Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq?

[RandFan]

I was really surprised when both France and Russia came aboard to join the United States in the resolution against Iraq. Russia and France have both negotiated lucrative deals to work with Iraq to rebuild the facilities and export oil. That fact would seem to indicate that the administration included a promise to let both countries keep at least part of those deals if they went along with Bush's desires.

If Bush invades Iraq there is no guarantee that he will actually get control of the oil in a way that he wants. There is a very good chance Saddam will wage a scorched earth policy as he did in Kuwait. It is very likely that he will blow up the oil wells. This time he has had much more time to make it much more difficult to restore operations and get the oil flowing than before. A new regime might be uncooperative and we might have to go to war again. It seems that there are a lot of unknowns in this scenario.

On the other hand, Bush could negotiate with Iraq, France and Russia right now. He could get together with Koffee Annan and other dignitaries to say that he had worked out a deal with Saddam. That after 12 years the dictator had come to his senses and was willing to "work" with the United States. We could drop the sanctions, the oil would flow, the economy would pick up and Bush's cronies would become fantastically wealthy.

This is completely doable right now. There are NO downsides. Unless of course the intelligence indicates that Saddam is really and truly dangerous. Then such a deal might not be such a good deal.

If oil is the single most important motivating factor then why does Bush not want to work with Saddam? Revenge? If revenge is so important then how important can the oil be.

I would like to see the counter arguments. However the idea that the reason for going to war is to get oil just does not ring true.

Let me know what you think. Go easy on me, if I were all that I would be working for CNN.

[corplinx]

Of course the war is about oil. The reason we stepped into Gulf I wasn't just because of Kuwait. It was because Saddam was gearing up to invade Saudi Arabia. Imagine if you will what would have happened. Global depression as the price of petroleum derivatives (plastic, etc) skyrockets. WW3. Cats and Dogs living together.

In this case I think the fear is the Saddam will provoke a response from Israel in some point in the future. He can only supply terrorists in Palestine for so long before Israel decides to cut off the flow. If that happens it could draw other countries into the conflict (Egypt, Syria, etc). When Saddam launched scuds at Israel during Gulf I, I knew then his days were numbered. He is just the sort of madman it takes to start a world war for the hell of it.

So, of course this is about oil, sort of. It's about power. It's about economics. It's about preventing the next foreseeably intercontinental large scale conflict.

[kourama]

Originally posted by corplinx
Of course the war is about oil. The reason we stepped into Gulf I wasn't just because of Kuwait. It was because Saddam was gearing up to invade Saudi Arabia. Imagine if you will what would have happened. Global depression as the price of petroleum derivatives (plastic, etc) skyrockets. WW3. Cats and Dogs living together.


...MASS HYSTERIA!

cool! A ghostbusters reference!

Unfortunately, the U.S. claims to have satellite pictures of Iraqi troops building up along the border were vapourware. Eye witness reports on the ground supported the fact that there never was a buildup. It was a ploy in '92 to get a military base established in Saudi Arabia.

It worked.

Saddam Hussein is an incredible *******. The U.N. sanctions against his country have only served to strengthen his grip on the country, since any goods in our out of there are on the black market that he controls.

BUT, the reason the U.S. imperialist regime wants war is because he is unpredictable. They want someone in there that they can control. They are not interested in free elections. (Consider Chile in '73). What the U.S. regime wants out of this war is a puppet government and secured control over oil resources. A foothold in that part of the world ain't too bad either, as it keeps the OPEC nations quivering in their boots.

If the U.S. military moves in and occupies the country, Bush would probably enourage a massive upgrade to the infrastructures of the country to win back world opinion, and local opinion too. We'd see schools and hospitals and eventually, a U.S. friendly puppet government who just loooooves sending dirt-cheap oil to North America.

The relatively comfortable middle-class lifestyle of the average iraqi would appeal to the impoverished people in neighbour nations which would lead to internal feuding and destabilization, and futrther opportunities for U.S. imperialist control.

At least, that's how I see it.

------------------
Edit - that should have been "military foothold" you get the idea.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by kourama
If the U.S. military moves in and occupies the country, Bush would probably enourage a massive upgrade to the infrastructures of the country to win back world opinion, and local opinion too. We'd see schools and hospitals and eventually, a U.S. friendly puppet government who just loooooves sending dirt-cheap oil to North America.

The relatively comfortable middle-class lifestyle of the average iraqi would appeal to the impoverished people in neighbour nations which would lead to internal feuding and destabilization, and futrther opportunities for U.S. imperialist control. Is Bush really so sure that this is what will happen? If that is what Bush is planning then would it not be a hell of a lot easier to do the same thing without war? Ok we wouldn't have the puppet government but we could flood money into the country right now, money that would come from the sale of Iraqi oil. We would stop starving children the economy would increase and Bush and his friends would get wealthy. Why the war?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by kourama

reference!

Unfortunately, the U.S. claims to have satellite pictures of Iraqi troops building up along the border were vapourware. .

According to the Christian Science monitor that is. The photos remain classified. I will concede that my assertion that the Saudis were next could be wrong.

[kourama]

Originally posted by RandFan
Is Bush really so sure that this is what will happen? If that is what Bush is planning then would it not be a hell of a lot easier to do the same thing without war? Ok we wouldn't have the puppet government but we could flood money into the country right now, money that would come from the sale of Iraqi oil. We would stop starving children the economy would increase and Bush and his friends would get wealthy. Why the war?

Well, no, I can't say what Bush is expecting for sure, but if I was playing the earth as a sim game, that's what I'd do.

The reason for the war, though, is secured control. Because Sadam is unpredictable, the U.S. regime cannot afford to become heavily dependent on his oil, and therefore be vulnerable to his oil-price whims. If he continued to play ball (remember in the 70's Saddam was a "good guy" in the U.S. media) his country would probably be better off right now. His major crime is trying not to be bullied by the U.S. foreign trade policies. That and, let's not forget, he is an incredible *******.

NB: I say U.S. imperialist regime, or U.S. ruling elite instead of U.S. because I'm talking about a small oligarchical group of people, not the whole U.S.

[subgenius]

Two oil men in the White House.....let's see, mmmmmm...........................maybe.....

[Skeptic]

What I don't understand is why oil is such a "dirty" reason to go to war, while "freedom" is such a good reason.

I am not claiming, of course, that oil is more important than freedom. But, in practice, the vast majority of wars fought in the name of freedom or some other ideal, have quickly deteriorated into massacres and unending slaughter where no side is remotely in the right (WWII being the big exception to this rule, of course). Wars over something tangible--oil, land, access to the sea, whatever--tend to end much sooner once the objective or a compromise is reaqched, at least.

Also, oil is just about as important to a modern society as water is. Without it, production, the economy, energy--not to mention necessities such as electricity, water, etc.--stop, and society goes back to the middle ages. Even a significant rise in price or its possible use as blackmail are a threat almost as bad, and often worse, than a direct military attack.

This doesn't mean EVERY war for oil is justified, of course, but the "moral" critics (who just reached the protest rally against the war in their SUVs because gas is only $0.99 a gallon) seem to believe that, somehow, the VERY FACT that the war is a "war for oil" makes it immoral, which isn't true.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What I don't understand is why oil is such a "dirty" reason to go to war, while "freedom" is such a good reason. My point wasn't so much that it was about oil but that Bush was doing it because he is an oil man and he wants to make him and his friends rich. So far I have not see or hear and argument to substantiate that or rebut my original argument.

[ihixulu]

There are easier ways to get a hold of Iraqi oil than using military efforts. They are called negotiating and containment, two skills which the current White House does not seem to possess.

I don't think it's immoral to go to war for economic reasons. In fact, I believe that most wars are economic at heart. But it is immoral to wage war when there are other avenues of resolution still available.

There is also a political dimension to this. So long as Bush can keep the threat of war hanging over people's head (conventional political thought would say) voters will be kinder to him if the economy in fact does not improve. Keep the people freaked out about secure borders and hopefully they won't notice that their opportunities are stunted.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by kourama
The U.N. sanctions against his country have only served to strengthen his grip on the country, since any goods in our out of there are on the black market that he controls.


I disagree. Both in the Kurdish north and the Shia south he essentially has no grip on the country. When he sends troops to either region they get chewed up by local forces. Also, the vast majority of the oil he sends out is not sent out under his control, and the cash is administered by the UN, with a percentage proportionate to their population going directly to the Kurds. (and perhaps the same is true for the Shia, but I'm not sure.)

Still, the sanctions hurt Iraqis in the region he controls, and I'll be glad when the region he controls is a 6x2x2 pine box and the sanctions are history.

MattJ

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted bu ihixulu:
There are easier ways to get a hold of Iraqi oil than using military efforts. They are called negotiating and containment, two skills which the current White House does not seem to possess.

So the negotiating and containment skills used by the previous administration worked in North Korea, then? I suppose Milosovic was negotiated and contained out of power as well?

[ihixulu]

So the negotiating and containment skills used by the previous administration worked in North Korea, then?

Let's see, for the cost of surplus grain (which would've been destroyed anyway) and a relatively minute amount of heavy oil the N. Koreans were dissuaded from building additional nuclear arms. Sounds like a decent bargain to me. They weren't building nukes and now they are.


I suppose Milosovic was negotiated and contained out of power as well?

No one paid attention to Milosevic until it was too late. Same thing with Rwanda, etc... Containment does not preclude the use of force mind you but it certainly doesn't take as much as full scale war. Americans didn't care a wit about Yugoslavia until the moral implications (and the stability of the surrounding region) came into question.

How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states while when the Bushies engage in temper tantrums and threaten to take unilateral action it is regarded as good bargaining skill?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ihixulu
They weren't building nukes and now they are.

It seems to me that the balance of the evidence says that they, in fact, never stopped their nuclear program, despite our bribes.

former Clinton administration officials are now prepared to testify before Congress that they got intelligence about the NK's clandestine uranium enrichment program back in 2000 and briefed the incoming Bush administration folks on that intelligence at the beginning of 2001.

Orginal Source not online. I got the info here. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0302.html#010803249am) The author generally takes an anti-Bush administration stance on this issue, and is spinning this 'fact' to say that Bush waited too long and bungled the North Korean situation. He's noticably silent on whether Clinton waited too long or bungled it.

This (http://www.insightmag.com/news/342934.html) article says that the negotiating team believed in 1994 that the N. Korean's had nukes already. (This squares with Colin Powell's assertions of same last Sunday on every major Sunday morning talking heads show)

MattJ

[pgwenthold]

Iraqi oil? No.
Saudi oil? Yes.

The concern with Iraq is that they will try to take over the rest of the middle east, and gain control of the Saudi oil reserves.

And to agree with earlier sentiment, protecting our oil supply is most certainly a good enough reason for war. It goes right along with "protecting the American way of life."

It's not just SUV owners who are affected by high gas prices (they really aren't, they just like to bitch). So much of American commerce relies on oil, such that small increases in gas prices have very large effects on the cost of production and transportation.

Increases in gas prices will show up in the cost of all goods in the US.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Let's see, for the cost of surplus grain (which would've been destroyed anyway) and a relatively minute amount of heavy oil the N. Koreans were dissuaded from building additional nuclear arms. Sounds like a decent bargain to me. I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back. They built the arms. they were NOT dissuaded from building additional nuclear arms.

They weren't building nukes and now they are. My understanding is that the North Koreans broke the promise from the start.

How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states... Who made this argument? Sounds like a straw man.

...while when the Bushies engage in temper tantrums and threaten to take unilateral action it is regarded as good bargaining skill? Nice ad hominem. Who said it was good bargaining skill by the way? Again I think this is a straw man. Bush is taking a course of action not bargaining. An appropriate one in my opinion. Belitteling Bush and making personal attacks don't improve your argument.

Edited to tone down. I gotta watch the emotion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ihixulu
There is also a political dimension to this. So long as Bush can keep the threat of war hanging over people's head (conventional political thought would say) voters will be kinder to him if the economy in fact does not improve. Keep the people freaked out about secure borders and hopefully they won't notice that their opportunities are stunted. This is probably the best response to my question. However it obviates the "it's for the oil" argument. Would it not be better to negotiate a deal with Saddam and turn the oil gates on, get a political plus by averting war and improving the economy? I still haven't seen a good argument that this war is a ploy for politics and greed. That argument seems far more cynical and self serving.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by ihixilu:
No one paid attention to Milosevic until it was too late. Same thing with Rwanda, etc... Containment does not preclude the use of force mind you but it certainly doesn't take as much as full scale war. Americans didn't care a wit about Yugoslavia until the moral implications (and the stability of the surrounding region) came into question.

Yugoslavia and the Balkans are in Europe. Europe is full of people and countries not short of opinions when it comes to American foreignpolicy. These were the same people who stood by with their thumbs up their asses while a region not more than a couple of hundred miles away descended into genocide. Guess who had to provide the firepower to topple Milosevic in the end?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by ihixilu:


Yugoslavia and the Balkans are in Europe. Europe is full of people and countries not short of opinions when it comes to American foreignpolicy. These were the same people who stood by with their thumbs up their asses while a region not more than a couple of hundred miles away descended into genocide. Guess who had to provide the firepower to topple Milosevic in the end?

Actually there wasnt any "genocide" in Kosovo at all - there was certainly use of military aircraft and artillery against civilian targets, but nothing comparable to the way Israel uses her military against arab civilians in the occupied territories, which is supported by the US.
The real human rights abuses didnt begin in Kosovo until AFTER the NATO (not US) bombing and even then they were exaggerated in the western media.

The US wanted to attack Milosevic not because of his human rights record, but because socialists are bad for business and war makes money.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by originalgagster


Actually there wasnt any "genocide" in Kosovo at all - there was certainly use of military aircraft and artillery against civilian targets, but nothing comparable to the way Israel uses her military against arab civilians in the occupied territories, which is supported by the US.
The real human rights abuses didnt begin in Kosovo until AFTER the NATO (not US) bombing and even then they were exaggerated in the western media.

The US wanted to attack Milosevic not because of his human rights record, but because socialists are bad for business and war makes money.

I think I've seen this before. I don't think you're saying what you're coming across as saying, so I won't touch that one.

As far as socialists and war, most of Europe is socialist, and war usually loses money in the long run.

I'm not real supportive of Bush on a war with Iraq. Yes, Hussein is evil, he is sick, and he needs to go. But there are other ways to do this at this moment, and until those efforts have been exhausted, we ought to think twice about putting our sons and daughters in harm's way.

And, yes, I am biased in this argument: My son is one of those who will be fighting.

[E.J.Armstrong]

It seems fairly clear that the current aggression against Iraq is largely related to the presence of major oil reserves in Iraq.

If that premise is false one has to ask a number of questions. Before doing so let us take for granted that Saddam Hussein is a murderous swine - like many other dictators, military or otherwise the west has previously supported to further our own interests - some of whom had access to large amounts of oil interestingly enough.

1/ Is it because he has WOMD. Apparently not because the UN inspectors haven't found any yet. If he really has any why won't the US and the UK supply the details of the location of his WOMD to Hans Blix? And what about all those other countries which actually have WOMD? they don't seem to be military targets at the moment. Some of them not even democracies. Not even China with its aggressive actions against Taiwan. In fact, China can apparently bring down America planes at will with little retaliation. Is that because they are a tad bigger than Iraq and not such an easy target?
2/ Is it because he uniquely has an active nuclear programme? Apparently not because N Korea, a country with more evidence of having programmes to develop WOMD has been treated differently - to whit negotiated with diplomatically when it is also apparently part of the Axis of Evil? What about other undemocratic governments with nuclear weapons? Is Pakistan next on the list. Or China?
3/ If it is because he has a uniquely nasty regime? Apparently not because other countries with similarly nasty regimes been treated differently - to whit North Korea, which will be dealt with diplomatically apparently or Zimbabwe where you apparently only get food aid if you voted for Mugabe? cf what happened in Central and South America.
4/ Is it because he uniquely didn't follow UN resolutions? Apparently not, otherwise action would also be taken against all the other countries currently flouting UN resolutions?
5/ Is it is because he is a uniquely murderous swine who has killed his own people? Apparently not because little military action is seemingly contemplated against other murderous swine, cf Mugabe.
6/ Is it is because he is in league with Muslim fundamentalists? Apparently not because it seems Hussein has a fairly robust view about Muslim fundamentalists - namely, he's agin them.
7/ Is it is because he is uniquely ready to give his life and be a martyr for his religion? Pull the other one.
8/ Is it is because he is a uniquely destabilising influence in the world? Apparently not - cf China and Taiwan.
9/ Is it because he was implicated with 11th Sept? Could be - if there was any evidence that he was. Meanwhile the real and admitted perpetrator of the 11th September massacre is apparently happily sending video memos to all and sundry while much military might is being gathered to be expended against a people who weren't.
Pehaps there is some secret evidence that Hussein was in league with OBL with which we are not yet familiar?
10/ Is it because he is likely to attack his neighbours? Could be. Where is the evidence that he is? China certainly seems to be more likely to attack Taiwan and has committed many atrocities in over running Tibet.
11/ Is it because he can easily be defeated and in the process provide a big boost to military expenditure and trials of expensive weaponry? Hmmmn.
12/ Is it because he has enormous oil reserves that a puppet government, put into place by the UK and the USA would generously make available to the UK and the USA in times of crisis activated by unforced regime change within the Saudi republic? That seems to be highly likely, particularly with an American govenment which has many oil men in its ranks who are in charge of a country with an enormous appetite for cheap energy - oh and the UK will tag along for the benefit of Mr Blair's CV apparently despite the fact that a large proportion of his electorate is against the war unless the UN gives specific approval in the future.
13/ Is it because the US administration has said that oil is a factor. Bingo.
PS It seems that many in the rest of the world are of the same opinion as Mr Bush's administration.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
Wars over something tangible--oil, land, access to the sea, whatever--tend to end much sooner once the objective or a compromise is reaqched, at least.
Like the Hundred Years War in the UK or the war in Vietnam or the war against the native American Indians or the war in the Middle East or the war in Northern Ireland etc.

Lets go to war about music. That's tangible. Robbie Williams could kick the butt of Donny Osmond any day. Donny's music is more destructive than other WOMD anyway.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Lets go to war about music. That's tangible. Robbie Williams could kick the butt of Donny Osmond any day. Donny's music is more destructive than other WOMD anyway.

Yes, but Donny Osmond is a Real Ammurrikin!

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by gagsta
The real human rights abuses didnt begin in Kosovo until AFTER the NATO (not US) bombing and even then they were exaggerated in the western media.

On what basis are you claiming that the reports of human rights abuses started only after the NATO (not US) bombing and that those abuses were exaggerated. That is Milosevic's argument and it is a complete fabrication. See www.senate.gov/member/ct/lieberman/general/r032598a.html

We also have the evidence of what Milosevic and his henchmen Mladic and Karadic did previously in murdering more than twice as many people in Srebrenica than were killed on 11th Sept. www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/srebrenica.html
The Dutch govenment resigned over the lamentable conduct of Dutch soldiers in that Serbian atrocity. It is clear that Serbians have suffered recently in Kosovo but let us not start to try to attempt to rewrite history so shortly after the murderous aggression carried out by Milosevic.

I thought that the US was a welcome part of the NATO bombing strategy and that they bombed from around 15000ft at certain times to keep the aircrew safe? Unfortunately some farm vehicles were mistaken for tanks because of the difficulty of accurate visual identification from that altitude and as a result some farmers were mistakenly killed in one such incident. www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

[ihixulu]

Good thread...

It seems to me that the balance of the evidence says that they, in fact, never stopped their nuclear program, despite our bribes.

The impression I'm getting from the news sources is that it is only recently that the NK's have committed themselves to specifically using the radioactive materials for weapons. Up till then it is entirely possible they were figuring on other uses for the Uranium (which technically they were allowed to enrich under the standing agreements. Oversight on Clinton's part for only focusing on the plutonium.)

As it stands they have removed themselves from the non-proliferation pact which is an unfortunate circumstance that didn't exist before.

I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back.

See above

How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who made this argument? Sounds like a straw man.

I'm making this argument. I believe that the manner in which the current administration is conducting itself with regards to the rest of the world shows inconsistencies at the least and a thorough disregard for the interests and concerns of the other nations at worst. Take fee trade for example, Bush consistently demands lower tariffs from other, weaker countries while proceeding to protect the steel industry via tariffs. With regards to Iraq, Bush was ready, willing and able to go ahead and invade (and remember the original excuse was "regime change" not WOMD) without considering the opinions of other forces in the world. I give him credit for finally acquiecing to the UN Secutiry Council protocols but he didn't have to make the US looks so bad getting there.

As far as I can tell, NK is simply using the limited bargaining chips it has in order to try to get its needs met.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ihixulu
There is also a political dimension to this. So long as Bush can keep the threat of war ... they won't notice that their opportunities are stunted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is probably the best response to my question. However it obviates the "it's for the oil" argument.

There is no simple, one dimensional answer to this. Geo-political realtions are complicated. I think that the economic impact of oil is a part of the reason, as well as the fact that GWB will look like a hero if he topples Saddam and brings democracy to Iraq (to make up for not getting OBL perhaps?) as well as having a good excuse for why the economy is slow.

I am not making judgements about GWB's motives. I may disagree with them but his philosophies of governing are just as vavlid as any other. Here's a real ad-hom though: I do think he is an idiot.

There is also the question of how expensive is it to keep the al-Sauds secure in Saudi Arabia. After all, a lot of the anti US sentiments come from there and if Iraq becomes an unconditional ally (cheap, secure source of oil) it would allow for an exit strategy from Saudi Arabia. Just thinking out loud on this one...

[originalgagster]

I don't think you're saying what you're coming across as saying, so I won't touch that one.

No i dont think i was, im not keen to rewrite history - theres no doubt milosevic was a thuggish political opportunist, and the crimes commited while he was president are very real.
Its really just a question of definition - what constitutes genocide? If using armed forces against innocent people is genocide then Milosovic commited genocide - but then so do Israel, Indonesia, Turkey and countless other countries the west sends weapons to, and we dont refer to this as genocide - to us these countries are just taking care of business in their own back yards.

On what basis are you claiming that the reports of human rights abuses started only after the NATO (not US) bombing and that those abuses were exaggerated. That is Milosevic's argument is a complete fabrication. See www.senate.gov/member/ct/lieberman/...l/r032598a.html

I didnt mean to imply that all reports of atrocities started after the invasion - there were perhaps as many as 2000 civilians killed during Serbian army operations against the KLA in the year before the bombing, but the mass expulsion of kosovan people didnt begin until the same day as the bombing , likewise the appearance of paramilitaries and the reports of assasinations and mass graves didnt begin until after the bombing started. My point is simply that if the object of bombing Serbia was to prevent human rights abuses it can only be judged an abject failure.

And the initial reports of human rights abuses were exagerrated, often ridiculously so. Initial reports in western newspapers gave figures as high as 100000 dead, the figure is now accepted as less than 3000. Of course if Milosevic had (as is likely) a hand in the atrocities he should be brought to justice.
But i dont see any difference between Milosevic and the dozens of military dictators the west has propped up over the years, in fact compared to many of these slobbo is really quite benign.

I guess what really wrankles with me is the sheer and blatant hypocrisy with which the US and its British lapdog conduct their affairs.

I agree with the rest of what you say - my aim was never to rewrite history, just to add a little symmetry

[Drooper]

I for one just don't understand this "he's after the oil" stuff.

I can't for a moment see the US being allowed to steal Iraq's natural resources.

As for Bushes oil buddies. I would have thought the best thing to line their pockets was to keep all that mid-east oil in the gound, keep up prices and make that West Texas crude all the more valuable.

[Skeptic]

I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back.

You mean the blackmailers turned out to be liars, too? I'm SHOCKED.

But, then again, it was totally unexpected: appeasement worked SO well before, as in the case of Hitler... and the north vietnamese... and Arafat... and Stalin... er, I'll get back to you on that one.

This is not to say, of course, that negotiations never works and "bomb-them-to-the-stone-age" is always the only solution. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out negotiation isn't worth much with the likes of Kim and Hussein.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Drooper:
I for one just don't understand this "he's after the oil" stuff.

I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

[ihixulu]

I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

What are you, crazy? Once Britney's new album comes out people will be rushing to get in their SUV's to hurry to the mall. Iraqi oil? What Iraqi oil?

In truth, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with waging war in the name of one's economic self interest. The problem, IMO, is how the Bush administration is trying to make it seem like they are doing it for other "more noble" reasons. (How is it that Pakistan, a country that was supporting the Taliban at its highest levels was allowed to get a hold of a nuke? Saddam's a threat? Puhleeze)

Bush is using the mushroom philosophy* of management to communicate with the American people and that prevents a real and rational discussion of the nation's policies among the people.

Then again such a discussion might take up too much time and get in the way of watching the Bachelorette, so who knows, maybe he's doing America a favor by being shady.




* mushroom philosophy of management: keep them in the dark and feed them crap.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Drooper:


I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

Shane by your own high standards this is a weak retort. Do you think he is not being driven by a combination of the following factors:

- His best buddies are all oil men
- He needs to keep up his popularity by inventing an easily defeatable enemy because Osama cant be found dead or alive as everybody knows a president at war time has a higher chance of being re-elected
- His own "credibility" the same reason various american presidents loaded soldiers into Vietnam into a war they couldn't win

He is getting more and more desperate as Blix for whatever reason cannot find a single thing in Iraq and this is making him more dangerous and giving Saddam more and more credibility in the middle east.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back.

But, then again, it was totally unexpected: appeasement worked SO well before, as in the case of Hitler... and the north vietnamese... and Arafat... and Stalin... er, I'll get back to you on that one.



I cant see the sense in this argument, sure the way the west tried to appease Hitler was shameful, but what parallels do you draw between Hitler and Hussein?
Hitler was head of the worlds mightiest military machine and was annexing large parts of Europe and aggresively gearing up for war, Saddam Hussein is a danger to no-one. You can only appease someone who is an aggressor and Saddam Hussein isnt, and even if he wanted to be he wouldnt have anything like the capability.

And exactly how did the West try to appease Stalin? or Arafat?
I dont recall Arafat making demands on foreign territories.

[Samus]

ihixulu wrote:
Then again such a discussion might take up too much time and get in the way of watching the Bachelorette, so who knows, maybe he's doing America a favor by being shady.
Sadly, you're probably right. I think people are more concerned with the newest reality show then whether or not we're going to send our troops to war.

OBgac wrote:
Do you think he is not being driven by a combination of the following factors:

- His best buddies are all oil men
- He needs to keep up his popularity by inventing an easily defeatable enemy because Osama cant be found dead or alive as everybody knows a president at war time has a higher chance of being re-elected
- His own "credibility" the same reason various american presidents loaded soldiers into Vietnam into a war they couldn't win
I think those are some of the lesser factors. To say the aforementioned issues aren't a part of the decision would be naive. However, I think he has more substantial reasons for wanting to act.

Iraq is a threat not because they're going to invade us and try to topple our government. They are a threat because of the capabilities they have. Let us assume that they have the capability to deploy chemical and biological weapons (if you honestly believe they don't have this capability, then you haven't been paying much attention to the news). With U.N. weapons inspectors on their property, they're not going to flaunt their abilities.

However, what is to keep them from selling this technology to terrorist groups that will attack the U.S. on our soil? They (Iraq) don't have the ability to attack us directly, they're not strong enough. They are, however, in a good position to work with existing terrorist organizations that do have the capability of deploying an attack on us when we least expect it.

Iraq is a threat, and the president would argue they are a more immediate threat than anything Osama bin Laden is cooking up. I don't know if I agree with that, but that is the basis for his shift from targeting one terrorist network (al-Quida) to targeting a nation that seeks to sell to multiple terrorist networks.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by dwb

Iraq is a threat not because they're going to invade us and try to topple our government. They are a threat because of the capabilities they have. Let us assume that they have the capability to deploy chemical and biological weapons (if you honestly believe they don't have this capability, then you haven't been paying much attention to the news). With U.N. weapons inspectors on their property, they're not going to flaunt their abilities.



If Iraq is a threat only because of the capabilities they have then what do we make of the US which has more chemical and biological weapons than every country in the world put together? How do we gauge the threat the US poses to world security?

And dont forget Saddam Hussein has these weapons in large part because the US and UK were more than happy to sell him the technology he needed to build them. A little hypocritical of us to use his possession of weapons we gave him as justification for attack.

[Samus]

originalgagster, I'm opening a separate topic (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12345) to discuss your post, as the moderator in me doesn't want the topic drift... :)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by dwb
originalgagster, I'm opening a separate topic (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12345) to discuss your post, as the moderator in me doesn't want the topic drift... :)

I don't see much drift in this discussion, DWB. Gagster is correct in pointing out that America, Britain, Germany, and a whole host of nations were willing over the course of years to sit back and say nothing as Hussein was building up his arsenal, purchased with the credit we gave him.

Our sons and daughters will be facing weapons we provided the enemy. They will be facing a technology we provided. If there were any justice, the children SOBs who armed Hussein would be the ones facing down the Republican Guards, and not ours.

But there is no justice, of course. Idiot, me...

[INRM]

There was a law made which made it illegal to kill foreign head of state...

Why not just repeal the law, assassinate Saddam Houssein, then after he's dead and we put a guy we like in power, we then put the law back into effect?

I call it "Law on Demand"; a law you create, then repeal to suit your purposes, you of course, bring the law back into effect after you've done your business to claim "we do not kill foreign head of state" (meaning "We do not kill foreign head of state unless it suits our purposes").

Assasination is ugly, but the whole problem is Saddam Houssein and his government. So why not whack Houssein and his Sons? It would be far more efficient than having to attack all of Iraq and kill lots of innocent people in an attempt to get a couple of people!

-INRM23

[ihixulu]

...if you honestly believe they don't have this capability, then you haven't been paying much attention to the news...

I watch the news and read newspapers and as far as I can tell Blix and Co. aren't finding anything. Even with the so-called imtelligence from the US and UK.

I think they MIGHT have something but it is not of a quantity, and lacking delivery methods, that would qualify it as a threat to the US.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ihixulu

In truth, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with waging war in the name of one's economic self interest.
I'm in no mood to become involved in another Iraq debate on this board, but I'd like you to consider whether our oil supplies are imperiled. Just a few days ago, OPEC announced that it was boosting production to relieve the price of oil after it jumped up on war fears. If our oil supplies are not threatened, then that does not rule out oil as a motivation for attacking Iraq, but it does rule it out as a moral justification. Does anyone seriously think that Iraq poses a threat to Saudi Arabia at this time, as someone proposed as a consideration?

In thinking about oil as a factor, I propose that you consider it in a larger context: conquering Iraq to assert hegemony over the Middle East. The foreign policy strategy statement released by the Bush administration in September is pretty much a declaration of world hegemony as policy. Why not start with an easy and very lucrative target?

[ihixulu]

Wayne, interesting points,

I'm in no mood to become involved in another Iraq debate on this board, but I'd like you to consider whether our oil supplies are imperiled. Just a few days ago, OPEC announced that it was boosting production to relieve the price of oil after it jumped up on war fears.

I don't think it's necessarily that our oil supplies are imperiled (the US will be the last country in the world at this point to lose access to oil) but a president's political future may be imperiled by rising prices of oil. By keeping oil prices down Bush increases his chances of reelection thereby allowing more time for the exercise of the GOP agenda. Ultimately the GOP is who he works for.

Further, Americans have been conditioned to be very sensitive to rising oil prices. Note how the media portrays evey 2 cent rise on a gallon of gas as if it were as tragic as the Kennedy assasination. An imagined threat will be perceived as real if it is dramatized effectively.

Regarding the OPEC issue, my understanding was that the increase in production was a response to the Venezuelan strike situation. Since OPEC as a cartel aims to keep a certain price point, with Venezuela's exit from production it called for increases in production elsewhere.

[Drooper]

. By keeping oil prices down Bush increases his chances of reelection thereby allowing more time for the exercise of the GOP agenda

But according to some, GW is only trying to keep his oil buddies happy. And to keep his oil buddies happy he would need to increase oil prices.



Regarding the OPEC issue, my understanding was that the increase in production was a response to the Venezuelan strike situation

The reason OPEC countries are increasing (planned) output is because they are desperate for the money (especialy Saudi) and will take any opportunity they can to sell more oil, without risking a collapse in the price.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
1. Is it because he has WOMD. Apparently not because the UN inspectors haven't found any yet. It took years to find Saddam's biological weapons the last time around. He has had years to hide them. I haven't heard anyone suggest that the inspectors would be successful right at the start.

If no one expected them to be successful in so short of time then why would you make this argument?

If he really has any why won't the US and the UK supply the details of the location of his WOMD to Hans Blix? Doesn't this presume that the evidence that the US has is where the weapons are? Why would you make this assumption?

And what about all those other countries which actually have WOMD? they don't seem to be military targets at the moment. Some of them not even democracies. Not even China with its aggressive actions against Taiwan. In fact, China can apparently bring down America planes at will with little retaliation. Is that because they are a tad bigger than Iraq and not such an easy target? North Korea is successfully using its nuclear arsenal to extort money from the west.

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep Saddam from having the same ability?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ihixulu
The impression I'm getting from the news sources is that it is only recently that the NK's have committed themselves to specifically using the radioactive materials for weapons. Up till then it is entirely possible they were figuring on other uses for the Uranium (which technically they were allowed to enrich under the standing agreements. Oversight on Clinton's part for only focusing on the plutonium.) My understanding is different. The North Koreans were caught breaking the agreement. We did not break our end btw. It is self serving of them to blame Bush's rhetoric for their actions.

ihixulu
How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states...

RandFan
Who made this argument? Sounds like a straw man.

ihixulu
I'm making this argument. Sorry, this was miscommunication on my part. My question was "Who is labeling nations as rogue states when they use hardball tactics." I am unfamiliar with such rhetoric.


As far as I can tell, NK is simply using the limited bargaining chips it has in order to try to get its needs met. Of course they are. And soon Saddam will be able to do the same.

There is no simple, one dimensional answer to this. I agree, hence my answer. Why is the rhetoric focused on oil?

Geo-political realtions are complicated. Exactly. And explaining complicated concepts to the American people serves little political purpose. So keep repeating the mantra that Bush is stupid and he is going into Iraq because he wants to make his freinds rich. It's all ******** but easy to get accross. AKA politics.

I think that the economic impact of oil is a part of the reason, as well as the fact that GWB will look like a hero if he topples Saddam and brings democracy to Iraq (to make up for not getting OBL perhaps?) as well as having a good excuse for why the economy is slow. It just doesn't wash. Such arguments seem to serve those who are counter to Bush more than Bush.

I am not making judgements about GWB's motives. I may disagree with them but his philosophies of governing are just as vavlid as any other. Here's a real ad-hom though: I do think he is an idiot. Of course, why not. And Clinton was immoral. It's easier to deal with life when we can reduce our opponents to simple sound bites and judgments. It doesn't require critical thinking just knee jerk reaction and the willingness to tow a political line.

There is also the question of how expensive is it to keep the al-Sauds secure in Saudi Arabia. After all, a lot of the anti US sentiments come from there and if Iraq becomes an unconditional ally (cheap, secure source of oil) it would allow for an exit strategy from Saudi Arabia. Just thinking out loud on this one... It doesn't follow. There are two factions in Saudi Arabia. One pro US the other anti. Both would be happy if we left Iraq alone.

[kourama]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I disagree. Both in the Kurdish north and the Shia south he essentially has no grip on the country. When he sends troops to either region they get chewed up by local forces. Also, the vast majority of the oil he sends out is not sent out under his control, and the cash is administered by the UN, with a percentage proportionate to their population going directly to the Kurds. (and perhaps the same is true for the Shia, but I'm not sure.)

Still, the sanctions hurt Iraqis in the region he controls, and I'll be glad when the region he controls is a 6x2x2 pine box and the sanctions are history.

MattJ

True, I must admit, that there are kurds enjoying everything from peanut butter to cell phones within range of saddam-friendly artillery. However, large urban populations in the country are still under his control. Perhaps I should have said that the U.N. sanctions have served to tighten his control over already held areas, and create a more sharply contrasted border. Of course, if the U.S. patrols stop flying over Kurdish areas, he might crush them again as he did in '91.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Shane by your own high standards this is a weak retort.

Compliments are always welcome, even the backhanded variety. :) Hint: This was a question, not a retort.

- His best buddies are all oil men
- He needs to keep up his popularity by inventing an easily defeatable enemy because Osama cant be found dead or alive as everybody knows a president at war time has a higher chance of being re-elected

1. Who are his oil man "best buddies"? What evidence is there that they have influenced the legislative process since Bush assumed the presidency? Hint: Americans love their motor cars, public transport is anathema to them and a lot of them live in places that get very cold in the winter.

2. "It's the economy, stupid!" A victorous military campaign and stellar approval ratings didn't do his Dad any good when it really mattered.

Can you please solid evidence for any of the claims you've made? If not, then it ill behoves you to call anyone else's comments weak.

[Smalso]

I cannot say that Bush's primary motivation for going to war with Iraq is oil and neither can anyone else unless they can get into his mind and read his thoughts; but it makes sense that any action in that part of the world would take oil into consideration. I believe the primary reason is the 2004 elections. Bush has won some victories for the Republican Party and would certainly like to keep it going and consolidate his power in a second term. The main thing is to keep the war on terrorism on everybody's mind and give the impression that the administration is doing something. Saddam is an easy target. The US kicked his butt once and there's no reason it can't do it again. The entire world knows he's a prick and even those countries who will not give us active support will not actively support Iraq, either. Hell, even the other Arab countries don't like him. Whether he has WMDs makes no difference. All Bush has to do is say that he has good evidence of them and who is to say otherwise? Add to that the state of the economy in the US and the desirability of keeping that off the front page....

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Drooper

But according to some, GW is only trying to keep his oil buddies happy. And to keep his oil buddies happy he would need to increase oil prices.

Raising the price too high would cause conservation to kick in. That's what caused the collapse of OPEC in the early 80's. The US's imports were cut in half from their peak in 1977. (Domestic production also increased as it became feasible to pursue more costly methods of recovery on capped wells, and production from other non-OPEC sources also put downward pressure on global prices: increased production from Mexico, new production from the North Sea.)

The US oil companies currently do not have access to Iraq's oil fields. That would change with regime change. For example, the Iraqi opposition groups that the US is supporting have said that if they came to power, they would not honor agreements made by the Hussein regime and would favor the development of Iraq's oil industry by a consortium headed by US companies. (The idea of these opposition groups forming a government has been abandoned in favor of a military government run by occupying US forces for an untold number of years.)

I don't think anyone can remove oil as a major consideration in the matter-- the major consideration. It is what makes the region strategically important to the US. I'm suggesing, however, that the reasons are more complicated than just enriching Bush and Cheney's oil buddies.

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello

Compliments are always welcome, even the backhanded variety. :) Hint: This was a question, not a retort.


Shane:
Are you arguing that a retort cannot be in the form of a question?



1. Who are his oil man "best buddies"? What evidence is there that they have influenced the legislative process since Bush assumed the presidency? Hint: Americans love their motor cars, public transport is anathema to them and a lot of them live in places that get very cold in the winter.


Seeing as you started the sarcasm I will use the Americanism to retort: "Hellooooo?"

Oil , Bush . Hmmm lets see. Difficult one.

G. W. Bush - Harkan Energy
Cheney - Halliburton
Rice - Chevron

Do I really need to go on? He is surrounded by people who were involved in the oil business.

So a lot of them live in places that get cold? I suppose those SUV's have better heaters in them and thats why people drive them? Hint: Maybe Americans consume more than a proportionate amount of natural resources because its really cheap and if they were forced to be a little more economical about it then e.g. an increase of 2c in the price of a gallon of gas wouldnt be so important.



2. "It's the economy, stupid!" A victorous military campaign and stellar approval ratings didn't do his Dad any good when it really mattered.


If the Economy was doing well then Bush wouldn't need a public enemy number 1 to be distracting the general public.



Can you please solid evidence for any of the claims you've made? If not, then it ill behoves you to call anyone else's comments weak.
confused: :confused: :confused:


Solid evidence? Its like asking for solid evidence that gravity exists. Look around. Open your eyes. Read something else instead of "The Telegraph" for a change.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
Shane Costello
1. Who are his oil man "best buddies"? What evidence is there that they have influenced the legislative process since Bush assumed the presidency? Hint: Americans love their motor cars, public transport is anathema to them and a lot of them live in places that get very cold in the winter.

Shane Costello
Seeing as you started the sarcasm I will use the Americanism to retort: "Hellooooo?"

Oil , Bush . Hmmm lets see. Difficult one.

G. W. Bush - Harkan Energy
Cheney - Halliburton
Rice - Chevron

Do I really need to go on? He is surrounded by people who were involved in the oil business. You did not finish answering. I wonder why? Do you have any evidence that Cheney and Rice influenced legislation for personal purposes related to oil? Or Is Bush simply guilty by association?

Solid evidence? Its like asking for solid evidence that gravity exists. Look around. Open your eyes. Read something else instead of "The Telegraph" for a change. What??? Is that the "if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck...?" Sounds like the typical woo woo answer.

Bill Clinton received illegal funds from China. The United States then relaxed export rules to China. We then discovered that China advanced ahead years in their nuclear arms development.... hmmmm.... Let's "see open my eyes". Oh my god....Clinton sold national secrets to China for personal economic gain.

Man on stage puts women in box. I can see her feet and her arms protruding from box. Man saws box in half...hmmmm... oh my god this man sawed a woman in half.

Hint, not all things are as they appear. That is why Shane asked for evidence. Shane is using critical thinking. Just because it looks like the man sawed the woman in half doesn't mean that he did.

Just because Bill Clinton has a lot of Chinese friends and received illegal funds from them does not mean that he sold national secrets to the Chinese.

Just because Bush worked in oil, had friends in the oil business does not mean that he is motivated by that fact. Try reading Randi’s commentaries (http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html) sometime, he discusses critical thinking allot and you will recognize how to avoid such specious reasoning.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally p;osed by Shane Costello
I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

Just asking.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by RandFan
You did not finish answering. I wonder why? Do you have any evidence that Cheney and Rice influenced legislation for personal purposes related to oil? Or Is Bush simply guilty by association?

What??? Is that the "if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck...?" Sounds like the typical woo woo answer.

Bill Clinton received illegal funds from China. The United States then relaxed export rules to China. We then discovered that China advanced ahead years in their nuclear arms development.... hmmmm.... Let's "see open my eyes". Oh my god....Clinton sold national secrets to China for personal economic gain.

Man on stage puts women in box. I can see her feet and her arms protruding from box. Man saws box in half...hmmmm... oh my god this man sawed a woman in half.

Hint, not all things are as they appear. That is why Shane asked for evidence. Shane is using critical thinking. Just because it looks like the man sawed the woman in half doesn't mean that he did.

Just because Bill Clinton has a lot of Chinese friends and received illegal funds from them does not mean that he sold national secrets to the Chinese.

Just because Bush worked in oil, had friends in the oil business does not mean that he is motivated by that fact. Try reading Randi’s commentaries (http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html) sometime, he discusses critical thinking allot and you will recognize how to avoid such specious reasoning.


Thanks for the lecture Randfan on critical thinking. Lets just move slightly sideways and I will come back to the Oil thing:

My critical thinking tells me Saddam has hidden WMD somewhere although I'm pretty sure no-one will find them. So you and Shane should now proceed to ask me where the evidence is and imply that because I don't have the evidence I cannot come to the conclusion?

Same as the Oil thing. Somebody spends a considerable amount of your life in Oil or a considerable amount of your personal wealth has accumulated from it and you think as an Oilman/Oil person. You dont think like a tree hugger.

Randfan o great critical thinker you: If Saddam was in the middle of Africa with no oil but probability of WMD do you think the US would be in the position it is now? Hint: Not all things are as they appear but sometimes THEY ARE!

Man puts Woman in Box, Man saws box. Blood everywhere. Woman dies. Oh God, indeed he did saw her in half.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
My critical thinking tells me Saddam has hidden WMD somewhere although I'm pretty sure no-one will find them. So you and Shane should now proceed to ask me where the evidence is and imply that because I don't have the evidence I cannot come to the conclusion? Without evidence Bush cannot prove that Saddam has WMD. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Same as the Oil thing. Somebody spends a considerable amount of your life in Oil or a considerable amount of your personal wealth has accumulated from it and you think as an Oilman/Oil person. You dont think like a tree hugger. What has this got to do with anything? So what if someone thinks like an oil man? Is that alone proof? No! It's what is known as specious reasoning.

Randfan o great critical thinker you: If Saddam was in the middle of Africa with no oil but probability of WMD do you think the US would be in the position it is now? Hint: Not all things are as they appear but sometimes THEY ARE! And critical thinkers require proof before they give their money to the guy selling land in Florida that it is ubove water.

It would be speculation on my part to say that we wouldn't. In any event the fact that oil might play a part need not have anything to do with oil connections.

Man puts Woman in Box, Man saws box. Blood everywhere. Woman dies. Oh God, indeed he did saw her in half. Thank you for making my point. Blood would indeed be evidence would it not. Where is the "blood" in the case of oil = war? Where is your evidence?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
It took years to find Saddam's biological weapons the last time around. He has had years to hide them. I haven't heard anyone suggest that the inspectors would be successful right at the start.

If no one expected them to be successful in so short of time then why would you make this argument.

The UN team is also not looking for WOMD in a vacuum insulated from the real world. America and the UK have claimed that they have evidence for Husseins weapons of mass destruction. See paragraph after the next quote. Hans Blix has complained that they have not shared that material with him and his life would be made easier if they did. Why have they not done so? Why are they asking Hussein to prove a negative. How would America go about proving to the UN that it did not have any chemical WOMD left?

On what possible grounds can anyone threaten a war on the basis that Iraq has WOMD and agree to send a team into Iraq but not tell that team or the world where those weapons are? It doesn't make any sense unless the oil reserves are taken into account as indicated by the GW team themselves. These are just a few reasons why many in the world are skeptical about the reasons for the war in Iraq.

Where is the evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 11th Sept? Is there any?
Doesn't this presume that the evidence that the US has is where the weapons are? Why would you make this assumption?
For the answer see www.usembassy.org.uk/bush201.html
For the very simple reason that GW and Tony Blair claimed that they know he has them. The world is asking. Where is that evidence?
North Korea is successfully using its nuclear arsenal to extort money from the west.

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep Saddam from having the same ability?
Sorry. Not with you there Rand Fan. The point of that part of my post was that NK, which has much greater evidence of a WOMD programme gets negotiated with while another country is about to be attacked. On the basis of your own argument Pakistan and N Korea should be atacked first. After all they actually have more immediate potential to use WOMD. Perhaps they are next on the list but I don't see any reason to believe that they will be. For some reason Iraq is singled out . The reason many people believe this is happening is very little to do with international terrorism and more to do with oil. If it really was the other way around surely all those other reprehensible states would be attacked first?

[OBgac]

Originally posted by RandFan
Without evidence Bush cannot prove that Saddam has WMD. I'm glad we cleared that up.

What has this got to do with anything? So what if someone thinks like an oil man? Is that alone proof? No! It's what is known as specious reasoning.

And critical thinkers require proof before they give their money to the guy selling land in Florida that it is ubove water.

It would be speculation on my part to say that we wouldn't. In any event the fact that oil might play a part need not have anything to do with oil connections.

Thank you for making my point. Blood would indeed be evidence would it not. Where is the "blood" in the case of oil = war? Where is your evidence?

Randfan
In an ideal world all criminals would be convicted by video evidence of them committing the crime too but sometimes the courts will go on circumstantial evidence.

My argument is the same regarding G.W.B. that there is (for me) sufficient substantial evidence reasons backing up my original reasons for going to war (which also related to other things than Oil) and I stand over my opinions while fully admitting that I dont have the level of evidence that you require.

For some reason I do believe that well over 90% of the animals that walk and sound like ducks are, in fact, ducks.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Exactly. And explaining complicated concepts to the American people serves little political purpose. So keep repeating the mantra that Bush is stupid and he is going into Iraq because he wants to make his freinds rich. It's all ******** but easy to get accross. AKA politics.

The Bush administration has admitted that the war in Iraq is also about oil. Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********. The evidence speaks for itself.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The UN team is also not looking for WOMD in a vacuum insulated from the real world. America and the UK have claimed that they have evidence for Husseins weapons of mass destruction. See paragraph after the next quote. Hans Blix has complained that they have not shared that material with him and his life would be made easier if they did. Why have they not done so? Why are they asking Hussein to prove a negative. How would America go about proving to the UN that it did not have any chemical WOMD left? The materials that Saddam gave as proof leave no doubt that he is not cooperating. We don't need to ask him to prove a negative. He needs to fill in the holes that are so glaring in his documentation. Even Blix admits this. It is something that they can do. Here is the important question that you for some reason are not asking. Why won't Saddam provide the information that is missing in his report?

I don't know why the UK or the US is not giving Blix the info. It might not help him. Hell the report proves Saddam is lying. Why does the US need to prove to Blix anything? If the information won't help Blix then there is no need to give it too him.

On what possible grounds can anyone threaten a war on the basis that Iraq has WOMD and agree to send a team into Iraq but not tell that team or the world where those weapons are? Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me try again. Why do you assume that the evidence in question demonstrates that we know where they are? You are making unsupported assumptions.

It doesn't make any sense unless the oil reserves are taken into account as indicated by the GW team themselves. These are just a few reasons why many in the world are skeptical about the reasons for the war in Iraq. No, that is just not right. The oil reserves do nothing to answer the questions I originally posed. In fact the oil makes it more difficult. And the sentiments of the rest of the world are proof of nothing.

Where is the evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 11th Sept? Is there any? I did not make that argument. Why do you ask?

For the very simple reason that GW and Tony Blair claimed that they know he has them. The world is asking. Where is that evidence? The world will have to wait. If they can't figure out that this guy is a dangerous liar on their own then tough.

Sorry. Not with you there Rand Fan. The point of that part of my post was that NK, which has much greater evidence of a WOMD programme gets negotiated with while another country is about to be attacked. Because the have WOMD is why they are being treated differently. And if we let Saddam get them we might not even get the opportunity to negotiate.

On the basis of your own argument Pakistan and N Korea should be atacked first. After all they actually have more immediate potential to use WOMD. Then you did not understand my point. Because the have nuclear weapons we have no choice but to deal with them differently. I only whish that they didn't have them and we could treat them like Iraq.

Perhaps they are next on the list but I don't see any reason to believe that they will be. For some reason Iraq is singled out . The reason many people believe this is happening is very little to do with international terrorism and more to do with oil. If it really was the other way around surely all those other reprehensible states would be attacked first? We have to treat them differently because the have working nuclear weapons right now. If Iraq had them we would treat him differently also. However, we may need to invade North Korea at some point.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Hint, not all things are as they appear. That is why Shane asked for evidence. Shane is using critical thinking. Just because it looks like the man sawed the woman in half doesn't mean that he did.

Is that what Shane is doing?
I would just quote the following
/www.thebushblade.com/archive12.html
Or
www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007zjd
Or
from th Washington Post
discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/sp_world_klare091902.htm.
etc etc.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by OBgac


My argument is the same regarding G.W.B. that there is (for me) sufficient substantial evidence reasons backing up my original reasons for going to war (which also related to other things than Oil) and I stand over my opinions while fully admitting that I dont have the level of evidence that you require.

For some reason I do believe that well over 90% of the animals that walk and sound like ducks are, in fact, ducks.

If you are going to start a war which could potentially involve WOMD and end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and perhaps even involve the possibility of nuclear weapons, you damn well better provide something alot more rock solid than "well he walks and sounds like a duck so hes probably a duck"

We need genuine and irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein is actively developing WOMD, that he is planning to use these to launch a brutal attack on a sovereign state. Unless the US can provide this, they have no genuine reason for attacking Iraq.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The Bush administration has admitted that the war in Iraq is also about oil. Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********.[/B] Many in the rest of the world? Are you kidding? Did you actually make that argument? Can you say fallacious? Many in the rest of the world believe that women should not vote. Many in the rest of the world worship god. Please see Argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum)

The evidence speaks for itself. WHAT EVIDENCE?????? Stop saying this and cite it ok?

[OBgac]

Originally posted by originalgagster


If you are going to start a war which could potentially involve WOMD and end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and perhaps even involve the possibility of nuclear weapons, you damn well better provide something alot more rock solid than "well he walks and sounds like a duck so hes probably a duck"

We need genuine and irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein is actively developing WOMD, that he is planning to use these to launch a brutal attack on a sovereign state. Unless the US can provide this, they have no genuine reason for attacking Iraq.

I agree 100%, however some of the so-called critical thinkers on this site which hold everything else to such a high standard, have a blind spot when it comes to GW Bush. They somehow dont need the evidence to back him when he goes marching in.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
Randfan
In an ideal world all criminals would be convicted by video evidence of them committing the crime too but sometimes the courts will go on circumstantial evidence. You can't convict a man for racketeering just because he hangs out with mobsters. You need evidence that he has committed a crime.

My argument is the same regarding G.W.B. that there is (for me) sufficient substantial evidence reasons backing up my original reasons for going to war (which also related to other things than Oil) and I stand over my opinions while fully admitting that I dont have the level of evidence that you require. Do you believe that Clinton sold national secrets to the Chinese? Sure you can believe anything that you want to but I choose to have proof. Just because a guy pulls a rabbit out of a hat doesn't mean it was magic. All I ask is for evidence.

For some reason I do believe that well over 90% of the animals that walk and sound like ducks are, in fact, ducks. And this proves what?????

Clinton’s campaign received illegal funds from a failed savings and loan. Clinton was the only one to have benefited from those funds. The funds were funneled through his business. Is this proof that Clinton broke the law?

It sounds good but where is the "blood" that you mentioned? Or should I accept that the man cuts the woman in half?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan


We have to treat them differently because the have working nuclear weapons right now. If Iraq had them we would treat him differently also. However, we may need to invade North Korea at some point.

You are undermining your own argument here. on one hand you are saying "if Iraq had nuclear weapons we wouldnt be so quick to attack Saddam"

you are also saying "its not so safe to attack N. Korea because thay have nuclear weapons"


If your argument that saddam can be invaded safely only because he has no nuclear weapons is valid, then you are justifying the North Korean weapons program, for then by developing nuclear weapons they are, by your argument equipping themselves to deal with a potential US attack.

This seems to lend credence to the view that countries like N. Korea and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons to deter US aggression. And in this case the US has no excuse to invade N. Korea because as you yourself have shown the North Korean nuclear weapons program is entirely justified

[Wayne Grabert]

I like ducks. I like to feed them pieces of bread.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Toriginally posted by RandFan
The materials that Saddam gave as proof leave no doubt that he is not cooperating. We don't need to ask him to prove a negative. He needs to fill in the holes that are so glaring in his documentation. Even Blix admits this. It is something that they can do. Here is the important question that you for some reason are not asking. Why won't Saddam provide the information that is missing in his report?
That is a question you have to ask Saddam Hussein I feel. I am happy to abide with the CIA assessment. Given that assessment the world is asking is why the USA and the UK have not yet provided Hans Blix with the proof of the WOMD they claim to know about? Is there some reason the UN inspectorate shouldn't know where they are?
Many in the rest of the world? Are you kidding? Did you actually make that argument? Can you say fallacious? Many in the rest of the world believe that women should not vote. Many in the rest of the world worship god. Please see Argumentum ad populum
No I am not kidding RandFan. I am not kidding at all. If anyone wants to start a war on the basis of claims of WOMD let them defend their claims with proof. The rest of the world is entitled to ask for proof of the USA and the UK's claims unless you know otherwise. And your point is what exactly? That I am not allowed to point out that many people believe that the war is about oil? I disagree.
For your information I did not present that comment as proof of anything. It is a statement of fact. That is the only claim I make for that statement.
WHAT EVIDENCE?????? Stop saying this and cite it ok?
Perhaps you didn't read my post where I did just that RandFan? There was a long list of things which compared Husseins regime with others which are not under threat of attack. I recommend that you read others posts before accusing people of not posting any evidence. And in CAPITAL letters too with lots of question marks. I hope you feel better for it. I have supplied many reasons why the war is about oil. But as you seem to find it hard to locate evidence for the oil connection in relation to the war in Iraq how's about this one
www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,825105,00.html
or this one
www.democracymatters.org/ResearchCenter/Money/Oil_Money.htm
or this one
www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=4628

etc.

I hope that will give you a flavour of what many reasonable people believe. Of course you can claim that is not evidence of anything RandFan. But at least now some of it has been brought to your attention.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
You can't convict a man for racketeering just because he hangs out with mobsters. You need evidence that he has committed a crime.

Excellent point. I hope we have evidence of Hussein's WOMD before we trash his country. Oil being largely below ground is fairly safe even then of course.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I like ducks. I like to feed them pieces of bread.

Me too. Sometimes, I try to feed them hand grenades.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Me too. Sometimes, I try to feed them hand grenades.
Goose lover! :mad:

[Roadtoad]

I, too, would like to see evidence of WMDs before we start charging across the border. But Randfan has made a critical point: Why would you wait until Hussein has them, and they are OPERATIONAL, before you make your move?

If I were to acquire the components to make nerve gas, including the lab ware, do you really want the FBI to wait until I have a few canisters of the stuff before they raid my home? Or do you want them to act? I may be very sane, and have no ill purpose intended for nerve gas, save as an exercise in personal research, but that doesn't mean my home is impregnable, and that someone with ill intent has no intention of using that material themselves. It makes more sense to stop Hussein before these weapons become operational, and Allied lives are lost.

And now that NK and Pakistan have WMDs, how can we get them to give them up? Pakistan might be easier to deal with; they're at least speaking to us for the moment. North Korea? That's going to be trickier. And it's not going to get easier with Kim still running that country. Remember: his father ordered the bombing of a civilian air liner.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
You are undermining your own argument here. It wouldn't be the first time. Hmmm.... I don't think so...let's look at your argument.

...on one hand you are saying "if Iraq had nuclear weapons we wouldn’t be so quick to attack Saddam" Yes that is correct.

you are also saying "its not so safe to attack N. Korea because they have nuclear weapons" Again, correct.

If your argument that saddam can be invaded safely only because he has no nuclear weapons is valid, then you are justifying the North Korean weapons program, for then by developing nuclear weapons they are, by your argument equipping themselves to deal with a potential US attack. They could make that argument, sure.

This seems to lend credence to the view that countries like N. Korea and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons to deter US aggression. Circular reasoning, that they could make the argument does not "validate" that argument. It might prompt them to get the weapons because we will treat them differently if they act in an aggressive nature. This does not undermine my argument it simply states why we would want to stop rogue states before they get the arms. I understand your point but it is akin to hate groups arming themselves with illegal weapons because they (hate groups) believe that the federal government will raid them before they acquire the illegal weapons. And therefore they are justified in acquiring said weapons. I don't think it would fly in a court of law, do you?

And in this case the US has no excuse to invade N. Korea because as you yourself have shown the North Korean nuclear weapons program is entirely justified No, it would not give them justification. If so then hate groups are justified in acquiring illegal weapons.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
That is a question you have to ask Saddam Hussein I feel. ????? Why would I have to ask Saddam? That he has failed to provide the information is proof that he is in material breach. You are the one out connecting dots. To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.

But for some reason you refuse to draw conclusions from something quite material. You tell me to go ask Saddam, I don't need to ask him, I can make assumptions about his reason for non compliance.

[list=1]
He has WOMD and providing the information would reveal that fact.
He was unable to provide the information. If so why was he unable to?
He is playing games.
Can you give me a reason?
[/list=1]

Bush on the other hand is a different story. His contacts could indicate that he is going to war because of them or it could be a coincidence. Do you have proof that it is not a coincidence or am I supposed to connect dots and imagine that Clinton killed foster, sold secrets to the Chinese and broke the law by diverting illegal funds into his account?

I am happy to abide with the CIA assessment. Which means what?

Given that assessment the world is asking is why the USA and the UK have not yet provided Hans Blix with the proof of the WOMD they claim to know about? Is there some reason the UN inspectorate shouldn't know where they are? I hate to be patronizing but you force me to. You have asked 3 times and I have answered 3 times.

I will make it as clear as I can and then I don't know what else to say.

The evidence that the United States and the UK posses is not necessarily THE LOCATION of the weapons.

It's logically possible to have proof of the weapons and still not know where they are. Will you acknowledge this logical fact?

No I am not kidding RandFan. I am not kidding at all. If anyone wants to start a war on the basis of claims of WOMD let them defend their claims with proof. Hold on just a minute. You are changing in mid-stream. Let's stay focused here ok? You made a fallacious argument. You appealed to the gallery with the following.

Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********. This is a fallacious argument. Let me ask you again. Are you sure you want to engage in fallacious reasoning?

The rest of the world is entitled to ask for proof of the USA and the UK's claims unless you know otherwise. And your point is what exactly? That I am not allowed to point out that many people believe that the war is about oil? Sure you can point it out but it means nothing. Most of the world prays to an invisible man in the sky. I don't know what "many of the people believe" has anything to do with this issue. I asked a specific question and that question had nothing to do with world opinion. I asked you to provide evidence. You responded with an "appeal to the gallery". Don't go claiming that you just wanted to bring up the sentiments of "some" people. It means nothing.

For your information I did not present that comment as proof of anything. Then why present it at all. It means nothing. Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns. Many people in South America believe in Voo Doo, So?

It is a statement of fact. And many people believe that America is not in it for the oil, So? And many people could be wrong, so what?

That is the only claim I make for that statement. Then it was a waste of time because I keep asking for evidence, proof and you give me the opinions of some of the people of the world. I'll bet you can't even give me precise numbers of how many people believe this, can you? What percentage of people from what countries? And even if you could of what possible value could the statement have been if it was not an appeal to the gallery? Sorry but it was fallacious.

Perhaps you didn't read my post where I did just that RandFan? There was a long list of things which compared Hussein’s regime with others which are not under threat of attack. What does this have to do with my question?

Let me ask again. Do you have evidence that Bush is doing this because of his and his friend’s links to Oil companies?

I recommend that you read others posts before accusing people of not posting any evidence. And in CAPITAL letters too with lots of question marks. I hope you feel better for it. And I would recomend that you figure out what it is that we are talking about before you post something that is immaterial to the question at hand. A long list of Hussein’s regime has nothing to do with Haliburton or Chevron or any other oil company does it? A long list doesn't prove that Bush is planning a war to enrich him and his buddies with Iraqi oil, does it? And BTW I feel fine.

Now, can you tell me where you posted this evidence that Bush is launching a war because he and his friends are linked to oil, or do I have to go on a search?

I have supplied many reasons why the war is about oil. But as you seem to find it hard to locate evidence for the oil connection in relation to the war in Iraq how's about this one Again, you are getting of course. I have admitted that there is a component of oil to the war. That is not in question. You have claimed that the main reason is the oil. I have asked for evidence.

From link #1.

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq. Not a bad link. It is relevant, however it does not provide evidence that this war is only about oil or that we would not be going to war if Bush did not have links to the oil industry. This proves that the INC which is supported by the Bush administration is talking about dividing up the oil after a war. Ok? So what? We know that is going on. I intimated this earlier in this very thread. It does not prove that the oil is the prime motivation for war. It shows that the oil is important and that we are not going to sit around with our thumbs up our ass until the whole thing is over before we do something about it.

Link #2.

In a recent article in the magazine Commonweal, I speculate that one of the motivating factors in the Bush Administration's policy of using force to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein is our heavy and increasing dependence on imported petroleum. Are you sure you want to present this link as proof? Since when was speculation proof? Do you understand the defintion of proof?

spec•u•la•tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lshn)
n.

[list=1]
Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
[/list=1]

proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. For the record, speculation is not considered "proof" of anything. It's not even allowed in a court of law and legal proof has a lower threshold than scientific proof. Are you sure you want to stick with this one as proof of anything? If so could you tell me why?

USA: Thousands March on Capital to Condemn Iraq War

By Katherine Stapp
InterPress Service
October 27, 2002


WASHINGTON DC -- In the largest U.S. anti-war protest in recent memory, at least 75,000 demonstrators encircled the White House on Saturday to demand a diplomatic solution to escalating tensions with Iraq.

Chanting "No blood for oil!" and "Iraqis are people too!" the peaceful crowd of Americans from all walks of life rallied near the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial and then marched through the stately Capitol District to Washington's seat of power. And this proves what? Nothing, it is another appeal to the gallery, fallacious.

Look, I'm not trying to give you hard time here. However, if you are going to come to a skeptic’s forum and make claims you are going to be asked for proof.

Let me give you some friendly advice. Next time outline what it is that you think that your links prove and then post the most relevant quote that makes your argument. It will help you decide if the material is even worthy of posting. I think that the 1st link is relevant and worthy of argument it is not proof however.

[RandFan]

I hope that will give you a flavour of what many reasonable people believe. Of course you can claim that is not evidence of anything RandFan. But at least now some of it has been brought to your attention. Why do you presupose them to be reasonable? Is it just because they agree with you? Critical thinking demands that we question everything even those who think like we do.

I have questioned Bush's motives and I welcome discussion and debate on this issue. However you seem convinced and yet aren't even able to provide evidence. You seem to rely on conjecture and speculation and get angry if I question your held beliefs.

I'm not angry that people question me. I'm astounded that so many accept as truth that Bush is going to war to make himself and his freinds rich and to get himself re-elected.

Maybe, but so far the only proof that I have seen is the fact that Bush is/was an oil man. Cheney and Rice also and this proves what?

originally posted by RandFan
You can't convict a man for racketeering just because he hangs out with mobsters. You need evidence that he has committed a crime.

Excellent point. I hope we have evidence of Hussein's WOMD before we trash his country. Oil being largely below ground is fairly safe even then of course. Thank you, so you agree that the fact that Bush is an oil man and his friends and aids have links to oil is not proof that Bush is starting this war because of oil right? Or are you being insincere?

I think we should have evidence and have stated so before. I am not being inconsitent, are you?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by RandFan
North Korea is successfully using its nuclear arsenal to extort money from the west.

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep Saddam from having the same ability?

Three kids are arguing after school. One picked up a stick in the past and tried to use it. His name is Shecky. One, is just now picking up a stick, and threatening to use it. His name is Kolin. Sam is badgering Shecky, and ignoring Kolin. Kolin picks up a stick and bludgeons Sam in the back of the head because he's obsessed with what Shecky did in the past and he has no proof Shecky is doing it right at that moment.

No, ignoring an announced threat for a perceived threat with no proof is not prudent. Acting on assumptions is hardly objective...

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I, too, would like to see evidence of WMDs before we start charging across the border. But Randfan has made a critical point: Why would you wait until Hussein has them, and they are OPERATIONAL, before you make your move?

But the US still havent provided any evidence that Saddam is actively ceveloping WOMD. Unless the US has evidence they cannot invade. You cant base an invasion on the type of conjecture you are indulging in.

If I were to acquire the components to make nerve gas, including the lab ware, do you really want the FBI to wait until I have a few canisters of the stuff before they raid my home? Or do you want them to act?

This is the argument that gives the lie to the US position here, time after time they tell us they have to act because this nasty dictator has chemical weapons which he may use to kill innocent people. What they dont like to remind us is that it was they, along with a couple of other western countries who sold him the technology he used to build much of his WOMD.
What they also dont like us to know is that arms support from the west was rolling into baghdad while he was using poison gas during the Iran Iraq war. Not only that, but during the year US military support for Hussein was at its highest, in 1987, Hussein carried out his worst ever human rights atrocities, wiping out thousands of Kurds in the north of the country with poison gas.
Why was it only when Hussein threatened the oil fields of the middle east that the US felt compelled to act?
I dont think anything could make it clearer that the only reason the US could have for war with Iraq is oil.

And now that NK and Pakistan have WMDs, how can we get them to give them up? Pakistan might be easier to deal with; they're at least speaking to us for the moment. North Korea? That's going to be trickier. And it's not going to get easier with Kim still running that country.

What right do the US have to dictate what countries can and cant have WOMD? The US has them, and has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is prepared to use them. Perhaps the UN should be pressuring the US to disarm.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Hazelip
No, ignoring an announced threat for a perceived threat with no proof is not prudent. Acting on assumptions is hardly objective... I would agree that acting on assumptions is not objective. I don't know how one could say that the US is acting on assumptions. Saddam invaded Kuwait. He refused to leave untill he was forced out. While the Iraqis were fleeing they carried out Saddams order to wage a scorched earth inititive and ignited all of Kuwaits oil wells. As an agreement to end the war he agreed to cooperate fully and disarm. He did not cooperate. WOMD were discovered years after the cease fire. Saddam has been caught in lie after lie. He has breached his agreement time after time. Saddam is now in material breach. His documentation is full of holes and that is according to Hans Blix (aka Mr. Magoo) and the UN.

Just what assumptions are we talking about here.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Shane:
Are you arguing that a retort cannot be in the form of a question?

No, but I fail to see to what or whom I was directing a retort.

Seeing as you started the sarcasm I will use the Americanism to retort: "Hellooooo?"

Oil , Bush . Hmmm lets see. Difficult one.

G. W. Bush - Harkan Energy
Cheney - Halliburton
Rice - Chevron

Do I really need to go on? He is surrounded by people who were involved in the oil business.

Helloooooo? E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, not H-E-A-R-S-A-Y and C-O-N-J-E-C-T-U-R-E! If a certain proportion of his immediate circle are practising Catholics, does this mean Bush is a paedophile?

So a lot of them live in places that get cold? I suppose those SUV's have better heaters in them and thats why people drive them? Hint: Maybe Americans consume more than a proportionate amount of natural resources because its really cheap and if they were forced to be a little more economical about it then e.g. an increase of 2c in the price of a gallon of gas wouldnt be so important

So maybe it's 280 million Americans, rather than a shady cabal of oil plutocrats, that have an interest in cheap fuel.

If the Economy was doing well then Bush wouldn't need a public enemy number 1 to be distracting the general public.

Or could it also be true that the general public broadly agree that Saddam is a threat to their security and that something needs ro be done?

Solid evidence? Its like asking for solid evidence that gravity exists. Look around. Open your eyes.

Guess what? My eyes are working just fine! Gravity does exist. What's more theres a wealth of scientific literature showing that it's existence has been scientifically proven, not just testimony from people who've fallen down ladders and of high buildings.

Read something else instead of "The Telegraph" for a change.

What a tasty little ad homimem attack! Did you form this opinion about my choice of newspaper the same way you form opinions about everything else? Guess what? You can't get "The Daily Telegraph" where I live. That's what's called a "fact".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
But the US still havent provided any evidence that Saddam is actively ceveloping WOMD. Unless the US has evidence they cannot invade. You cant base an invasion on the type of conjecture you are indulging in. Well first off we can invade. As I pointed out in my last post Saddam is in breach of his agreement. He has almost always been in breach. Evidence of WOMD would be nice and I think that it would be better for the US if we have it but we damn sure can invade.

This is the argument that gives the lie to the US position here; time after time they tell us they have to act because this nasty dictator has chemical weapons which he may use to kill innocent people. What they dont like to remind us is that it was they, along with a couple of other western countries who sold him the technology he used to build much of his WOMD.
What they also dont like us to know is that arms support from the west was rolling into baghdad while he was using poison gas during the Iran Iraq war. Not only that, but during the year US military support for Hussein was at its highest, in 1987, Hussein carried out his worst ever human rights atrocities, wiping out thousands of Kurds in the north of the country with poison gas. It's funny, when I argue that Saddam wiped out Kurds in the north everyone posts links to show that the notion is wrong and that there is no evidence that Saddam did this. If used to counter arguments to invade Iraq no links are posted. Hmmmm....

Yeah, we sold him weapons. We screwed up. It wasn't the first and it won’t be the last. It's fallacious to argue that because we made a mistake in the past it somehow prevents us from taking action now. By all means criticize our foreign policy but don't tell us that it now prevents us from acting.

Why was it only when Hussein threatened the oil fields of the middle east that the US felt compelled to act?
I don’t think anything could make it clearer that the only reason the US could have for war with Iraq is oil. No, it validates the argument that our first war was fought in part because of oil. We ended hostilities. We kept our end of the bargain. Saddam did not. So don't go making specious arguments. Oil may well be a component of this war but you have not in any way proven that oil is the "only" reason the US has for war.

What right do the US have to dictate what countries can and cant have WOMD? The US has them, and has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is prepared to use them. Perhaps the UN should be pressuring the US to disarm. Let them. Hey and we will continue to pick up the tab for their work.

When the United States first acquired the Atomic bomb it was the single most powerful nation on this earth. We could have done what Hitler had wanted to do and conquered ruled the world. We didn't. We didn't even do as the Soviets had done and created an empire. On the contrary we re-built Japan and West Germany and let them rule themselves. Our intentions are quit clear to anyone willing to look at history. Now that we have the bomb and other WOMD and we know how destructive they are we wish to limit other countries from having them. What right do we have? I don't know but we damn well better work to keep other countries from having them or we will be in a lot of trouble. We are not going to stick our heads in the sand because you question our authority to protect ourselves.

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by OBgac:


No, but I fail to see to what or whom I was directing a retort.


To the general populus



Helloooooo? E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, not H-E-A-R-S-A-Y and C-O-N-J-E-C-T-U-R-E! If a certain proportion of his immediate circle are practising Catholics, does this mean Bush is a paedophile?


Thats a B.S. argument. Are all Catholics paedophiles?

Let me use your metaphor in a better way:

If Bush, Chaney and Rice were all Cardinals of the Catholic Church on sabbaticals running the U.S. and there was all the scandal that is going on as there is in the U.S. I would say that even though I have no evidence of the fact, knowing what I know about the Church, there could be grounds to assume that they were involved in a paedophile cover up at some point in time.




So maybe it's 280 million Americans, rather than a shady cabal of oil plutocrats, that have an interest in cheap fuel.


My money is on the shady cabal.


Or could it also be true that the general public broadly agree that Saddam is a threat to their security and that something needs ro be done?


The general public where? In Ireland where you are, in the UK where even the cabinet are split on it or in the US where people are trying to link 9/11 with Saddam?



What a tasty little ad homimem attack! Did you form this opinion about my choice of newspaper the same way you form opinions about everything else? Guess what? You can't get "The Daily Telegraph" where I live. That's what's called a "fact".


Once again your facts are indeed wrong. Of course you can get that paper where you live! Or maybe its the non democratic pro-European Union Irish government (thats what you called them isn't it after NICE2? ) blocking your internet access to www.telegraph.co.uk.

I formed your opinion about the Daily Telegraph because of your fawning over Maggy Thatcher in another post, your Anti-European stance and your pro-Bush outlook on this post. The only european english language newspaper that I am familiar with that follows that line is the Daily Telegraph.


BTW on a different note: Randfan writes earlier here that "Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns". I dont know a single person from Ireland that does, but I daren't correct Randfan who always looks for evidence before he makes a statement. Whats your call on this one?;)

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well first off we can invade. As I pointed out in my last post Saddam is in breach of his agreement. He has almost always been in breach. Evidence of WOMD would be nice and I think that it would be better for the US if we have it but we damn sure can invade.

No you cant, the agreement you refer to is a UN agreement, and any action has to be decided upon by the UN and carried out by the UN.

It's funny, when I argue that Saddam wiped out Kurds in the north everyone posts links to show that the notion is wrong and that there is no evidence that Saddam did this. If used to counter arguments to invade Iraq no links are posted. Hmmmm....

Ive never denied saddam carried out poison gas attacks, the evidence is in black and white, just like the evidence the US helped him attain his chemical capability, and the evidence they turned a blind eye to his human rights abuses in the past.

Yeah, we sold him weapons. We screwed up. It wasn't the first and it won’t be the last. It's fallacious to argue that because we made a mistake in the past it somehow prevents us from taking action now. By all means criticize our foreign policy but don't tell us that it now prevents us from acting.

I would say the US goverments past most certainly does prohibit them from acting now. It is utter hypocrisy to give someone a batch of lethal weapons, give them carte blanche to use them how they will, then use this as an excuse for an attack when it suits your own shallow purposes. This is elementary morality. The US is in a morally bankrupt position, they have no right to act or do anything else regarding Iraq.


No, it validates the argument that our first war was fought in part because of oil. We ended hostilities. We kept our end of the bargain. Saddam did not. So don't go making specious arguments. Oil may well be a component of this war but you have not in any way proven that oil is the "only" reason the US has for war.

Well the fact that it is the only reason that stands up to scrutiny is a pretty strong suggestion that it is why the US is going to war. There are countless dictators and human rights abusers around the world, and the US is more than happy to prop them up, sell arms to them or else just ignore them. There are countless countries which have WOMD and are in a far stronger position to threaten their neighbour than Iraq is, and the US does nothing. Unless some other plausible reason can be given for an invasion of Iraq, there is no other comclusion which can be reached other than the US is only interested in oil.

And why should the burden of proof rest with those who are in favour of peace? Im sure you will agree that war always has wild and unpredictable consequences. In particular a war in a muslim country which many would have us believe, has chemical and biological weapons and is surrounded by nuclear powers would seem a paticularly dangerous prospect.
It seems obvious to me that the burden of proof lies firmly in the hands of those who favour violence and destruction. Unless you can prove that a murderous war with unpredictable consequences is completely justified, there is no alternative but to accept that an invasion is wrong.


Let them. Hey and we will continue to pick up the tab for their work.

Funny how the US is only prepared to pick up the tab when its something which suits their interests. UN action in Iraq, a country rich with oil not yet under US control, now theres something worth pressuring the UN to take action over, theres something worth paying for. But when 1 000 000 people in Rwanda are hacked to death, well who cares about that? there aint no oil there so why get involved? When american buddies in Indonesia expel the entire indigenous population commiting countless atrocities, whats the point in getting invloved there? After all we dont want to jeapordise our arms sales, and they are just taking care of business in their own back yards.

When the United States first acquired the Atomic bomb it was the single most powerful nation on this earth. We could have done what Hitler had wanted to do and conquered ruled the world. We didn't.

Oh how very magnanimous of you, i guess we should all be eternally grateful.....or wait a minute perhaps the US were just a little unsure of how far the Soviets had proceeeded with their nuclear development?

We didn't even do as the Soviets had done and created an empire.

Not directly, but large parts of the world are under american economic control, for example most of latin americas economic resources are controlled by american corporations....the same goes for the middle east and large parts of asia.

On the contrary we re-built Japan and West Germany and let them rule themselves.

And what was the alternative? let them rot in poverty and just wait until they turned to communism and alligned themselves with the soviet union? And alot more went into rebuilding these two countries than yankie dollars.

I don't know but we damn well better work to keep other countries from having them or we will be in a lot of trouble. We are not going to stick our heads in the sand because you question our authority to protect ourselves.

So exactly what would war in Iraq contribute to the US protecting herself? Do you really consider Saddams armed forces a threat to American sovereignty? Are the American people hiding under the bed at night gripped by terror at the prospect of Iraqi invasion?
Saddams forces were swept aside in less than 4 days 12 years ago. He is far weaker now. You are kidding yourself if you think he is a threat to anyone, let alone the most powerful military strength on the face of the earth.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Thats a B.S. argument. Are all Catholics paedophiles?

The penny's dropped! No they're not, but the "guilt by association" ploy you're following wold suggest they are.

If Bush, Chaney and Rice were all Cardinals of the Catholic Church on sabbaticals running the U.S. and there was all the scandal that is going on as there is in