Powell's presentation.
How is that? Unless it is discovered that the bomb is carrying chemical submunitions, it doesn't corroborate anything. It's certainly not the first time that inspectors have found weapons. Iraq wasn't ordered to completely disarm. They were ordered to completely disarm of certain catagories of weapons. Cluster bombs can carry any number of different kinds of submunitions, and the chemical sort is but one of them. So, until they open the thing up and find out what kind of payload it is equipped with, it's a bit early to be jumping to conclusions. Of course, for many of the pro-war side, jumping to conclusions has become second nature. I would caution you against being one of those numbers. By the same token, I would caution anti-war protestors against jumping to the conclusion that it's nothing, either. Simply wait until there is more information to go on than simply "they found a cluster bomb."

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 05:50 AM
Eireann:


How is that? Unless it is discovered that the bomb is carrying chemical submunitions, it doesn't corroborate anything. It's certainly not the first time that inspectors have found weapons. Iraq wasn't ordered to completely disarm. They were ordered to completely disarm of certain catagories of weapons. Cluster bombs can carry any number of different kinds of submunitions, and the chemical sort is but one of them. So, until they open the thing up and find out what kind of payload it is equipped with, it's a bit early to be jumping to conclusions. Of course, for many of the pro-war side, jumping to conclusions has become second nature. I would caution you against being one of those numbers. By the same token, I would caution anti-war protestors against jumping to the conclusion that it's nothing, either. Simply wait until there is more information to go on than simply "they found a cluster bomb."

Uh, the drone.

[flipper]

Wienerdog wrote:

The evidence is on page 2 of this thread. It's a fairly long quote of Powell's speech before the UN last month.

Well, it is evidence that's rather on the level of "Colin Powell says so."

If I recall rightly, the CIA recently denied contradicted the adminstration that Al Qaeda had been meeting with Iraqis, and forgive me for remembering this from Gulf War I:

http://www.whodies.com/gulf_war.html

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030105Marshall.html

No, but by all means, suck them down and ask for more. Believe unconditionally everything your government tells you. After all, they're appointed by God, right? They're your boys, Conservatives, right? They're not like that lying hound Clinton...

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 12:29 AM
Captain Ochre:



Uh, the drone.
Ah yes, the drone ... which also doesn't amount to anything unless chemical weapons are discovered. The article you provided, with its blatant slant stressed heavily that a drone can carry biological and chemical weapons. What the author failed to mention, because it didn't serve his slant, is that drones can carry just about any kind of weapon, limited of course by its size and payload capacity. So, the discovery of a drone that can as easily carry conventional weapons as other kinds, doesn't amount to very much.

[Gracchus]

Working my way through the posts of all you fine upright warmongering "Christians" makes me want to VOMIT.

[Socrates]

Gracchus ranted :rant::

Working my way through the posts of all you fine upright warmongering "Christians" makes me want to VOMIT.Vomit over your own clothes, not here. Seeing pathetic "pacifistic" terrorist-condoning God-haters like you makes me want to give you a one-way ticket to Iraq.

[Solly]

03-12-2003 @ 12:08 PM
Socrates:
Working my way through the posts of all you fine upright warmongering "Christians" makes me want to VOMIT.[/list]Vomit over your own clothes, not here. Seeing pathetic "pacifistic" terrorist-condoning God-haters like you makes me want to give you a one-way ticket to Iraq.

Socrates, just remember that we are not necessarily pacifists. We just oppose this military intervention by the US. I supported the Gulf War, but not this one, and find it hard to take the line: "our national interest", from a country on the other side of the world to Iraq.

[Solly]

Socrates: Seeing pathetic "pacifistic" terrorist-condoning God-haters like you makes me want to give you a one-way ticket to Iraq.
It's this kind of argumentation that puts everyone else's hackles up.

[Vorkosigan]

've heard that an Iraqi drone capable of biological/chemical attacks has been located, which (if true) would confirm another portion of Powell's presentation.

There's hardly anything that can't be used to "carry out" a biological attack. A pizza would do just fine, if it is infected. The issue is not whether something is "capable" of biological or chemical attacks, but whether the owner possesses such weapons -- for which there is no evidence -- and whether the owner has intent to use them -- for which there is no evidence. Powell's presentation amounted to "believe me because I am Colin Powell." That ain't enough justification for murdering thousands of people.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 01:52 PM
Vorkosigan:

've heard that an Iraqi drone capable of biological/chemical attacks has been located, which (if true) would confirm another portion of Powell's presentation.

There's hardly anything that can't be used to "carry out" a biological attack. A pizza would do just fine, if it is infected. The issue is not whether something is "capable" of biological or chemical attacks, but whether the owner possesses such weapons -- for which there is no evidence --


. . . which brings us back to the fact that Iraq hasn't cooperated fully with weapons inspectors. Chemical weapons are some of the easiest to hide, and the documents provided by the Iraqis have been judged inconsistent.
"Okay, can't find any! You win, Saddam! Cya! Don't worry about the UN resolution! We were only kidding about the consequences for lack of cooperation!"


and whether the owner has intent to use them -- for which there is no evidence.


No evidence, or no evidence of which you are aware?


Powell's presentation amounted to "believe me because I am Colin Powell." That ain't enough justification for murdering thousands of people.


And why should I believe you? Are you Colin Powell?
:huh:

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 07:07 AM
Eireann:


Ah yes, the drone ... which also doesn't amount to anything unless chemical weapons are discovered. The article you provided, with its blatant slant stressed heavily that a drone can carry biological and chemical weapons. What the author failed to mention, because it didn't serve his slant, is that drones can carry just about any kind of weapon, limited of course by its size and payload capacity. So, the discovery of a drone that can as easily carry conventional weapons as other kinds, doesn't amount to very much.

It amounts to yet another violation of the limitations placed on Iraq's military hardware, depending on the range of the drone. IOW, they've got something they shouldn't have, something forbidden by the resolutions passed over a decade ago, and something that they've denied having (having claimed compliance with UN resolutions).

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 10:28 AM
Captain Ochre:



It amounts to yet another violation of the limitations placed on Iraq's military hardware, depending on the range of the drone. IOW, they've got something they shouldn't have, something forbidden by the resolutions passed over a decade ago, and something that they've denied having (having claimed compliance with UN resolutions).
The only contention they have with the drone is with the possible range of the thing. Strictly speaking, even if it is capable of going beyond the 93-mile limit, it is not a violation of UN resolutions, because a drone is not a weapon. It is nothing more than a remote-controlled airplane. The US considers it a weapon because it is capable of carrying weapon payloads. So is a car or a truck or a regular manned airplane. Are we going to put a limit of 93-mile capacity on such vehicles as those? No. Hence, the no-fly zone. Finding an empty drone on the ground inside Iraqi territory amounts to nothing in and of itself. Finding one buzzing around in a no-fly zone would amount to something.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

. . . which brings us back to the fact that Iraq hasn't cooperated fully with weapons inspectors. Chemical weapons are some of the easiest to hide, and the documents provided by the Iraqis have been judged inconsistent.

Inconsistent based on a hunch. Since there is no empirical proof of what the totality of Iraq's arsenal was, then there is no way of saying unequivocally that the documents aren't accurate. This amounts to "we think you might have had more than you say you had." Sorry, but you want us to go to war because of what you "think" they might have had?

Not all of us are pacifists, but what most of the other wars have had in common that this one lacks is that those administrations were actually able to provide evidence, not just hunches. This one has not accomplished that, so far.

[Ryokan]

sometimes, you have to act on hunches, I think. Iraq ISN'T aiding Al Queda, but it almost certainly has WMD, and several different means to deliver. And sme of us think the risk of allowing them to keep this weapons and make more is greater than the risk of invasion. Saddam is not above commiting terrorist acts, or starting wars, he just doesn't do it through proxies like Al Queda.

[Gracchus]

03-12-2003 @ 12:08 PM
Socrates:

Gracchus ranted :rant::

Working my way through the posts of all you fine upright warmongering "Christians" makes me want to VOMIT.Vomit over your own clothes, not here. Seeing pathetic "pacifistic" terrorist-condoning God-haters like you makes me want to give you a one-way ticket to Iraq.

Ahh! Socrates! I see you are still spreading the gospel of peace and love. I was perhaps, intemperate, though accurate.

War is a horrible business. Many innocents die. Children learn to hate, but forget how to laugh. It may be that war is unavoidable. Nevertheless, I abjure it. In this matter I agree with Mohandas Gandhi.

[HerodionRomulus]

Gracchus

I like your name. Are you T. Sempronius or the other brother? :wink:

[Gracchus]

03-13-2003 @ 12:07 AM
HerodionRomulus:

Gracchus

I like your name. Are you T. Sempronius or the other brother? :wink:

Tiberius, I suppose, but I admire them both. Guts in a good cause, for some strange reason, has that effect on me.

[Socrates]

I wrote:
Seeing pathetic "pacifistic" terrorist-condoning God-haters like you makes me want to give you a one-way ticket to Iraq.
Solly complained:
It's this kind of argumentation that puts everyone else's hackles up.
But he neglected to complain about what Gracchus had said:
Working my way through the posts of all you fine upright warmongering "Christians" makes me want to VOMIT.
So why one rule for me and another for him? I find the same with the creation-evolution debate. Some people whinge about my harsh comments (which are actually in line with the Biblical challenge-riposte paradigm http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html).

But I have NEVER said anything as vicious as some anti-creationist bigots have said. E.g. Free Iniquity, oops sorry, Free Inquiry talking about theistic religion as a mind virus, Daniel Dennett advocating that religions need to be kept in cages, Dawkins claiming that religious instruction is child abuse, Ian Plimer in Australia accusing a leading creationist of pederasty. Nor do YECs set up deceitful straw men like the evolutionists do, e.g. accusing us of believing in fixity of species,m denying all change over time, being blind literalists who deny any poetry or idiomatic language in Scripture.

In this specific case, Gracchus HAS shown himself to be a God-hater with his anti-Christian comments on the Science boards. And he attacked those who support war to rid Iraq of a terrorist-supporting murderous despot as "warmongers".

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 06:52 AM
flipper:

Wienerdog wrote:



Well, it is evidence that's rather on the level of "Colin Powell says so."

If I recall rightly, the CIA recently denied contradicted the adminstration that Al Qaeda had been meeting with Iraqis, and forgive me for remembering this from Gulf War I:

http://www.whodies.com/gulf_war.html

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030105Marshall.html

No, but by all means, suck them down and ask for more. Believe unconditionally everything your government tells you. After all, they're appointed by God, right? They're your boys, Conservatives, right? They're not like that lying hound Clinton...

---
Experts look again at wartime satellite photos Series: NEWS ANALYSIS
St. Petersburg Times; St. Petersburg; Sep 15, 1991; PETER D. ZIMMERMAN;
---
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/index.html?ts=1047519560

The Times won't link directly to articles, so I gave you the author and the date. You can look it up yourself.
You're just as misleading/misled as you claim others are, afaics.

[Gracchus]

As I have come to expect, Socrates, your logic is unspeakable and your understanding, indiscernable.

What anti-Christian comments have I made? Perhaps I rashly misspoke myself, or perhaps you did not understand me. I am a man of strong passions, and knowing this of myself, I take some pains to curb them. Please call any such statements of mine to my recollection, that I may apologize or explain. I believe that you may even seek redress by reporting any abusive post to the administration.

A minor point: You have on three separate occasions (I believe it was three. It was certainly two.) made the claim that I hate God. I admit the Lord and I have had our differences, but we seem to have made them up now. He does not require the impossible of me, and I ask nothing from him. I would refer you to my journal page, where I have posted my basic theology. It is public, any and all may read it, and may comment, or inquire, either publically or privately. I admit it, that's one reason I posted it, to stimulate discussion. Another reason was to minimize the need to explain myself, to those who might otherwise mistake me for a Christian. (Small chance of that!)

I have some respect for the Jesus I discern somewhat dimly in the gospels. But I cannot in honesty subscribe without reservation to either the Nicene Creed, which I used to be able to sing in Latin, or the Apostle's Creed, which I can rattle off today, without necessarily believing any doctrine it asserts. Thus, I am, as you will surely agree, definitely not a Christian.

Moreover, I am not all that impressed with Paul, whose sermons bored me during many long Sunday mornings in my youth.

I thank those who have welcomed me. And to Socrates, who seems to find me a little annoying, I hope we can broaden our understanding of each other through continued civil (not to say friendly -- I do not expect the impossible of you, as God has not demanded it of me) discourse.

In this thread, and others in this forum, I will doubtless draw some bad feeling because I am a pacifist, in principle at least, and try to emulate Mohandas Gandhi, another non-Christian. War disgusts me, and those who have unnecessary recourse to it anger me to the bounds of my patience, and sometimes certainly, a little beyond.

KJV Jonah 4:9 And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

03-12-2003 @ 07:22 PM
Socrates:
But I have NEVER said anything as vicious as some anti-creationist bigots have said. E.g. Free Iniquity, oops sorry, Free Inquiry talking about theistic religion as a mind virus, Daniel Dennett advocating that religions need to be kept in cages, Dawkins claiming that religious instruction is child abuse, Ian Plimer in Australia accusing a leading creationist of pederasty. Nor do YECs set up deceitful straw men like the evolutionists do, e.g. accusing us of believing in fixity of species,m denying all change over time, being blind literalists who deny any poetry or idiomatic language in Scripture.
Keep your YEC dogma in the science forum, please.

In this specific case, Gracchus HAS shown himself to be a God-hater with his anti-Christian comments on the Science boards.
Anti-Christian does not equate to anti-God. Christianity is a religious and political institution. One need not be a Christian to revere or believe in God. One need not love Christianity to love God. I don't hate Christians myself, but I almost utterly despise the corrupt institution of Christianity, but I love God.

And he attacked those who support war to rid Iraq of a terrorist-supporting murderous despot as "warmongers".
When they are fanatical and single-minded about war, refusing to ackowledge the fact that the war side has not turned up anything, and refusing to acknowledge that several of the assertions put forth by the admin have already been disproven, then I attack them as warmongers, too. Those aren't people who have any concern for idealism (not that this war is in the least bit about idealism), innocent lives, terrorism, or wpm. These are people who want to see a good explosion on TV because they're bored with watching reruns. And the majority of the pro-war side seems to fit into that mold.

[Robin Goodfellow]

I’m curious whether by now most of us agree that oil is an important motivation for the impending attack on Iraq. The fact that the ostensible justifications are so thin should arouse our suspicions. But there is more direct evidence for the role of oil as well.

Here’s a link from the Wall Street Journal strongly suggesting that the administration is actually lying when they deny that oil is a motivation for war:

http://adr.com/adr?page=adrnews&formtype=21&compid=&prod=BT&mdate=20030115&mseq=8896&acc=BT20030115008896 (Wall Street Journal)

Wall Street Journal:
The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oil fields and rehabilitate them, industry officials say. They say Mr. Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October, with Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton among the companies represented. Both the Bush administration and the companies say such a meeting never took place.

Since then, industry officials say, the Bush administration has sought input, formally and informally, from executives and industry experts on how best to overhaul Iraq's oil sector. An industry expert said Tuesday that State Department officials met with as many as two major oil companies and an industry consultant as recently as last week.


And from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,869867,00.html

The Guardian:
The US and British governments officially deny that oil is a factor in the looming war with Iraq, but some ministers and officials in Whitehall say privately that oil is more important in the calculation than weapons of mass destruction.


And from:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/NTL_oil_iraq_021004.html

ABC’s Nightline:
Oil is a consideration for nations considering joining in the fight if the United States goes to war in the Persian Gulf, because the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is up for grabs.

[...]

"The fundamental issue is, the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is open for grabs, and it will depend upon the government of Iraq to decide how it will dispense that resource," says oil consultant Rob Sobhani, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington. "Certainly, American companies would be in a very, very strong position to compete for the right."


And from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37949-2003Feb20.html

Washington Post:
The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.


Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

I want to be clear that I don’t think oil is by any means the administration’s only motivation for war. This neglected article reveals that the war has “two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military superiority”:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/1201beyond.htm

Los Angeles Times:
Beyond Regime Change
By Sandy Tolan and Jason Felch
LA Times
December 1, 2002

If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here's a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East.

The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military superiority. The plan is, in its way, as ambitious as the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between the empires of Britain and France, which carved up the region at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The neo-imperial vision, which can be ascertained from the writings of key administration figures and their co-visionaries in influential conservative think tanks, includes not only regime change in Iraq but control of Iraqi oil, a possible end to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and newly compliant governments in Syria and Iran -- either by force or internal rebellion.

For the first step -- the end of Saddam Hussein -- Sept. 11 provided the rationale. But the seeds of regime change came far earlier. "Removing Saddam from power," according to a 1996 report from an Israeli think tank to then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was "an important Israeli strategic objective." Now this has become official U.S. policy, after several of the report's authors took up key strategic and advisory roles within the Bush administration. They include Richard Perle, now chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, special assistant in the State Department. In 1998, these men, joined by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now the top two officials in the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (a senior National Security Council director), John Bolton (undersecretary of State) and 21 others called for "a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad."

After removing Hussein, U.S. forces are planning for an open-ended occupation of Iraq, according to senior administration officials who spoke to the New York Times. The invasion, said Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, would be "a historic opportunity that is as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire." Makiya spoke at an October "Post-Saddam Iraq" conference attended by Perle and sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. Any occupation would certainly include protecting petroleum installations. Control of the country's vast oil reserves, the second largest in the world and worth nearly $3 trillion at current prices, would be a huge strategic prize. Some analysts believe that additional production in Iraq could drive world prices down to as low as $10 a barrel and precipitate Iraq's departure from OPEC, possibly undermining the cartel. This, together with Russia's new willingness to become a major U.S. oil supplier, could establish a long-sought counterweight to Saudi Arabia, still the biggest influence by far on global oil prices. It would be consistent with the plan released by Vice President Dick Cheney's team in June, which underscored "energy security" as central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy," the report states. Some analysts prefer to downplay the drive to control Iraqi oil. "It is fashionable among anti-American circles ... to assume that U.S. foreign policy is driven by commercial considerations," said Patrick Clawson, an oil and policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in an October talk. Rather, Clawson said, oil "has barely been on the administration's horizon in considering Iraq policy.... U.S. foreign policy is not driven by concern for promoting the interests of specific U.S. firms."

Yet Clawson, whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush administration, was more candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Hussein Iraq in 1999: "U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits," he said. "We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into the world economy. Iraq, post-Saddam, is highly likely to be interested in inviting international oil companies to invest in Iraq. This would be very useful for U.S. oil companies, which are well positioned to compete there, and very useful for the world's energy-security situation."

Indeed, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, whose close ties with Perle, Wurmser, Rumsfeld and Cheney predate the current Bush administration, met recently with U.S. oil executives. Afterward, Chalabi, the would-be "Iraqi Karzai" and the hawks' long-standing choice to lead a post-Hussein Iraq, made it clear he would give preference to an American-led oil consortium. He also suggested that previous deals -- totaling tens of billions of dollars for Russia's Lukoil and France's TotalFinaElf -- could be voided.

Next month, key Iraqi exiles will meet with oil executives at an English country retreat to discuss the future of Iraqi petroleum. The conference, sponsored by the Center for Global Energy Studies and chaired by Sheik Zaki Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister, will feature Maj. Gen. Wafiq Samarrai, the former head of Iraqi military intelligence, and former Iraqi Oil Minister Fadhil Chalabi, now executive director of the center. Fadhil Chalabi estimates that total oil reserves in Iraq could exceed Saudi Arabia's and that daily production one day could reach 10 million barrels, making it the world's largest producer. Hence, on the center's conference agenda is a discussion of Iraq as a "second Saudi Arabia," and the prospect of a world without OPEC. Oil executives and analysts heading to the country retreat will also be able to purchase the center's 800-page analysis of the prospects for exploration in Iraq. The cost: $52,500.

But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran. "The War Won't End in Baghdad," wrote the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen in the Wall Street Journal. In 1985, as a consultant to the National Security Council and Oliver North, Ledeen helped broker the illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran by setting up meetings between weapons dealers and Israel. In the current war, he argues, "we must also topple terror states in Tehran and Damascus."

In urging the expansion of the war on terror to Syria and Iran, Ledeen does not mention Israel. Yet Israel is a crucial strategic reason for the hard-line vision to "roll back" Syria and Iran -- and another reason why control of Iraq is seen as crucial. In 1998, Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. "It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," he said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."

Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was "at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein." And Perle, Wurmser and Feith (now in the Pentagon), in their 1996 Israeli think tank report to Netanyahu, argued for abandoning efforts for a comprehensive peace in favor of a policy of "rolling back" Syria to protect Israel's interests. Now, however, Israel is given a lower profile by those who would argue for rollback. Rather, writes Ledeen, U.S. troops would be put at risk in order to "liberate all the peoples of the Middle East." And this, he argues, would be virtually pain-free: "If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support." Perle concurs on Iraq -- "The Arab World ... will consider honor and dignity has been restored" -- as well as Iran: "It is the beginning of the end for the Iranian regime."

Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran "the day after" the Iraq war ends. The vast ambition of such changes to the Middle Eastern map would seem an inherent deterrent. But it is precisely this historical sweep, reminiscent of Sykes-Picot and the British arrival in Iraq in 1917, that many close to the administration seek. Publicly, Perle and Ledeen cling to the fantasy that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus with garlands of flowers. Yet they are too smart to ignore the rage across the Arab and Muslim worlds that would surely erupt in the wake of war on multiple Middle Eastern fronts.

Indeed, the foreshadowing is already with us: in Bali, in Moscow, in Yemen and on the streets of Amman. It's clear that even in Jordan, a close ally of the U.S., the anger at a U.S. attack on Iraq could be hard to contain.

Indeed, the hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. "One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please," Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. "That's our mission That's our mission in the war against terror."

Sandy Tolan, an I.F. Stone Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley, reports frequently on the Middle East. Jason Felch, a student in Tolan's "Politics and Petroleum" class, contributed to this article.


Robin Goodfellow

[Captain Ochre]

Did you follow the discussion in the rest of the thread?
If the US is going to pay for building up Iraq's infrastructure, as has been planned, how do you expect them to do so?
Doesn't it make sense to contract with various oil companies to rehabilitate Iraq's oil reserves so that Iraq benefits? Iraq doesn't have much more than oil. Sure, the oil companies would subsequently benefit from trade in Iraqi oil (assuming the new regime permits trade with the US--which is exceedingly likely), but becoming a trade partner with Iraq isn't evil or underhanded afaics.
The first Gulf war was fought because US interests were at stake in the form of a huge fossil fuel supply (not Iraq's per se, but those of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). To the extent that Saddam threatens the future oil trade, oil is a factor in the forthcoming conflict. IMO, Korea would have been first on the list despite a lack of oil reserves if they hadn't chosen the time of the furor over Iraq to broadcast their belligerence. It was more than a coincidence, I think.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Today @ 12:05 AM
Captain Ochre:

Did you follow the discussion in the rest of the thread?


Hi Captain Ochre,

I don't think it was clear from the rest of the thread that everyone agrees oil is an important motivation for this war. Evidently you do, and perhaps everyone else does as well. If so, the thread was a productive one.

Robin Goodfellow

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:12 AM
Robin Godfellow:



Hi Captain Ochre,

I don't think it was clear from the rest of the thread that everyone agrees oil is an important motivation for this war. Evidently you do, and perhaps everyone else does as well. If so, the thread was a productive one.

Robin Goodfellow

To be clear, no I don't think that oil is a significant motivation for the war. It is a factor primarily with respect to the nation-building which must take place after the war.
The articles you referenced appear to confuse the latter with the former, with a whiff of innuendo included.

[flipper]

Captain Ochre:


---
Experts look again at wartime satellite photos Series: NEWS ANALYSIS
St. Petersburg Times; St. Petersburg; Sep 15, 1991; PETER D. ZIMMERMAN;
---
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes...l?ts=1047519560

The Times won't link directly to articles, so I gave you the author and the date. You can look it up yourself.
You're just as misleading/misled as you claim others are, afaics.

My two searches on that site don't turn up the article you reference. Could you please post it? I'm always amenable to new information.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:42 AM
flipper:

Captain Ochre:

My two searches on that site don't turn up the article you reference. Could you please post it? I'm always amenable to new information.

I strongly dislike posting large amounts of copyrighted material (when the author isn't part of the copyrighted discussion, anyway).
Use the advanced search, put in a portion of the article title (I used "experts look again"), then put in the author's name (I used "Zimmerman").
The article came right up, all by itself, when I employed the above steps.

To summarize, the number of Iraqi troops was exaggerated because that is the normal practice in gauging the strength of an enemy. Troops in an offensive posture need not bother fortifying their positions.
A year has passed since the pictures were taken. It is time to raise the question again. And this time, there is at least a partial answer:

[wienerdog]

I don't think that oil is a significant factor in the war, and I have not seen any reason to think that the reasons that have been given for this are "thin". So far, many of the people who have argued that oil is a significant factor on this thread have essentially said that the evidence that has been given is bogus. Some have said that anyone who believes Colon Powell is just blindly following their government. But such an argument could be used to justify anything.

Nixon was a liar.
The Apollo moon landings occurred under Nixon's presidency.
Therefore, the Apollo moon landings were faked.

I agree with Cap'n Okra. Obviously, post-war planning will take Iraq's major resource into account. But until there is specific evidence that the proffered reasons for going to war (namely, Iraq's ties to terrorist groups and WMDs) are invalid, it just seems like blind faith to insist they must be lying.

Powell gave evidence from Iraqi dissidents, and it was said that it is suspect because he didn't name them. Well, if he did, wouldn't you just say that the dissidents are the ones who are lying? According to the UN, Iraq had tons (literally) of chemical and biological agents when the inspectors were forced to leave a few years ago. If we found direct physical evidence of these agents, wouldn't you just refuse to accept it? I mean, the ones who told you about this physical evidence obviously would have "ulterior motives" for believing it's valid.

[HerodionRomulus]

wd said: "Obviously, post-war planning will take Iraq's major resource into account."

It will also take OUR resources into account. A story I saw last week stated that some of the post-war plans (assuming we win) is to let the Iraqi Army do much of the work and WE- that 's us USA taxpayers will pay the salaries of the Army and the Civil Service during the Reconstruction period.

Give me my money back!!! I don't work so that American children can go hungry while we pay the salaries of their military.
:argh:

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
HerodionRomulus:
Give me my money back!!! I don't work so that American children can go hungry while we pay the salaries of their military.
:argh:

The federal government isn't particularly responsible for feeding the children of American citizens. It is responsible for providing for the common defense, however. Restoring Iraq to pre-Saddam health (or a semblance thereof) contributes to the future safety of your children. Or would you disagree?

[Epoetker]

Looks like it's time to quote Mark Steyn at length:

There was a grim symmetry in the way this act of war interrupted the President at a grade-school photo-op. The Federal Government has no constitutional responsibility for education: it is a state affair, delegated mostly to tiny municipal school boards. But one of Bill Clinton’s forlorn legacies is that the head of state and the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth must now fill his day with inconsequential initiatives designed to soothe the piffling discontents of soccer moms and other preferred demographics of the most pampered generation in history: programs to connect elementary schools to the Internet, prescription drug benefits for seniors, government “lock-boxes” for any big-ticket entitlement the focus groups decide they can’t live without, and a thousand and one other woeful trivialities.

And so the President was reminded of his most awesome responsibility at a time when he was discharging his most footling. If you drive around Vermont and Massachusetts and California, you spend a lot of time behind cars with smug bumper stickers calling for more funds to be diverted from defence to education, because this would prove what a caring society we are. Tuesday was a rebuke to those fatuities: the first charge of any government is the defence of its borders – and, without that, it makes no difference how much you spend on prescription drug plans for seniors.

Right behind you, Okkie...only further back...

[Socrates]

Socrates:
But I have NEVER said anything as vicious as some anti-creationist bigots have said. E.g. [i]Free Iniquity[i], oops sorry, [i]Free Inquiry[i] talking about theistic religion as a mind virus, Daniel Dennett advocating that religions need to be kept in cages, Dawkins claiming that religious instruction is child abuse, Ian Plimer in Australia accusing a leading creationist of pederasty. Nor do YECs set up deceitful straw men like the evolutionists do, e.g. accusing us of believing in fixity of species,m denying all change over time, being blind literalists who deny any poetry or idiomatic language in Scripture. ”

Eirann whinged:
Keep your YEC dogma in the science forum, please.Since when do I have to take orders from you? In any case, I was pointing out the viciousness of anti-YEC dogma, which IS appropriate to point out here :bonk:

In this specific case, Gracchus HAS shown himself to be a God-hater with his anti-Christian comments on the Science boards.
Anti-Christian does not equate to anti-God.Yes it does, since Christ is God. Christianity is a religious and political institution. No, it's following Christ.One need not be a Christian to revere or believe in God. One need not love Christianity to love God. I don't hate Christians myself, but I almost utterly despise the corrupt institution of Christianity, but I love God.Therefore not the true God.

And he attacked those who support war to rid Iraq of a terrorist-supporting murderous despot as "warmongers".
When they are fanatical and single-minded about war, refusing to ackowledge the fact that the war side has not turned up anything, Except for smoking guns, evidence that Irqui scientists are not allowed to talk freely without one of Saddam's thugs around, atrocities of the scale of the Nazis ... and refusing to acknowledge that several of the assertions put forth by the admin have already been disproven, then I attack them as warmongers, too. Not that anyone cares who you attack.Those aren't people who have any concern for idealism (not that this war is in the least bit about idealism), innocent lives, terrorism, or wpm. These are people who want to see a good explosion on TV because they're bored with watching reruns. And the majority of the pro-war side seems to fit into that mold.More elephant hurling. And I can do the same, e.g. all anti-war people are snivelling Chamberlainite appeasers and bigoted Americophobes and anti-semites who turn a blind eye to terrorism when it's against Americans or Israeli civilians.