A reason to goto war??

[kappa]

Peak oil

More peak oil

Pipelines

Here

O ya


K
AoM

[FBRaptor]

LOL, Well we need oil don't we? No matter what the reason or reasons are, the decisions our government make are in OUR best interest overall. There is always a bigger story that we, the general public don't know about. However OIL is not the only reason we are doing the things we do.  Raptor

[GRUNHERZ]

Just dropping the sanctions on Iraq would be much cheaper way to get Iraqi oil. And Saddam would more than gladly sell to the USA. Even if he did not wnant to sell directly to us there is no way he could stop the USA from getting it and even if that didnt work the reintroduction of Iraq as an open market parcticipant would drive down crude oil prices thus benefiting the Oil companies by loweing the costs of their inputs and so creating greater revenues and profits.

So really this war for oil argument is plain stupidity as it does not make economic sense not to mention the enormous political risk taken with this Iraq war.

However lets say Bush - the evil oil guy he is - did drop the sanctions on Iraq and started buying oil from Saddam, is there any doubt that you same guys who hate Bush wouldn't just come back here whining that Bush was ignoring the human rights issues in Iraq just so he can get at the oil?

My point is that you Bush haters simply have this oil fetish and that no matter what he did with Iraq you will say its evil because he is an evil oil guy.

Please stop embarassng yourselves with this war for oil argument.

[Dowding]

Grunherz:

1.) Western society is based on the daily use of a vast amount of oil

2.) It is desirable to have cheap oil prices

3.) It is desirable to have influence on the source of oil in order to facilitate this

4.) Saudi Arabia is a cornerstone of Western influence in the oil producing Mid-East

5.) Saudi is increasingly unstable and the pro-Western government is more likely than ever to fall in the face of a radicalized Islamic militant body

6.) The West needs an ally and base of operations to for the reasons outlined above

7.) Iraq has large oil reserves and a much more secular society

8.) Iraq would be ideal as a 'New Saudi'

The 'War for Oil' argument is merely simplistic, rather than erroneous. The real reason is strategic influence in a major oil producing centre. But at least the 'No War for Oil' mantra it isn't as phoney as the 'Saddam was bad' humanitarian justification trotted out these days by those seeking to justify a war after the fact.

[GRUNHERZ]

But if oil was the only thing then lifting the sanctions and inspections would have done it much more cheaply, with no dead, and far less political risk than a war. Say what you will but all of us know Saddam would love to sell that oil and enrich himself without inspectors or sanctions. And everyone knows it is was up to the USA/UK to lift the sanctions because the other big UN members were ready for them to be gone.

So Oil was not the main reason for this war - we could get at his oil by dropping the sanctions - although obviously Oil is the only reason anyone gives a damn about the mid east but a war in Iraq was not the easiest or most profitable way to get at it.

[GRUNHERZ]

Dowding you say the humanitarian angle was a disingenous last minute argument to justify the wat after the fact.

Here is a part of President Bush's Address to the UN from September 2002 - well before the war.  How do you explain the great amount of focus on human rights in this speech months before the war?  




"Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

[GRUNHERZ]

MORE:

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Full Speech:

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

[Dowding]

You've not read what I said. The control of the supply of oil, combined with a strategic presence in the region is the key.  The Mid-East is critical in maintaining the Western lifestyle; while oil is available in plenty of other places, without the Mid-East, compromises would have to be made. Without a military presence in Saudi (in the probable event of a Saudi collapse), the West loses the ability to protect the oil supply in that region. If we could build up another large, oil producing country into a veritable ally, Saudi becomes less important from a strategic point of view. A secular Iraq, even if it wasn't particularly democratic, would be superb.

We can then make all kinds of economic gain off the back of such a move - lucrative arms deals, infrastructure re-building contracts etc etc. The big arms and engineering firms of the US, UK etc would have full order books for the next couple of decades. In terms of profitability, provided a stable government can be set-up in Iraq that is prepared to talk business, the bottom line of the whole endeavour will be very rosy indeed. Have no worry there.

[GRUNHERZ]

What makes you think saddam wouldnt hire the same US companies to rebuild his oil capacity after the sanctions were lifted? As you anti-war types are so happy to point out Iraq has had many relationships with US companies before the Gulf War, no reason to not continue them if a good agreement could be reached by both sides.

And anyway, plese adress my question of human rights above. If that angle was simply a post war excuse how come it was featurd so prominantly in Bush arguments at the UN  many months before the war?

[Dowding]

Didn't he also mention something about WMD? I forget even what the letters stand for.

I honestly believe there is a difference between the relatively few references to humanitarian matters prior to the conflict and the seemingly inexhaustable source of humanitarian concern observed in the last few months.

I'm trying not to come to a very disturbing conclusion, and it goes something like this. You believe our governments give a rat's bellybutton about humanitarian rights. I find it deeply amusing that in one breath, people on this board can talk about how they mistrust their politicians in everything they do when it concerns internal affairs, but are not in the least bit skeptical when these same politicians exercise their power in world at large. These are the same people, with the same foibles and the same agendas. Where does this implicit trust that they 'will do the right thing' to people to whom they are completely unaccountable come from, given that at the same time these people are untrustworthy cads to the people who elected them?

Answer me that, my protest-by-non-voting friend.

[GRUNHERZ]

Sure there was WMD mentioned, thats what the other half of the speech was about.  but still half was devoted to Humanitarian issues. This wasnt some minor speech at some  Oklahoma town hall meeting it was in fromt of the UN - so devoting half his time to talking about humanitarian issues months and months before the war on perhaps the worlds greatest political forum pretty much blows your argument away Dowding.

For me its not really an issue of trust in the long term, its about thair actual policies I agree with or not. Here is what I mean, I wont trust them to do what they say during the camaign beacuse campainging is just marketing so  I wont invest myself in them by voting. However once they start doing things I will either agree or disagee to support it - if it matches their campaign promies all the better. For example I did not vote for clinton but I agreed with his bombing in kosovo and bosnia. I did not vote for clinton but I disagrred with the impeachement against him. I did not vote for clinton but I disagreed with his pardon of Marc Rich.  Basicalli I decide whether to support polcies or actions rather than campaign promises. And since those policies occur after the election, i dont see much reason to be invested in a candidate by voting. Kinda convolted I guess, but its how i see it. So with Iraq, I support that polcy and how Bush has done it for the most part.

[Ossie]

No government on earth, past or present, would do something as fabled as depose another government in the name of humanity. Well, they may say they are doing it in the name of humanity, but underlying motives of much lesser nobility would certainly exist. Consider that people who find themselves in power are opportunists to begin with, and it isn't hard to piece the logic together. However, if the people that were living under such conditions were to somehow benefit in the long term, even if the main reason behind their newly found freedom had nothing to do with their freedom at all, would the value of their freedom then be negated altogether?

What stumps the hell out of me is, what should be done when one government is known to abuse its populace the way Saddam or Milosovic were known to have done? This question is sincerely based on nothing more than curiosity, and for the sake of simplicity it is purely hypothetical. If Country-X is known to be committing heinous crimes against its own population, what would a viable and just response by the international community include, if any?

[capt. apathy]

while oil is important, it's not the only reason we are there, it's not even the most important reason.

funnling money to your friends and past bussiness associates through reconstruction contracts is a much higher priority for war.

[Charon]

On target Dowding. You do leave out the PNAC/Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith/Rumsfeld  think tank "democracy domino effect" that should be sweeping the region right about now... any day now... Basically, a concept for peace in the Middle East without an Israeli compromise with the Palestinians. More Iron Wall stuff. But hey, its about WMD, or was it Al Queda? Freeing repressed people? Hard to keep it straight week to week.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

etc. Frontline has some good stuff, so does the Washington Post and even the Weekly Standard.

Apparently, though, they're starting to feed on themselves now:

While the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), acting on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations, played a key role in setting the stage for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, the power brokers behind-the- scenes will not hesitate, after such invasions, in "pulling the plug" on their own political puppets.

Witness Chairman of the PNAC, William Kristol, who coordinated the drafting of the PNAC's blueprint entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," (which contains the strategy of "multiple simultaneous war theaters"). He has not only acknowledged the issue of 'distorted intelligence' on national network TV, he is also blaming Bush for making certain misstatements on Iraq: "Statements by the president and by the secretary of state . . turn out to he erroneous." (Fox News, 8 June 2003.)

Kristol, who is also the editor of the influential New York publication, the Weekly Standard, has been part of the disinformation ploy from the very outset. In the months leading up to the war, his Weekly Standard has consistently upheld the Administration's lies on WMDs and al Qaeda without batting an eye lash.

And yet in his June 23rd issue he does an about face, when his Weekly Standard points to: "... serious questions the Bush administration will have to answer, to wit: "How did a forged document about Iraq's pursuit of uranium make it into the State of the Union address?" And "Why would President Bush tell the world that 'we have found weapons of mass destruction,' when quite plainly we have not? "

Under a system of bogus democracy, political leaders in high office are often 'disposable'. To maintain continuity in the US doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' and 'homeland defense', the behind-the-scenes architects require a scapegoat or a 'fall guy' to blame, in order to save their own secret agenda. Now that "the cat is out of the bag" regarding Iraq's WMDs, somebody has to pay the price (namely Bush and Blair). Meanwhile PNAC rides off into the sunset victorious ... Meanwhile, corporate America has struck gold, black gold.

In other words, those who were most actively involved in spreading phony intelligence in the news chain are now accusing the Bush Administration of misleading public opinion. Moreover, there are indications that the actual timing of the disinformation campaign, from the planting of the lies to the "pulling of the plug", was coordinated in consultation with the architects of a this new 'Pax Americana.'

Charon

[GRUNHERZ]

Yes it is all PNAC!  Do tell me though whatever happend to the ZOG? You remember the Zionist Occupied Government which your predecessor kooks said was the real power behind all the decisions in Washington?