why are we going to war?

dan

New Member
it seems fairly inevitable that there's going to be some fisticuffs... but i'm interested in your opionion on *why* you think it's going to happen...

is it all about oil?
perhaps because bush needs a re-election platform?
because bush wants to finish what his father started?
it distracts normal americans from other bush incompetence?
because saddam poses a credible threat to the world?
because we want to stop human rights violations in iraq?
weapons of mass destruction are just bad, mmkay?

in your opinion, *why* is this happening?
 

unclehobart

New Member
I consider it a session of general catch 22. The original Gulf War ended up only 80% finished. Stopping shy of Bagdad was a caluclated attempt to bring Saddam down to his knees in the hope that someone on the inside would assassinate him so that western power hands would be free from the appearance of tinkering with Middle Eastern governments by stuffing them with puppet leaders and whatnot. We 'hoped' that a certain style of new age moderate leadership would have surfaced (Jordan) in lieu of radical (Iran) or militant (Syria) ones. Of course it failed... leaving the US and a few allies with either starting it all up again or ending up parked on station as a huge financial and political drain till the end of time trying to keep him from congealing back into decent strength. The longer Saddam stays in command, the greater his martyrdom/support powerbase grows... the dead opposite of what was intended. He becomes the defacto spokesman for the Middle Eastern world as a militant who has proven that his little 16 million population country can out bluff and befuddle the dangerous US/UK combo and stonewall the UN utterly. Anti western radical elements will throw themselves at his feet to do his bidding.

If we leave, he will become 3 times as powerful as he was. You couldn't dig graves fast enough if that happend. If we stay, the long term weariness will make our allies fade off and leave the US holding the bag and taking the brunt of cost and ill-will from the greater arab world; leaving nothing resolved and constantly placing the US into a constantly worsening situation. If he steps down, we can leave the area and claim kudos and save face. Also his martyr credentials will be deflated and the radicals will scatter and be effectively leaderless. If we knock him down and set up... something... at least we can save face, save money, prove our 'bad mofo' image once again, win concessions from pretty much everyone, and go a long way towards stablizing the world economy jitters of the last few years.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Yes it is about oil Not oil controlled by American factors & corporations but oil nonetheless. When saddam invaded Kuwait he was looking to enlarge his borders & take tactical advantage over the Saudi's. He wants control over the middle eastern oil flow. He ain't gonna get it.

Re-election platforms are not incredibly strong through war, ask his daddy & LBJ.

His daddy did not start this. saddamn invaded Kuwait, remember? The UN mandated a US backed coalition to remove him. Nothing more. His daddy didn't have the balls or the ambition to take on the UN & finish the job. Dubya actually had plans on lowering sanctions against Iraq when he took office. Then we were attacked. Iraq is a threat to its people, it's neighbors AND the US, mostly through arming terrorists. It's time to stop the 12 year joke of hide & seek. If not us, who?

Where is Bush's incompetence? Our economy? It was backsliding before he took office. We rode a wave of prosperity like the world had never seen, backed more by Bill Gates than Slick Willie. It had to fold at some point. It isn't great but it is still growing. That ain't recession.

In direct answer to your final question, "why is this happening?" I'll start & end simply. WE WERE ATTACKED. A supplier & supporter of terrorism is saddam hussein. There is direct proof he gives $25,000. to every family of Palestinian murder bombers. There is linkage to his support of hezzbolah. He wants the US hurt or dead & there is probable evidence of his support of Al Qieda. He's attacked two different countries & systematically kills his own citizens. He has WMDs. He wants nukes. He's thumbed his nose at the UN agreement, in which he signed, incalcuable times for the last 12 years. He is dangerous, vile & untrustworthy. Finally, he is on our shit list & next in line.
 

Squiggy

ThunderDick
Gonz said:
Dubya actually had plans on lowering sanctions against Iraq when he took office. Then we were attacked.

:confuse3: Dubya ordered an airstrike against Iraq within a week of taking office. His campaign even indicated he wanted to kick some ass and stir up shit. His coffers are surely filling fast as the price of gas is up about 35% at the pumps. Which is confusing since the price of crude is only up about 1%. But thats the name of the game. Confuse and deregulate. Take the money and run....Its sad what can be sold to the masses.....:disgust2:
 

freako104

Well-Known Member
oil. bush is using terrorism as his platform thats why hes been saying thats what this war is about. but to me its all about oil that america wants.
 

Jeslek

Banned
So you're saying we're going to spend billions of dollars to get oil, when we can get it for cheaper by buying them out?
 

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
You guys are saying oil but that's a generic answer. Why don't you explain just how George W Bush is going to benifit from this? It's not like we're going to take control of their oil fields. Iraq and it's new government will be. But please explain this oil thing to the rest of us so that we understand.
 

Jeslek

Banned
WASHINGTON - The Bush team said that the war against Iraq is not about oil, but about a wide range of petroleum based products. They sought to flout the idea that the US was chasing Saddam to get hold of its enormous oil reserves.

"No way is this a war about oil," Hal Wicks told herdofsheep. "This is about lubricants, oil-based chemicals, soaps, and all kinds of stuff like that," he said.

Wicks, who works closely with the Republican elite, said that people had got the wrong idea about the war.

"People need to see the bigger picture, but they are just hooked on this idea that's it's all oil."

"I'm sick of people saying that this is a war about oil," Wicks said. "Oil, oil, oil."

"Oil, oil, oil, oil," he added. "What about refining, complex fuels, electricity generation, preservatives. What I am saying is: hell, folks, open your goddamned eyes on this one."
 

Jeslek

Banned
freako104 said:
oil. bush is using terrorism as his platform thats why hes been saying thats what this war is about. but to me its all about oil that america wants.
Even Saddam agrees with you. It is all about oil!

Washington — In November 2002, Saddam Hussein told the Egyptian weekly newspaper Al-Osboa that the United States planned to go to war for Iraq's oil.

Questioned about a possible military confrontation with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC News November 21, "This is not about oil. This is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."

While President Bush and other world leaders continue to look to the regime of Saddam Hussein to destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, some media outlets continue to inject the subject of Iraq oil into the foreign policy debate.

"That looks great in the media, to say ‘No Blood for Oil,' but that's a reach – to think that we're fighting Iraq to gain access to the oil," Robert Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview with the Washington File December 13.

According to Ebel, going to war with Iraq in order to "control" Iraq's oil supply makes little economic sense. Iraq sits atop an enormous untouched oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia, but its productive oil wells supply only 3 percent of the world's market.

Ebel said that overthrowing Saddam would not immediately increase the amount of oil Iraq provides. "Let's presume that the morning after a quick and decisive victory – if everything falls into place – by the end of this decade we might see the volume of oil coming out of Iraq equal to about 3.5 percent of the world's oil supply," he said.

Even doubling the production of Iraq's oil – which would take many years due to poor maintenance of the country's oil production facilities – would not drastically affect the world's oil supply, Ebel said. Meanwhile, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's contribution to the world market, he added.

Oil production depends on many factors, most of which take large amounts of money and time, Ebel explained. "It depends on the nature of the oil fields, their geology and the productivity of the wells. You just can't say that oil will flow in nine months or so. Is the capacity of the pipelines sufficient? All these issues have to be explored," Ebel said.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, shares Ebel's opinion. He wrote in the New York Times on August 25 that Iraq has marginalized itself as an oil exporter. "This spring, Iraq unilaterally cut off exports for a month, trying to instigate a new oil embargo. The world hardly noticed. And other exporters were grateful for the chance to fill the gap, sell more oil and make extra money," he wrote.

"The first task of a new regime would be to get production capacity, damaged by war and poor operating practices, back into gear. Fixing the immediate problems would take time and money," Yergin wrote.

Oil experts say the quickest and cheapest route to getting hold of Iraq's oil would be to do business with the country, not to create war.

"Many analysts have said if you really do want to develop some oil reserves, you can make a deal with Hussein right now," said John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. But it is not in anyone's interest to see the market flooded with cheap oil, Felmy said.

"If you drive down the price of oil, it would make our investments in many parts of the world unprofitable," he said. "If you want to look at why would you want to make an investment in Iraq, you have to consider we don't know what's going to be the rule of law there or who will be running the oil organizations. Making a decision to invest in that type of climate would be very risky."

"It's nonsense to think war would happen there because of oil. It has virtually nothing to do with oil. We're not going to change our diplomatic policies, whether or not we import a drop of oil from Iraq," Felmy told the Washington File.

Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Research Industry Foundation, said he, too, disagrees with the notion that U.S. military action against Iraq would be a pursuit of oil.

"If we go to war in Iraq, I believe it's because we believe the leader there is a threat to world peace," Goldstein said. "We can't always wait for events to happen. It's appropriate to take action against those we see as a threat. We simply don't have the luxury anymore to wait."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, along with Secretary Powell, is adamant that a war with Iraq would not be about oil – but would be about weapons of mass destruction.

"I do know, emphatically, that it's not a war for oil . . .The concern that motivates a willingness to risk war is, it was horrible enough to see 3,000 people die [referring to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks], but seeing 30,000 or 40,000 die from anthrax is too much to contemplate," Wolfowitz said December 7.
 

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
Oil certainly plays a role in this, but in an enlightened forwards looking "good for the general interests of the world" sort of way.

Definitely not in a short sighted narrow minded sort of way that many people mean when they say "it's all about oil."

Anyone who actually thinks that has simply not lifted the first finger to actually research the background of the situation. If the US really needed more oil in the short term, we'd focus more on the problems with Mexican oil production and export, or on the Venezuelan situation. Both countries supply more oil than Iraq does, or ever did, to the US. In fact, those two contries supply more oil than the entire Middle East does to the US.

You know who really benefits from ME oil? France and Germany and much of the rest of Europe, who stands to suffer if their existing deals are damaged due to a war. Hmm... yeah, it's all about the US's self interest.

Jesus.
 

PT

Off 'Motherfuckin' Topic Elite
Ok, I read it. I think you have a pretty good grasp of what is going on, and why war is the lesser of the evils that could be used. :wink2:
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
I gotta tell ya, as an uninvolved bystander, I don't think oil's that big an issue here. Both the US and UK have massive oil deposits to develop. Canada too. The arabian oil is just easier to get to. I think it's a power issue. And it's not simply Saddam against the west. It's muslims against christians. Christians and muslims well remember the crusades. And the west is seriously fearful that the muslims are gearing up for their own crusade. Just as the church drove the european kings to war in the east, the muslim clerics are pushing their followers forth. And for the same reasons. Power. The more they can make their followers believe, the more they'll do in Alllah's name.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Prof, you're one scary mofo. That's probably closer to the truth than any of us will ever realize. It's just more fun to argue politics in a political world & leave religion alone because of PC.
 

Jeslek

Banned
I don't think it is Islam vs just Christianity, but rather everything in general, including atheism.
 

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
I'll buy that many muslims are on their own "crusade" but i don't buy the idea that most christians fear these fundamentalist muslims any more than the average agnostic does nor should they. These fundamentalist factions want us all dead. Personally as a christian i'm more concerned about the future of China(as are many christians i know) than i am fundamentalist muslims but there's nothing i can presently do about China. I don't think christians are all that concerned about any kind of holy war. Maybe the people on tbn or some of the christians cnn displays but i hardly think that represents any majority.
 

dan

New Member
just thought i'd say - the list of stuff i wrote in the first post were just things i'd heard, included to spark discussion...

i'll go with the consipacy theory vote - that there's something we're not being told... yeah yeah, there's all the public terrorism blah, WMD blah but what the real agenda is i don't think anyone's made a speech about.

actually, reading unc's post again it sounds good - saving face has gotta be a big part of it... i like it...
 

Dave

Well-Known Member
because we have a really big toy box full of very expensive toys that must be played with. if you dont play with them, how do you know or how can you tell if they really work. thata nd eventually, the public will want to know why we need all these expensive toys if we never really play with them.
 

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
It's pretty simple, really, and quite complicated. The simple answer is that forceful removal of Saddam is probably the right or, at the very least, best thing to do. It's complicated because being the right or best thing is not based on any one simplistic reason - like oil, religion, revenge, economics, etc. It's in fact based on all of them. Oil does play a part... in a very involved and foresighted way. Religion plays a part in so far as cultural differences have caused a clash in what is "acceptable" behavior to different groups of people. Economics plays a part. Stability (related to economics primarily) plays a part. Humanism plays a significant role. The collection of these considerations leaves little room for doubt... that is, unless you happen to be the leader of a coutry that sent troops to support the genocide of 800,000 people (France) or from a country that has been continually involved in backhand trading with Iraq, including materials that could be used for some very nasty purposes.

Man, I don't want to even get started on this really.

Unc, your commentary illustrates but one piece of the picture IMO. I agree with what you said, but there are many more factors at play here. It's a very complicated situation, but the solution is rather simple.
 
Top