why are we going to war?

[outside looking in]

OK, here's my thoughts on this whole deal, in more or less a list format.

- The US gets only 25% of its oil from the Middle East, and that is primarily from Saudi Arabia.

- Europe gets over half of its oil from the Middle East (in fact, Europe is by far the biggest customer of ME oil).

- France and Russia have huge deals with Saddam for the extraction of Iraqi oil.

- If the US wanted Iraqi oil, they'd just lift trade sanctions like the oil companies have been begging slick Willie and Dubya to do (and thankfully, they haven't).

- Germany has been involved in trade of chemical weapons precusors to Iraq; trades illegal under the sanctions.

- Who opposes military action the strongest? France, Russia, and Germany. Yep, the US is certainly the one only thinking about themselves here.

- We need a generally friendly ally in the Middle East. Currently, that's Saudi Arabia, a wholly Muslim country, and our presence is the primary reason Osama declared jihad on the US.

- Were Iraq to become a friendly country, we could begin pulling out of Saudi Arabia.

- This would be a great benefit to the US, as it would reduce our exposure to the anti-American sentiment of the Muslim world in general.

- It would be great for human rights in Iraq.

- It would be great for the economy of the world if a "friendly" Iraq didn't join OPEC. The Saudi Arabian cartel might finally be weakened, bring oil prices back to what they should be. Huge benefit for the world's economy, not just the US's.

- Iran is on the verge of becoming democratic, and a similar conversion in Iraq might be the spark needed to begin the process of bringing the Middle East into the civilized world. So long as the royal families hold all the oil (thus, all the money, and all the power), the area will continue to be one of the most miserable places on the planet.

- That stands the chance of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.



So yes, while I think oil is a very fundamental player in any decisions made, it's certainly not in the narrow-minded self-serving way that so many people berate the US for. It's in the general interest of the entire planet, including the citizens of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East in general. I think our (US) leaders have weighed this scenario very carefully, have looked at all the possible consequences (both good and bad), and have concluded that so long as a thug is in charge of Iraq, a key player in the reformation of the Middle East, there will never be a chance for true enlightened peace in the region, or the world for that matter; not to mention the possible (positive) impact on the world's GDP.

Have I considered all the possibilities? Probably not. Have I considered most of them? You bet your ass.

 

[Squiggy]

You lost me with the "ally in the middle east". What happened to Israel? Did they fall off the map? And if we don't have a need for Iragi oil, how do you explain the oil companies raising the price at the pump 35% when the crude only went up 1%? Right now the oil giants are raking in billions on just the speculation of war. But I'm sure its just a coincidence that they all know dubya and his whole family by there first names.....and that they are also his biggest campaign supporters.....

 

[flavio]

I think you may only be considering one possibility.

Witty retort, but it's only vacuous rhetoric. Or, did you have a point?

Point is I believe that you seem unwilling to consider other possibilities besides the one that the Bush administration is pushing for.

Obviously in response to your insinuation that I'm not considering the possibility that Bush has it all figured out.

 

[outside looking in]

You lost me with the "ally in the middle east". What happened to Isreal? Did they fall off the map?

The Middle East doesn't consider Israel to really be a part of the Middle East, so in the context of my discussion I didn't either. Our presence in Israel is about as damaging to us in terms of our perception by the Muslim world as our presence in Saudi Arabie is. We need an ally that is genuinely from the Muslim sympathizing Middle East, and that ain't Israel.

And if we don't have a need for Iragi oil, how do you explain the oil companies raising the price at the pump 35% when the crude only went up 1%? Right now the oil giants are raking in billions on just the speculation of war.

Supply and demand. The curves figure in people's ignorance as well (demand curve). People just don't know the truth of the situation, and have this fear that oil is or will become scarce. Thus, the companies can charge a greater price for it, and people are willing to pay it.

In reality oil is anything but scarce, the US gets nearly 75% of its foreign oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and the oil we do get from the Middle East comes from Saudi Arabi - not Iraq. That's what the sanctions are all about, you know? A war won't make oil scarce... we're not getting any from Iraq right now anyway, and other countries can more than make up for SA's contribution if need be.

But I'm sure its just a coincidence that they all know dubya and his whole family by there first names.....and that they are also his biggest campaign supporters.....

Yes, oil companies have been lobbying for years now to get the sanctions lifted on Iraq (or at least be allowed to make "under the table" deals like France and Russia have), but so far, thankfully, they have been denied. They pressured slick Willie as well, so this has nothing to do with "Dubya's oil connections." If Dubya was serving his own interests, he'd simply lift UN sanctions... the US is really the only country that hasn't been in favor of that.

If Dubya wanted to appease his "campaign supporters" he's either (1) lift sanctions on Iraq, (2) fix the situation in Venezuela, by force if necessary, or (3) put more effort into helping Mexico solve their oil recovery/economics problem. The idea that Dubya is going to war with Iraq because his "campaign supporters" are pressuring him to get at their oil is, well... silly. There's much easier (and cheaper) ways to line their pockets than a war with Iraq.

 

[outside looking in]

Point is I believe that you seem unwilling to consider other possibilities besides the one that the Bush administration is pushing for.

I've considered the other possibilities, but they fail a simple test of logic. I see no reason that I should continue to consider silly explanations as plausible possibilities.

 

[Squiggy]

First lets deal with the double speak....If we need no oil from Iraq, why would the oil companies want to lift sanctions? And if we have an ally in Israel, why do we care if we don't have a Muslim ally? We could just do business with them as other countries do. No need to climb in bed with them and pay their bills. We would probably be more respected as a customer than an unwelcome boarder. Back to the double speak...The Saudi thing is what really throws me. There really is no reason for us not to have attacked them first if its what dubya claims it to be..."a war on terrorism"...But they (the administration) have diverted all of it to their advantage by scaring the hell out of the American public until they all but demand we kill someone somewhere...Just logic would tell you to bomb the Saudis....Its all been a misinformation campaign designed to take control of 'unfriendly' oil producing nations. We will install puppet governments and have our way with THEIR natural resources. How can you not expect them to hate us?

 

[outside looking in]

First lets deal with the double speak....If we need no oil from Iraq, why would the oil companies want to lift sanctions?

Greediness and economics. While we certainly don't need Iraqi oil, it is cheaper and easier to get to. Lifting sanctions would be much easier than offering real solutions to Venezuela or Mexico, much less fighting a war in Iraq. But it's not the right thing to do.

And if we have an ally in Israel, why do we care if we don't have a Muslim ally?

Terrorism. We don't really want to always be hated by most ME countries.

We could just do business with them as other countries do.

What, like making deals on oil and chemicals despite UN sanctions, like France, Germany, and Russia have done? We don't do business with Iraq for a reason. People's misery isn't worth a few cents shaved off a barrel of oil.

We would probably be more respected as a customer than an unwelcome boarder.

Yes, France and Russia aren't nearly so high on the hit list for terrorism as the US is because they are perfectly willing to make underhanded deals. Is that the right thing to do? Should Iraqi's citizens always be miserable and under fear of a thug?

Back to the double speak...The Saudi thing is what really throws me. There really is no reason for us not to have attacked them first if its what dubya claims it to be..."a war on terrorism"...

A couple of points here. One, although only 20% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, it's still a significant chunk. Two, openly attacking Saudi Arabia would cause more anti-American backlash and terroist retaliation than attacking Iraq ever could. It also would do nothing to encourage a democratic revolution in the region. The more intelligent thing to do is establish a way in which we can slowly break ties with Saudi Arabia... something the US would genuinely love to do. The way to accomplish this is to establish another significant "friendly" country in the region - Iraq. Involvement can be shifted over time from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq is actually a good candidate to become a modernized democratic nation. There is a chance that such a revolution in Iraq could spark a similar revolution throughout the Islamic world.

Further, supposing a "friendly" Iraq didn't join OPEC, then the royal family (leading the oil cartel) of Saudi Arabia would be seriously weakened, dealing a greater blow to terrorism than an open attack likely would... all the while avoiding the apparance of us being the "bad guy." We'd much rather end terrorism by becoming a "good guy" that liberated the citizens of Iraq (not as devout and anti-American as much of the Middle East) than to end it by simply killing them all. Wouldn't you agree?

Iraq is an important key for the future of the Middle East. The religious sentiments in Iraq aren't quite the same as the rest of the region. Before the thug took over Iraq was fairly civilized, its people educated, and was looking at continued progress in the world community. An invasion of Iraq wouldn't generate nearly the same magnitude of terrorist backlash and American hatred that an attack on many neighboring countries would. If we removed Saddam, helped the people take control of their government and their economy, and got out, we might actually make progress as far as American perception in the region goes. Once other citizens of other countries saw how quickly the new democracy in Iraq enabled its people to become prosperous, feelings would change even further.

It's a tough cycle to break, but this is the most promising way to do it. Otherwise, we can just attack Saudi Arabia openly, invoke an all out holy war agains Christians everywhere for the blood shed in the "holy land," and eventually settle the issue by either us killing all of them of them killing all of us. I certainly don't like that option.

Just logic would tell you to bomb the Saudis....

My logic says that would be a very, very bad move. We'd be better off detonating a nuke in Moscow and crossing our fingers.

Its all been a misinformation campaign designed to take control of 'unfriendly' oil producing nations. We will install puppet governments and have our way with THEIR natural resources. How can you not expect them to hate us?

It has nothing to do with "us" taking control of "their" resources. It has everything to do with "them" taking control of "their" resources... something that certainly isn't the case now. Nearly all of the misery in the Middle East can be traced back to the holding of all the money and all the power by a few royal families and genuine thugs. We don't want to take control of anything, rather we want to give control to those to whom it rightly belongs.

If there is any misinformation campaign it is the liberal press spreading ridiculuous conspiracy theories and the (above) ideas that we want to directly control the flow of oil for our own benefit. I think I've already made it clear that waging a war is not the cheapest way to get more oil. It's just illogical, and silly.

 

[flavio]

Point is I believe that you seem unwilling to consider other possibilities besides the one that the Bush administration is pushing for.

I've considered the other possibilities, but they fail a simple test of logic. I see no reason that I should continue to consider silly explanations as plausible possibilities.

This has become so vague I don't have any idea what you're talking about anymore.

 

[flavio]

It has nothing to do with "us" taking control of "their" resources. It has everything to do with "them" taking control of "their" resources... something that certainly isn't the case now. Nearly all of the misery in the Middle East can be traced back to the holding of all the money and all the power by a few royal families and genuine thugs. We don't want to take control of anything, rather we want to give control to those to whom it rightly belongs.

If there is any misinformation campaign it is the liberal press spreading ridiculuous conspiracy theories and the (above) ideas that we want to directly control the flow of oil for our own benefit. I think I've already made it clear that waging a war is not the cheapest way to get more oil. It's just illogical, and silly.

It would appear that the misinformation is stemming from the conservative press spreading ridiculous theories that we simply want to make sure they don't have any WMD's.

 

[Squiggy]

Ok oli...Just about everything you said about Iraq oppressing its people can also be said of the Saudis. But at least you see the greed that drives this thing...

Face it, kuwait was no better than Iraq with regards to human rights but we used Iraq's invasion to rally round the flag...JUST BECAUSE KUWAIT WAS OIL FRIENDLY. The government knew of the atrocities of Kuwait. But they never told us. Why?.........(hintil) Just as we were not fed the polarizing truth about the Shah of Iran....Conspiracy theories? I think not...Its what goes on in Washington. Its Facts...They release information that works for them in their efforts to control public opinion. If you think they don't, you are being naive.

All these countries have is dirt and oil. Its not like we are going to leave green pastures and fields of grain when we are done with them. Its about their oil. And how much we can control what they do with it. Its about money and power that the oil creates. Otherwise we would just buy it like we do Swiss chocolate...

Our gluttony has far outpaced our ability to feed itself. Sheesh, we're paying ourselves salaries that would support 16 generations. (I'm not even including Gates here) How can we justify that. And those who have reached that kind of status are manipulating us for their own pleasure now...

We have created a volatile situation which must now be dealt with and LIVES will be lost. In the end, The Iraqi people will be no more thankful than the Kuwaiti people are.....but Americans will die for that end because the President asks them to.His future will improve on the spilling of their blood. He will leave office one day and get an offer much like Cheney did....Tons of money and a great parachute.... And American parents will be told their sons died honorably.....

 

[Gonz]

The government knew of the atrocities of Kuwait. But they never told us. Why?

It's not the gubmints job, that's the press.

They release information that works for them in their efforts to control public opinion. If you think they don't, you are being naive.

Without question. It's also the job of crack reporters to uncover such blatant & obvious things. One small problem, the American people don't give a rats ass about some hick country 75000 miles from Des Moines. Sad but true. Even then, as long as they aren't doing atrocious things like "ethnic cleansing" we can't do a damned thing.

How can we justify that.

No need to justify. If it wasn't he going rate the market would put an end to it. Free Market Economy. Sometimes ridiculous, always works though.

The Iraqi people will be no more thankful than the Kuwaiti people are.....

I don't know. I've met my share of Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, a few Kuwaitis & they all loved America. They didn't agree with it lock stock & barrel (who does) but they moved their families here, started businesses & became productive, active citizens.

Funny thing I've noticed recently. I've yet to hear a middle eastern person say "Gee, I'd love to live under hussein" or "Damn I miss the oppression of the Saudi Royal family". Can't all be fanatical muslim clerics I suppose.

 

[Squiggy]

Gonz...Everytime the press says anything like that, you paint them so far left that pink is the only variation allowed. The government never has a problem telling us anything about a country that they want us to know. Shouldn't they leave that to the reporters? And what you are seeing now is that 'free market' coming apart at the seams. As far as the immigrants from those countries not bad mouthing us....I hardly think they reflect their nation's collective sentiments. America is a seductive playground but that doesn't mean other nations aren't entitled to their own national pride.

 

[Gonz]

you paint them so far left that pink is the only variation allowed

Rush Limbaugh I'm not. I don't buy into the communist run newpaper theory. Selective headlines or keywords in stories make me stop readin to avoid getting a headache from those that are pink-o's

That's one of the reasons I peruse several papers, radio & TV. To get the whole story as opposed to CNNABCCBSNBCFOX version only. (TV news is biased-badly)

 

[Squiggy]

TV news is no more biased than press releases from the Whitehouse..

 

[Gonz]

or AOL/TimeWarner press releases. "We had less than expected growth this quarter" means we lost our ass again. Can we fire Steve now?

Press release give the news, a reporter finds the truth.

 

[outside looking in]

It would appear that the misinformation is stemming from the conservative press spreading ridiculous theories that we simply want to make sure they don't have any WMD's.

Yes, that's equally silly. The truth is more complicated than either of these simplifications (oil or WMD). It encompasses both, on a much broader scale than most people realize, and in a much more intricate way as well. It's a complex situation, but the solution need not be so complicated.

 

[outside looking in]

Ok oli...Just about everything you said about Iraq oppressing its people can also be said of the Saudis. But at least you see the greed that drives this thing...

Yes, I see the greed that is the root of the problem, but I recognize that it is the greed of the royal family and thugs that have been in control of all the oil in the Middle East for decades. It is not the greed of the US that wants to "get their oil." We have more places to get oil, and cheaper ways to get it, than waging a war. That idea is just ridiculous.

Now squiggy, I certainly agree that the government (and to a lesser degree, the press) manipulates the public by the information they reveal. Naturally. I think it's no mystery that the US has been looking for a reason to take out Saddam for a long time now (this includes Willie, so it isn't a Republican thing). The angle of WMD and UN violations just gives us a legitimate reason to do so.

What I don't agree with you on apparently is what the underlying reason for wanting to do this is. You think it's all materialistic; we want to go in, take control of their government and natural resources, and leave the people to continue rotting... all so we can get their oil. If that was really the case we'd just do the same to Venezuela; it would take much less troops there, with less lives lost, less money spent, and almost zilch probability of sparking a terrorist retaliation. So why don't we? Because "getting oil" just isn't the be all end all of political motives you make it out to be.

All these countries have is dirt and oil. Its not like we are going to leave green pastures and fields of grain when we are done with them. Its about their oil. And how much we can control what they do with it. Its about money and power that the oil creates. Otherwise we would just buy it like we do Swiss chocolate...

Iraq was a civilized country and on its way to becoming truly modern before Saddam took power and turned it into the miserable shithole it now is. Iran is on the verge of a democratic revolution. The people there are miserable because a very few control all of the countries' money. The thugs divert the attention of the masses from thoughts of revolt by keeping them focused on other things (re: anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and the ongoing "holy war"). Terrorism would nearly dissapear if the people weren't so generally miserable. You want to really fight a war on terror... attack the true root of the problem. That isn't Osama and the radicals who have taken up the flag, it's the leaders who oppress the people and give them some reason to take up any cause to divert their attention from their miserable lives. Attack the economics of the situation. And the only plausible way right now of doing that is through Iraq... Saudi Arabia is simply out of the question.

You're right about one thing - we won't be leaving fields of grain and green pastures. We'll be leaving hope, and the real possibility that the people can take back control of their lives... and their country's economy (and destiny). You're right about another thing... at the bottom of it all, it's about their oil. But not in the way you and others assert ("how much we can control what they do with it"). We don't want to control it, we want the people to control it, just like the economies of every other civilized nation on the planet. Were that the case now, we would be buying it like we buy Swiss chocolates and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, and the criminals in charge there are erasing the futures of millions upon millions of people.

I for one won't simply shove my money over the counter like I would for a bar of chocolate, and further condemn those innocent people. Would you?

 

[freako104]

freako104:
You have Saddam on your side?

Having Jerrek on my side is about the equivolent.

id rather not have either of them. tell ya what theyre on their own side

 

[flavio]

From that other thread....

If you actually have read the the thread several times you would have seen that I never actually claimed that France is not acting selfishly. I don't know if they are or not.

If someone claims to know one way or the other then they should back up what they say.

They [France/Germany] don't support war for much of the same reasons half of the US citizens don't support it. They believe that there are still alternatives at the moment to large scale killing.

I read that to mean that you believed their motives were other than selfish (since I had figured most US citizens not supporting the war have that stance for clearly unselfish reasons). Looks like we're both guilty of making assumptions I guess.

To clarify, my quote means that I believe France/Germany and the US citizens that don't currently support war think that there are still alternatives to immediate invasion. What everyone's motives are for supporting these alternatives I can't say for sure. I would like to think that a large part of it is to save lives.

The motives for not exploring alternatives and rushing into an invasion is still open to debate. I would like to think that our leaders could present an open and shut case for this plan, but that's not what's happening.

 

[unclehobart]

hmm.. watching my local 11pm news tonight I saw then present a national poll breakdown over time concerning Iraq. At no point was the % below 52 across the length of the stats provided in favor of military action. The lastest poll taken after the Bin Laden speech was the highest on the graph at 63%.

I swear... if you take a 1000 polls, you will be swamped with 1000 conflicting results.