Why can't you lefties at least accept the possibility that the war in Iraq is not about oil?

Consider these points:
-How much its costing, compared to the price of developing alternative energy sources, (or at least finding cheaper sources of oil!)
-The obvious effect on world opinion
-The threat of an Iraqi lead coalition of extremists
-Iraqs embryonic potential for making and *using* WMD
-The plight of Iraqi's under Saddam


I'm sick of hearing that 'The war in Iraq is about oil!' Its not about oil. It never was. The Americans would be having far less trouble in Iraq if there was more solidarity among the free countries of the world. Instead, they veto. Choosing to support radical entities over agreeing with the right.

This is why I hate politics.

You don't need to be a "Leftie" to understand that the USA has not intervened as was attempted in Iraq, to stop the ongoing tyrranies elsewhere (including within states similarly easier to knock over) when foreign resources are not a part of the attraction. Just because the plan was severely flawed does not mean the strategic goals were not at issue. The United States knows that major disruption is looming in Saudi Arabia, where a visible American presence was becoming fatal to the regime. The USA has made a failed attempt at shifting our ME strategic footing to Iraq, and to stabilize energy markets in the bargain long-term.

Regarding the lack of international concensus, it was abyssmal diplomacy that resulted in severe damage to US credibility. A considerable element of the political defeat of the US is that the Bushmen failed to understand the implications of slapping together a sham "Coalition of the Willing", where there was no popular support- It was never openly explained what the real justification, goals, and exit strategy was, and the world did not buy it. So now, Uncle Sam owns a failed state that is sliding into a long and bloody civil war. There is no explanation for the reckless risks that were gambled on, with collossal losing results, but that the Prize under foreign sands beckoned like a Siren.

-How much its costing, compared to the price of developing alternative energy sources, (or at least finding cheaper sources of oil!)

Think about this, do you think Bush cares? Let’s understand one thing here; there are a bunch of corporate honchos in the White House, most of them involved in Oil, and related industries. They see the US military as another extension of the Corporate Welfare initiative taken in the US. Yes the war in Iraq was not fought exclusively for oil, but it is what made Iraq important. Do you think the US would invade Iraq if its main exports were still Dates? So that should pretty much answer all your inquiries.

-The obvious effect on world opinion

Again, they really don’t care. Frankly they made the situation worse by calling France, Germany and other cognitive members of the European community “Old Europe” obviously connotating a very negative stereotype. Frankly this administration maintains that the world still loves America, and that the Iraqi’s are grateful that the US is there.

-The threat of an Iraqi lead coalition of extremists

Why yes of course the imaginary coalition of the imaginary league of evil doers, this isn’t a Marvel comic. Get a real point please.

-Iraqs embryonic potential for making and *using* WMD

Which has not been found, mind explaining? About using WMD it was the US who turned a blind eye, and even defended Saddam when he used them, so get off your pretentious high hourse.

-The plight of Iraqi's under Saddam

Cry me a river, there are numerous dictators to whom you should get acquainted with. This is another fallacious argumentation.

Xerxes you could do better then this can’t you?

Nico,
Think about this, do you think Bush cares? Let’s understand one thing here; there are a bunch of corporate honchos in the White House, most of them involved in Oil

Exactly. Proving what I said: it would be much cheaper to go to other places looking for oil. Canada, Africa, even the middle of the ocean! Profit potential is much higher in those places.

Again, they really don’t care. Frankly they made the situation worse by calling France, Germany and other cognitive members of the European community “Old Europe” obviously connotating a very negative stereotype. Frankly this administration maintains that the world still loves America, and that the Iraqi’s are grateful that the US is there.

Don't kid yourself. Many Iraqi's are grateful, but its not them you see on TV. Its the protestors. France, Germany, Russia- they all have bussiness interests in Iraq. Do you think they really care about progressive liberalism? Nay. Show me the money. Same as 'old Europe,' just more corporate.

Why yes of course the imaginary coalition of the imaginary league evil, this isn’t a Marvel comic. Get a real point please.

You see, this is this that liberals do. The thing that pisses me off. As soon as a percieved threat crops its head, they're the first to wave it off as an 'imaginary' one. Saddam has been trying to arrange an arab coalition for years. This isn't news.

Which has not been found, mind explaining? About using WMD it was the US who turned a blind eye, and even defended Saddam when he used them, so get off your pretentious high hourse.

They haven't been found because they were still 'embryonic'. Frankly, saddam was spending too much money on his golden toilets to develop nuclear warheads. But do you deny that given the opportunity, he wouldn't try? Open your eyes, nico.

And BTW, I'm not defending past American actions. Lets look to the future here.


Cry me a river, there are numerous dictators to whom you should get acquainted with. This is another fallacious argumentation.

One at a time nico, one a time.

Once you poison the roots of tyranny, the leaves begin to fall off. Certain dictators rely on more powerful ones to maintain control. Take Kadafi for example. With saddam out, what other friends does he have? What about the regimes in Africa and west asia? I'd love to be a goody two shoes like you and enlighten the ruthless dictators, but sometimes you have to take a stand and show dissaproval.

hypewaders,
You don't need to be a "Leftie" to understand that the USA has not intervened as was attempted in Iraq, to stop the ongoing tyrranies elsewhere

Like I said to nico, one at a time, and don't ever forget the bigger picture.

What looks to be cruel on the small scale is a lot kinder when you consider the greater good. Yeah..I know about haiti, nicaragua, etc, and I don't necessarily agree with them. But its not just about haiti or nicaragua in their small circles. The whole world is involved. Same with Saddam. The decision they made to invade Iraq is more far reaching than defending oil interests.

That said, Bush sr should've finished them off in '91

Regarding the lack of international concensus, it was abyssmal diplomacy that resulted in severe damage to US credibility.

This 'abysmal diplomacy' all comes down to solidarity at home. How can you defend a move to other nations when half of your country disagrees with it?

Bushmen failed to understand the implications of slapping together a sham "Coalition of the Willing", where there was no popular support

With fundamentalism and extremism on the rise, it wouldn't take much to gain a popular support. Look at the effects of a suicide bombing on public opinion polls. Look at the effects of a natural disaster. A couple earthquakes, bombings, and kurdish uprisings could be all that it takes to steam things over.

Uncle Sam owns a failed state that is sliding into a long and bloody civil war.

Leftist fear mongering right there. Things will be fine if both Americans & Iraqis relax and take a more constructive stance to fixing things up, like Germany post WWII. Lots of potential there. And not much difference between the state of the country post WWI. So whats it gonna be?

"Things will be fine if both Americans & Iraqis relax and take a more constructive stance to fixing things up, like Germany post WWII. Lots of potential there. And not much difference between the state of the country post WWI"

You have got to be kidding. The ethnography of Iraq is vastly more fractious than Germany, and there are several neighboring states with serious competing issues and involvements in Iraq. The USA and its token coalition lack the political and military clout to keep order. The occupation of Iraq was p.oisoned by neocolonialist blindness to the requirement that Iraqis own their own revolution. From deBaathificaion, to the killing/capturing of the reprehensible Hussein dynasty, America usurped critical Iraqi participation in the destruction of the regime. Compounding this arrogance, a lack of discipline and cultural sensitivity, combined with bureaucratic protectionism irreversibly scandalized occupation forces.

Things are not going to be fine. US policy has cast Iraq into impossible dilemmas: Iraq can not be both proud and free under US political midwifery. Iraq can not be unified under a fair and pluralistic system, while several players are jockeying for more than an equal share. The occupation cannot relieve the power vacuum without losing all control. We are watching the wobbles before the fall.

This is not defeatism, but realism. There is no amount of Western resolve that is going to improve this situation, where the popular rejection of a new round of profound Western political intervention has already taken form. Greater shows and uses of force, and prolonged occupation will only make matters worse. As in the distinction between consentual sex and rape, if one side was an unwilling party, then the act can never be reconciled or justified later, regardless of any semantics or wishful thinking on the part of the perpetrator.

"So whats it gonna be?"

Well, keeping these fundamental factors in mind, it is going to be defeat for the USA and her partners in the Iraq misadventure, that will not only be humiliating but also devastating economically. It is going to be misery for Iraqis, as a civil war becomes fully apparent. It is going to be another round of bloody regional instability, as the status quo experiences the greatest shift since the World Wars and subsequent ostensible exit of colonial powers. It's going to be very turbulent, and many people familiar with the Mideast, not leftists, and not fear mongers, have known this all along, and have been saying so. There is no ulterior motive or pleasure in watching a predictable disaster unfold. The saddest part is watching proponents of this debacle cling to their positions in a vain attempt to save face, while millions of lives and fortunes are unnecessarily demolished.

Apologists for this quagmire are sure to repeat the same psychosis as was expressed after the US defeat in Vietnam, that it's the fault of those who would not believe in our Quest: Those Commies, hippies, faggots, lefties, pussies, who couldn't tough it out to Victory. You are just dishing out the latest flavor of fascism, xerxes and the sooner you and those who agree with you realize this, the fewer people will have to die, and the less the global underpinnings, that the USA depends on for success, will be compromised. You have been seduced by a chimeral vision of empire that is now so out of time, so dysfunctional, that it can only lead straight into rapid, compounding, and bitter defeat. Face facts now, or face them later, the lesson will only get more painful with time.

When they no longer want us there we should leave but most of the polls while stating a natural concern for the presence of a foreign power in their country seem to show a preference for us staying there. A small vicious minority wants us to leave for various reasons that is why we will stay until their government tells us to leave.

It's very simple really. There are other countries with in the same situation as Iraq. Yet we didn't see this big push to invade them....

Why do you think the administration choose Iraq?

Why do you think the administration felt they needed to go in against the caution of other nations?

Because we have Bush for a president, that's why!

Yob Atta

Personally the whole Iraq oil thing is kind of illogical.

As the US has had trade with the middle east and iraqi oil feilds for a long time, Saddam wasn't stupid enough to give up the income and go "NO OIL FOR YOU!". He needed the money US needed oil. Its a simple trade arrangement, and attacking Iraq would serve only to hinder the process.

As much of a left wing nut as I am, I like to see this war in a very simple, non-conspiracy theory type of way.
It was a poor decision, on bad intelligence, for stupid reasons. Pomp circumstance and blowing shit up.

Exactly. Proving what I said: it would be much cheaper to go to other places looking for oil. Canada, Africa, even the middle of the ocean! Profit potential is much higher in those places.

Not true, where in the world has been a significant new find? Answer: no where. DO you know how much oil is under Iraq? $4 trillion worth, even if this occupation was to cost the US $1 trillion in theory there should be at least $3 trillion left over in the bank. Secondly not all of Iraq has been explored there is bound to be more oil. We pretty much as much oil as we are going to find, and Iraq is a treasure trove of oil. It would have been stupid for Corporate honcho’s in the WH not to invade now.

Don't kid yourself. Many Iraqi's are grateful, but its not them you see on TV.

Can I see substantiation? Because I have sources that say otherwise, reliable good sources.

Its the protestors. France, Germany, Russia- they all have bussiness interests in Iraq. Do you think they really care about progressive liberalism? Nay.

Do you think they were trying to suggest that they did care? Sorry but the only pretentious one here was the US pretending to give two shits about the people of Iraq when she obviously really could care less, as evidenced by Abu Gharib. At least the three other powers didn’t lie about their intentions, like the US.

You see, this is this that liberals do. The thing that pisses me off.

I’ll get the tissue box, don’t cry.

As soon as a percieved threat crops its head, they're the first to wave it off as an 'imaginary' one. Saddam has been trying to arrange an arab coalition for years. This isn't news.

It’s one thing to pretend that such a coalition is even feasible (especially when the Syrians, and Saudi’s attacked Iraq in 1991), but it’s laughable. Don’t be stupid, because no one is actually buying that, and no one even tried to pass that one off. Secondly where’s the beef? Thirdly if you want to talk about an enemy, who really does head an alliance against you, look no further then Riyadh. So don’t slobber unsubstantiated imaginary idiocy on me please.

They haven't been found because they were still 'embryonic'.

Mind trying to explain what you are trying to say?

But do you deny that given the opportunity, he wouldn't try? Open your eyes, nico.

Open your eyes “el rejecto”, he would never get that possibility his empire was collapsing. He maintained he had WMD to scare his internal factions, not the world. Secondly what magical opportunity would this be if he isn’t allowed to develop anything, thirdly you have to have quite a imagination to believe in the impossible.

And BTW, I'm not defending past American actions.

Your whole rant before this, and the initial post was a defense of American actions.

Take Kadafi for example. With saddam out, what other friends does he have?

Africa, I won’t even go into that.

What about the regimes in Africa and west asia?

What about them, they are richer today then ever before thanks to high oil prices, it’s not the US is going to be invading anyone soon…lmfao… So what about them?

I'd love to be a goody two shoes like you and enlighten the ruthless dictators, but sometimes you have to take a stand and show dissaproval.

Same goes for pseudo-democracies as well…

Personally the whole Iraq oil thing is kind of illogical.

As the US has had trade with the middle east and iraqi oil feilds for a long time, Saddam wasn't stupid enough to give up the income and go "NO OIL FOR YOU!". He needed the money US needed oil. Its a simple trade arrangement, and attacking Iraq would serve only to hinder the process.I disagree. You are making the assumption that this was done for the good of America. You are correct that the US doesn't really gain anything.

If however you asume that this was done for the good of certain corporations, than it makes a liitle more sense. The US foots the bill, they get access to the resources.

While I believe that some people may have pushed the issue one way or another due to the percieved financial gain, I don't believe that was the main reason.

The problem I'm having is that there doesn't seem to be much of a reason other than Iraq being characterized as the classic bad guy... even though several other countries are in the same position.

I don't beleive it was done for the good of anybody, but someone somewhere thought it was. Maybe someone thought they were executing this grand scheme or maybe they didn't.

Maybe it was Pride, maybe it was the "good of the country". But whatever it was it was retarded. In this case the thought(or lack thereof) doesn't really count.

There is still a chance that this could be good for Iraqis... but that really isn't the issue. Why was Iraq singled out?

Why do guys in bars pick fights with guys that look at them funny?

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at...

Then we agree?

Oh, oil is a part of it. In general though me thinks it is basically a way to launder US tax money into some military and industrial corporations' coffers, the fleecing and slaughter of sheep for a few rich people's greed. Power corrupts. The corrupted are powerful.

I never said oil wasn't part of it. I said Oil wasn't the cause of it.

The answer is simple.......Bush didn't have to attach Iraq, but he did against the better advisement of more intelligent people. So, if he had put more time and effort in trying to capture Bin Laden than waisting the tax payer's money and the lives of our troops on Iraq, we might have caught him by now!

Yob Atta

Alright:


How much its costing, compared to the price of developing alternative energy sources, (or at least finding cheaper sources of oil!)

See F9/11. Yeah, it's biased, but it has good points. The "elite" have their hands in with defense contracts, development contracts (ie Haliburton). It IS costing a lot of taxpayer's money, but it's all funneling back into the hands of the policy-makers.
"Canada, Africa, even the middle of the ocean! Profit potential is much higher in those places." Iraq is the 2nd largest oil producer, 2nd to Kuwait I believe. So that isn't true. Also, it was easy for Bush to provide a "reason" for invading Iraq: WMD, links to terrorists, his crimes against humanity. Saddam has had a target on his back for years, Bush finally found a way to *justify* an invasion.


-The obvious effect on world opinion

I think one backfired on Bush. He thought the world would be behind him with his 'war on terror' (TM). I think he had no idea the amount of critisism he would get



-The threat of an Iraqi lead coalition of extremists
-Iraqs embryonic potential for making and *using* WMD

I lumped these two together. Again, see F9/11. It has numerious clips of press conferences (prior to 9/11) where bush/powell/rice repeat that Iraq poses no threat to the US, and they do not suspect Iraq for developing WMD. And again, the US still can't seem to provide sufficient evidence of Iraq's WMD agenda.


-The plight of Iraqi's under Saddam

Why aren't the Americans working this hard to liberate other oppressed countries?

Bush keeps changing his reasons behind it all. WMD, links to terrorists, to bring democracy and freedom etc. Bullshit. Bush has said the reason terrorists hate the US is because they don't like the thought of freedom/democracy/equality. Again, bullshit. It's all business.

Also why I hate politics.

Bush's politics and administration should be called "BUSHIT"!!! It would make a great campaign headliner don't you think??? I thought so!!!

Yob Atta

Why can't you lefties at least accept the possibility that the war in Iraq is not about oil?

I accept the possibility. I consider it nil in light of the evidence.

Consider these counterpoints:

-How much its costing, compared to the price of developing alternative energy sources, (or at least finding cheaper sources of oil!)

Peanuts. Bush Oil does not pay for the invasion and annexation of the already-producing oil fields in Iraq. US taxpayers do. Bush Oil would have to pay the full cost of finding alternate sources of oil.

-The obvious effect on world opinion

World opinion is irrelevant to Bush Oil except as it affects profits. They are making huge profits off the war because of world opinion, which drives up prices due to fear.

-The threat of an Iraqi lead coalition of extremists

That’s what expendable US soldiers are for. They provide protection to Bush Oil at zero cost to it.

-Iraqs embryonic potential for making and *using* WMD

Nothing but pretext for an offensive invasion. The odds of them being used to hurt Americans or its allies was minimal, else the US wouldn’t have sold them to Iraq in the first place.

-The plight of Iraqi's under Saddam

Not the stated reason for the invasion. Mentioned by Bush only after no WMDs were found. The Iraqis are not being liberated. Instead the US is planning to permanently occupy Iraq. The Iraqis might be better off, but they’ll still be virtual slaves.

I'm sick of hearing that 'The war in Iraq is about oil!' Its not about oil. It never was.

You haven’t made your case. Bottom line is, the US would not go through the expense and trouble unless there was a pot of gold there. The US doesn’t care about Sudan, where half a million people face starvation, now does it? And the US certainly isn’t there for Iraq’s other exports--dates and figs.

The Americans would be having far less trouble in Iraq if there was more solidarity among the free countries of the world. Instead, they veto. Choosing to support radical entities over agreeing with the right.

How was Iraq radical? You haven’t shown how. Saddam killed thousands of Kurds? Well, the US killed thirty thousand Iraqi civilians. Consider the possibility that these countries veto because they believe that it’s all about the oil.

Why can't you lefties at least accept the possibility that the war in Iraq is not about oil?

Consider these points:
-How much its costing, compared to the price of developing alternative energy sources, (or at least finding cheaper sources of oil!)
-The obvious effect on world opinion
-The threat of an Iraqi lead coalition of extremists
-Iraqs embryonic potential for making and *using* WMD
-The plight of Iraqi's under Saddam


I'm sick of hearing that 'The war in Iraq is about oil!' Its not about oil. It never was. The Americans would be having far less trouble in Iraq if there was more solidarity among the free countries of the world. Instead, they veto. Choosing to support radical entities over agreeing with the right.

This is why I hate politics.

You know what. If you replace Iraq with "Russia", (or UK, US), Saddam with "Stalin", (or Churchill, Rosefold) then you perfectly justify Hitler's W.W.2. Good job.

BTW. How do you view N. Korea Bush treats so well?