Blood for Oil Podcast

[Kevin R Brown]

...While I fundamentally agree with most (if not all) of Mr. Dunning's commentary during this podcast, I can't help but feel he's knocking down strawmen for most of the episode:

I've used the term, "Blood for Oil," myself several times, and both myself and those I know who use the term have never adhered to any of the beliefs attacked by Mr. Dunning (that Bush / Cheney used the Iraq war to gain control over market forces, that the war was used as a means of controlling gasoline prices, etc).

To me, "Blood for Oil," refers to the act of sweeping into Iraq and seizing it's hydrocarbons by force of arms, under false pretenses, while indiscriminately killing, arresting & torturing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian bystanders. Now, the United States did not simply rob the country of it's reserves, but Richard Cheney certainly did just unfairly hand over contracts to parties like Halliburton whom he had close ties with (both socially & financially) and, moreover, the war was conducted in a completely barbaric fashion. Densely populated areas were bombarded with high explosives with little to no regard for who was being shot at, enemy combatants were offered zero quarter and no opportunity to surrender, Saddam Hussein was given a kangaroo trial and hung, concentration camps were set-up where PoWs were taken with no trial or legal representation of any sort and tormented in order to harvest 'confessions', etc.

...Could Mr. Dunning clarify whether or not he takes issue with any of these charges? I'm happy to provide evidence - most of the allegations well documented.

I don't mean to sound snippy if I come off as such - I just get a little bit miffed when I feel that concerns over the U.S.'s conduct during the recent war are being brushed aside.

[Pardalis]

Saddam was such a nice dictator... Sorry for your loss.

[Kevin R Brown]

Saddam was such a nice dictator... Sorry for your loss.

The typical Neo Con response. I expected better.


Yes, Saddam was a ruthless fascist, and there is little to no question that he engaged in a genocidal gassing campaign against the Kurds. What does that have to do with how the United States acts in war time, how it treats PoWs or how Saddam was tried for his crimes?

Nothing.


Your statement is a Red Herring fallacy.

[tyr_13]

...While I fundamentally agree with most (if not all) of Mr. Dunning's commentary during this podcast, I can't help but feel he's knocking down strawmen for most of the episode:

I've used the term, "Blood for Oil," myself several times, and both myself and those I know who use the term have never adhered to any of the beliefs attacked by Mr. Dunning (that Bush / Cheney used the Iraq war to gain control over market forces, that the war was used as a means of controlling gasoline prices, etc).

To me, "Blood for Oil," refers to the act of sweeping into Iraq and seizing it's hydrocarbons by force of arms, under false pretenses, while indiscriminately killing, arresting & torturing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian bystanders. Now, the United States did not simply rob the country of it's reserves, but Richard Cheney certainly did just unfairly hand over contracts to parties like Halliburton whom he had close ties with (both socially & financially) and, moreover, the war was conducted in a completely barbaric fashion. Densely populated areas were bombarded with high explosives with little to no regard for who was being shot at, enemy combatants were offered zero quarter and no opportunity to surrender, Saddam Hussein was given a kangaroo trial and hung, concentration camps were set-up where PoWs were taken with no trial or legal representation of any sort and tormented in order to harvest 'confessions', etc.

...Could Mr. Dunning clarify whether or not he takes issue with any of these charges? I'm happy to provide evidence - most of the allegations well documented.

I don't mean to sound snippy if I come off as such - I just get a little bit miffed when I feel that concerns over the U.S.'s conduct during the recent war are being brushed aside.

I'd like some documentation on the highlighted. I can point you to the related CT and politics threads if you wish.

[Kevin R Brown]

I would be happy to provide direct link to video documentation that supports my assertion that combatants were offered to quarter nor any opportunity to surrender, but I cannot post URLs are this point. If you go to YouTube and type in, 'AC-130 attacks Taliban' and 'AH-64 attacks insurgents', you'll bring up the two videos I was going to cite.

If you google 'Iraqi Body Count Project', they list many easily verifiable instances of hospitals being struck with bombs & artillery fire and fleeing civilian vehicles coming under coalition attack. I have no doubt that coalition forces did not intend to hit hospitals or fleeing civilians, but it's clear from the incidents that they were far too careless with what how their weapons were used.

[PixyMisa]

To me, "Blood for Oil," refers to the act of sweeping into Iraq and seizing it's hydrocarbons by force of arms, under false pretenses, while indiscriminately killing, arresting & torturing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian bystanders.
An outrage!

Who, exactly, did this?

[Pardalis]

Yes, Saddam was a ruthless fascist

That's not enough?

[Kevin R Brown]

An outrage!

Who, exactly, did this?

The United States of America, at the behest of Richard Cheney and George W. Bush.

Hey, you asked.


Or perhaps you believe that the images from Abu Ghraib were some liberal conspiracy to undermine your infallible former 'leader'? Or the stories from Guantanimo Bay? No doubt you'll deflect into a red herring that Saddam's Abu Ghraib was far worse, or that Cuba plays host to a number of political prisons, as though the atrocities of other fascists somehow cancel-out the inhuman behavior of Richard Cheney.

Go on and review the gun camera footage of the AH-64 I referenced earlier; its quite easy to find. The incompetent mouth breathers operating the machine cut down three people - perhaps they were insurgents, perhaps they were not; there's no evidence to substantiate who they were - standing unarmed in the middle of a field. No quarter is offered even for one of the men wounded after the first two (well, three, counting the initial shots that were fired wildly off into the distance because the trigger man didn't bother to aim the gun first) salvos; he's murdered as he lies on the ground.

Justify this action to me, by all means. Let me hear about what a wonderful and just act it was.

[tyr_13]

The United States of America, at the behest of Richard Cheney and George W. Bush.

Hey, you asked.


Or perhaps you believe that the images from Abu Ghraib were some liberal conspiracy to undermine your infallible former 'leader'? Or the stories from Guantanimo Bay? No doubt you'll deflect into a red herring that Saddam's Abu Ghraib was far worse, or that Cuba plays host to a number of political prisons, as though the atrocities of other fascists somehow cancel-out the inhuman behavior of Richard Cheney.

Go on and review the gun camera footage of the AH-64 I referenced earlier; its quite easy to find. The incompetent mouth breathers operating the machine cut down three people - perhaps they were insurgents, perhaps they were not; there's no evidence to substantiate who they were - standing unarmed in the middle of a field. No quarter is offered even for one of the men wounded after the first two (well, three, counting the initial shots that were fired wildly off into the distance because the trigger man didn't bother to aim the gun first) salvos; he's murdered as he lies on the ground.

Justify this action to me, by all means. Let me hear about what a wonderful and just act it was.

While I am against the war, hate the torture and other basic human rights violations, how is this proof that the war was for oil?

As for the war being 'barbaric' it is war. Bad thing happen in war. It's always terrible but I don't find the Iraq war especially so.

[Kevin R Brown]

While I am against the war, hate the torture and other basic human rights violations, how is this proof that the war was for oil?

As for the war being 'barbaric' it is war. Bad thing happen in war. It's always terrible but I don't find the Iraq war especially so.

I didn't say I thought it was for oil, and I don't find it especially terrible, either; the war itself is something I would support if not for Guantanimo Bay, Abu Ghraib or the actions of vindictive soldiers who simply want to shoot people. I think that Richard Cheney was far more interested in killing Arabs than he was interested in liberating the Iraqis or the Kurds, and I think this is demonstrated in the treatment of PoWs.

As I said in my first post, I think the term 'blood for oil' refers to the favorable handing of contracts over to Halliburton in the war's aftermath to make a quick buck (this was not likely a pre-meditated move, but that's hardly relevant).

[Pardalis]

I didn't say I thought it was for oil

End of thread then?

[Safe-Keeper]

Saddam was such a nice dictator... Sorry for your loss. :rolleyes:

[bradenatchley]

End of thread then?
It sounds like that to me.

[Eligbak]

Back on topic: "Blood for Oil" isn't such a bad label, because I strongly disbelieve that brave little Israel is the only reason for the US military presence (before and after the Iraq war) in the Middle East.
While Brian made a strong case for the US not being dependant on Middle Eastern oil - at least not from hostile states - I bet nobody really loves Saudi-Arabia, either. It's just that you protect your assets.

What pretty much debunks the idea that the US invaded Iraq purely for its oil is the bad figure they made when the deals over the fields were finally struck - pretty much everyone, including China, got their slice of pie, and they paid more than the symbolic dollar for it. On the other hand, there's no denying that the US liberated Kuwait because of its oil and had propped up the Shah of Iran because of Iran's oil, after overthrowing a democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil fields.

My personal theory of the motivations of the Iraq invasion: 9/11 and the total freedom of action it brought. Little Bush's desire the outdo his daddy (who had called for the overthrow of Saddam, only to tap-dance back later), show how tough he was and make a name for himself in the history books. A combination of geopolitical strategy and neo-con idealism (yes, they're idealists, just from the other side of '69) to rid the world of "bad guys" and show everyone what the United States could do if only it dared to take the gloves off, instead of acting politically correct through secretive nasty elements. And I think all the contractors, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors from Eisenhower's famed "military complex" made and continue to make great profits ripping everyone off, including the United States. As long as somebody pays. (Ugh, my bloodsugar was up during the last few sentences.)

P.S. Iran - if Sarah Palin wins the next election (remember, it's in 2012!!!) and all the neo-con hawks come back, I will light a little candle and pray an atheistic prayer for Iran, whether they continue to stone their teenagers to death or not.

[Polaris]

I would be happy to provide direct link to video documentation that supports my assertion that combatants were offered to quarter nor any opportunity to surrender, but I cannot post URLs are this point. If you go to YouTube and type in, 'AC-130 attacks Taliban' and 'AH-64 attacks insurgents', you'll bring up the two videos I was going to cite.

If you google 'Iraqi Body Count Project', they list many easily verifiable instances of hospitals being struck with bombs & artillery fire and fleeing civilian vehicles coming under coalition attack. I have no doubt that coalition forces did not intend to hit hospitals or fleeing civilians, but it's clear from the incidents that they were far too careless with what how their weapons were used.

There are Taliban in Iraq? When did this happen? :jaw-dropp

[TraneWreck]

That's not enough?

Nope, not even close.

[avengingwatcher]

There are Taliban in Iraq? When did this happen? :jaw-dropp

I'm fairly certain the person who posted the video was confused between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, funny nonetheless.

The war in Iraq was very poorly planned though I do honestly believe Pres. G W Bush had his heart in the right place. He may have thought that securing oil interests for the security of the United States and also the possibility of a permanent post in the middle east were a good idea but I don't think he would have committed the cost and the lives if he was not a true believer.

Cheney on the other hand would willfully ignore inconvenient facts to promote his belief that the corporate agenda and American power are supreme.

When it comes to the whole blood for oil thought you're mistaken. It's not greed but fear. It's why all the rational explanations the liberal side can bring only makes them appear more out of touch. A rational response to fear is to find information to alleviate that fear. An irrational response is to try to protect yourself with a show of force every time.

It's also why we torture, it's not some grand scheme of evil, it's because from the top there is an erroneous belief that it works and that is why we do it. This whole conservative v liberal argument is a huge red herring, to quote Brian Dunning, the amount of real difference between the political parties in America are so infinitesimally small as to be almost nonexistent.

All this said there is no hard evidence to prove that the war was just for oil, which is what I think he was getting at.

Don't forget he also said pharmaceutical companies have no reason to hold back a miracle cure, even though they very obviously would make far more money with maintenance drugs and it's also why anything not patentable is not financially viable to a company and the research has to be done by the government. It's completely untrue and were a company to discover such a drug and bring it to market lowering the profits of that company they would actually be breaking the law, as a corporation has a financial burden to make more money every year under the law. If they make more money by doing good things so be it, but if I am not mistaken there was a company recently who was brought to task by it's shareholders for doing too much good at the expense of profits. I'll find a link for it because I thought it was actually rather funny and sad at the same time.