Author Topic: War to Iraq explained! (Read 1781 times)

Dnil · « **Reply #30 on:** January 24, 2003, 04:06:54 AM »

so I am guessing by your non answer that its no time in the "oil bidness"?

Do you also believe oil is in big pools or lakes underground to?

Dowding · « **Reply #31 on:** January 24, 2003, 04:23:46 AM »

Non-answer? It's a US/UK multinational - BP merged with Amoco several years ago. It's certainly not wholely British owned. I can read, you see - you don't need to be working in the oil industry to read the newspapers. Amazing, eh?

I've a Masters degree in Applied Physics which included some geo-physics. Oil extraction is not completely alien to me, but I'm no expert. You, on the other hand, might have difficulty explaining the finer points of relativistic quantum mechanics. But that's pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand... like your point of argument!

Besides, yet again, I must remind you that people watch TV these days and quite often read as well. I should think basic facts about the structure of the earth are well-known.

What is this 'bidness'? Unfortunately, I only speak English and a little French, and even less German and Spanish - I don't recognise that word. Perhaps, you could use one of those useful web translation tools. When you do, hurry back and let me know what you are exactly trying to say. I can't wait. No, really.

Dnil · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2003, 04:32:23 AM »

you are talking about the oil business their skippy. So your background on it is important. If you have no experience in it please refrain from posting your drivel.

way to go personal, we know what that means.

bidness in quotes was a joke bro, but having no clue on the oil business I guess you didn't get it.

If it was a discussion on what you took then I would refrain, understand?

Dowding · « **Reply #33 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:03:00 AM »

Personal? You're oversensitive fella. It would have been personal if I'd called you a 'f*cking communist studmuffingot', for instance. I've been called that - that was fairly personal. But I didn't.

My point stands. I was demonstrating that you don't need to be working the oil fields to know about the ownership of oil exploitation companies. It's kind of like not needing to be an expert in software engineering to know that Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft. Call it common knowledge. That is all.

Sorry if I didn't get your little joke. Clearly it went well over my head - afterall I haven't worked in the oil industry, have I?

bounder · « **Reply #34 on:** January 24, 2003, 05:56:58 AM »

What seems to be emerging in the conciousness of some people on this board and elsewhere is:

The war on Iraq is inevitable, even though every British cabinet member keeps saying it is not.

The inevitability is implicit, not explicit.

The war is about oil. Not in the "GWB is starting this war to personally profit through his oil connections" sense, because that really is irrational conspiracy theory. No, the war is about ensuring a controlling interest in middle east oil production on behalf of the industrialized nations whose economies depend on stable oil prices.

And a lot of us are uncomfortable about our taxes being spent on a military action in a 'far off land' for economic purposes. There's no doubt that the flow, price and availability of oil affect us all in our daily lives, and much as we might like to be free of it's influence, our futures are intimately intwined with the future of oil production and refinement. Some people think that this is reason enough to start a conflict. I for one do not.

Oil is addictive. The more we use it for fuel, plastics etc, the more we become dependent upon it. This has been going on for nearly 100 years. Perhaps we should be directing our efforts and resources to breaking the dependency rather than reinforcing it. That doesn't just mean investing heavily in renewable energy, but also into alternatives for oil derived products. No, it won't be easy, more difficult than war even, although I'm not suggesting one is an alternative to the other, merely that if we start now, maybe our policy makers won't feel compelled to start another war when for example China decides it wants exclusive dominion over the Spratley islands or something.

What shocks me is the transparency of the pretexts used to justify this impending conflict. Firstly it's about WMD, then it's about regime change, then it's about terrorism.

Each of these reasons has been tried out on the public, and seeing that many people (in the UK at least) do not accept these reasons individually as casus belli, the policy makers of Europe and the US have decided to roll all of them together in the hope that public opinion will tip in favour of at least supporting a deployment of troops.

Of course the UK and the US have been dropping munitions on Iraq on an almost monthly basis for the last 10 years, so in point of fact the conflict never ended anyway.

Saddam Hussein has to go. And if he has to go, is not right that we should measure the other dictators in the world with the same yardstick? There's no shortage of genocidal dictators past and present, but something tells me we aren't about to try and depose Jiang Zemin and install a democractic government in the PRoC.

In fact, what's so special about Hussein? He's just another name in a list of 20 or more dictators around the world, installed or endorsed by us, then deposed or killed by us or their opressed populations, when they have:

a) served their purpose
b)decided that getting in to bed with us was a bad idea.
c)abused human rights on TV
d)dared to have economic ideas above their station.
e)tortured enough people
f)generally behaved towards us in an uppity way

Iraq is a mess of our own making. If we do invade and depose, then we better make sure we leave the placein a better way than we found it. I can't say I'm hopeful that will be the outcome.

Eagler · « **Reply #35 on:** January 24, 2003, 06:39:49 AM »

bounder steps down ...

goes to his bicycle and pedals back to his grass hut

the anti -oil man

bounder · « **Reply #36 on:** January 24, 2003, 07:17:45 AM »

lol eagler.

I may be a card carrying member of the Worldwide fraternity of no good hippie communist treehugging peacenik liberal hand wringing appeasers but:

I'm not anti-oil, any more than you are anti-trees for example.

I am, however, anti-violent death.

Judging by your previous posts, you seem to be very much in favour of the 'life is sacrosanct' school of thought.

Would this be an accurate assumption? Does pro-life extend to the born as well as the unborn child?

I have lofty ideals, like one day we (the human species) may be able to all stop killing people for money, power influence, land, water, religion, revenge, convenience, and yes, even oil.

I don't expect it to happen, ever. Why?

Because we are animals, and we behave like animals. Lions will never get peace in their time, because they are as hard wired as we are. As long as there are lions, there will be violent death for lions of all ages.

Culture and Civilization are a thin veneer over the ugly truth - we fight for dominance and resources just like our beastly brethren - but instead of beating our chests or roaring across the Serengeti, our Alpha males sit at home and play their dominance games by proxy.

I for one would like to see a leader lead. Not sit at the back eating popcorn and pontificating on the evils of everyone else, but take their troops into battle themselves.

And I don't live in a grass house. If I did, I would've smoked it by now anyway.

LUPO · « **Reply #37 on:** January 24, 2003, 09:15:22 PM »

nice post, bounder

Eagler · « **Reply #38 on:** January 25, 2003, 12:05:41 AM »

bounder

yes, all life is precious - born and unborn

I too would like all of us to live in peace, but unlike you, I think it will happen one day - when man's conciousness is raised enough to see we are truly brothers BUT until then I say kick thier arse first and hard

Seriously, if I went off into my beliefs concerning man's conciousness, spiritual evolution, our quest for enlightenment & how all of us are tied together, creating a universal level of conciousness which is the baseline of the world's divinity - u'd think me nuts

======================================
so far we haven't fired a single shot and have gotten more results out of Saddam in the last 12 months than the entire world got out of him for the last 10 years. I don't think he is a nice guy. I don't think left alone, he would leave us alone. I think the gov knows much more about him and his croonies and are taking steps to head off a disaster. I think once it starts we should finish - once and for all. He, Saddam has the power in his hands to prevent anything from happening to his country and his ppl. All he has to do is bend over backwards and produce what he says he doesn't have (me thinks he is lying

). Taking that course of action would set the US up to be the aggressor if they tried anything. But not coming clean he gives the US carte blanche to wipe his arse off the face of the earth and with his arse, too many innocents.
if the global community, of which i think most believes saddam is hiding the truth, put as much pressure on him as they are now the US and their buildup - if they's had applied like pressure from the get go ('92) with saddam, this buildup and possible future military action would never have had to happen.

StSanta · « **Reply #39 on:** January 25, 2003, 07:09:57 AM »

Grünherz wrote:
completley useless, pointless and insignificant Europe is in current world affairs....

Now yer emotions are in control of your mind again. Remember, we dinnae start the war on the Balkans. Europe just dinnae stop it.

If Europe wa insignificant and pointless, the invasion would have taken place already. While the US doesn't need Europe to strike, an already stumbling US economy would be hit hard if the European market was nullified.

It's called economical interdependence. For a thriving economy to take place, you need markets. The US is lucrative to Europeans, and Europe is lucrative to Americans.

The US cannot be a sole cowboy in the world today. It is, like every other country and more so than most, dependent on other countries for future growth and prosperity. Much like the European countries.

Wotan · « **Reply #40 on:** January 25, 2003, 08:26:36 AM »

Europe cant afford to cut itself from American markets. We are co-depedent. If the US invaded Iraq tomorrow Europe would ring its hands and moan and groan but sit back and take it like the little squeak it has become.

Europe didnt start the war in the balkans, it could not stop it. What makes you think it could stop or even effect the invasion of Iraq.

The reason the US doesnt just go ahead and do it isnt because of European Economic pressure. Hell even folks in America dont wholy support it. The impact that an unilateral invasion of Iraq on America World Prestige would be great. This impact would be real. No can possibly believe Europe will cut its markets to the US.

Oil alone has the greatest impact on the world economy. France and Russia benefit more from the current situation. So ofcourse they are against anything that would disrupt that.

The war for oil roadkill is the same thing you lefties cried during the Gulf War. The US didnt take over the oil in Kuwait and we certainly didnt take the Iraqi oil fields. Its also assinine to think that the US citizenry would turn a blind eye if the president went in and turned over the Iraqi oil fields to American Companies. Just roadkill. Whether you like Bush or not is irrelevant. You should atleast try to argue if you think Suddam is a threat to the region and the world or not.

But the war for oil bs aint going nowhere. If we wanted that oil we would took it during the last war.

Grendel · « **Reply #41 on:** January 25, 2003, 08:41:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hyena426
yup,,UN inspectors check out everyone elses wepons of mass destuction,,why should saddam be aloud to go unchecked?,,what makes him so special that he doesnt have to threw the same checks that every othere country has to go threw?

United States of America does not allow the UN weapons inspectors to check otu the US weapons of mass destruction.

Likewise USA has dodged several other UN proceedings about keeping eye on nuclear and bio weapons.

You remember that USA refused to pay their debs to UN for years and years, until suddenly after 911 affair they finally noticed, that help of UN might actually be useful.

So if USA dodges UN weapons inspectors - why the hell should Iraq allow them?

Oh, because US can be the big bully and just force them.

StSanta · « **Reply #42 on:** January 25, 2003, 09:16:43 AM »

Thing is Eagler, the US hasn't got anything on him. or rather, they lack the hard evidence against him. So he can argue that he has come clean and the US is the agressor.

Not that I care. He's a murderer, tyrant etc, opressing his people. So, we get cheap oil prices, or so that's the reason. if the secondary effect is Saddam dead and at least a slim possibility of democracy, it's worth it. IMHO.

I just feel sorry for the poor Iraqi soldiers who'll die by US weapons. Poor sods won't have a chance.

StSanta · « **Reply #43 on:** January 25, 2003, 09:25:48 AM »

Wotan, heh, you wonder why there's this expression 'ugly American'?

If the US invaded Iraq tomorrow Europe would ring its hands and moan and groan but sit back and take it like the little squeak it has become.

This may have something to do with it. The US is the only superpower in the world. It can basically do as it wants. Does that mean that all other countries are squeakes? The economic 'wars' with tolls etc between the US and Europe seem to indicate that the US cannot do what it wants when it wants how it wants with everything without suffering consequences.

Heh, you complain about US-bashing. Wotans post and many like them explain why that happens. Hell, if you piss off your friends like this, imagine how you piss off those that DON'T like you. It seems the 'ugly American' thing is founded in truth.

Europe didnt start the war in the balkans, it could not stop it. What makes you think it could stop or even effect the invasion of Iraq

Heh, we already have. You see, some Americans are worried about world opinion. It's sort of like going to a party where you're the biggest meanest mofo there. You could tear the place apart and be a general amazinhunk. No one at the party would like you though and you'd be isolated and thought poorly of. Or you could behave rationally, arguing for what music should be played and using body language (flexing your muscles) to help get your choice played.

I repeat again. No nation has hold power for more than a few thousand years. Right now posts such as Wotans make me hope that the US fall from grace will come sooner rather than later. I'm beginning to understand how one can grow enough hatred towards the US to fly stuff into buildings. Not that I'd ever condone it; it's just that I find the bile rising in ME, and I'm a supporter of the US. I can imagine what opponents might feel.

Yes, the US is a big bad bullie. Yes, you can flex your muscles and strut around. But arrogance breeds contempt and hatred.

I hate to say this, but it is attitudes and expressions like Wotans and those alike that help foster hatred amongst fundamentalists. There's a reason why they chose the US, not Britain, for their most spectacular attack.

You don't live in a vacuum. Get over yourselves. You're powerful, but right now, some of your citizens are just pure amazinhunks drunk on their nations power.

Am not saying Europe will cut off the US market - that's just ridiculous. I am saying that Europe, being a wealthy part of the world, is important to the US and vice versa. 'World opinion' is really the opinion of the countries that matter - usually the rich ones. The US administrations policies reflect on the US people, since it's a democracy. Same as here.

This is directed at those arrogant nincopoops who haven't enough brain or patience to grasp more than a white and black childish world. it doesn't apply to the more educated Americans, be they pro war Iraw, anti-Europe or whatever. And Wotan, I sincerely hope your post was made in a macho Tom Clancy patriotism kind of mood, which temporarily disenganged your otherwise well functioning mind.

Rude · « **Reply #44 on:** January 25, 2003, 10:07:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
You're seriously suggesting BP Amocco has any significant Russian ownership? Go on any financial site and check out who has the controlling interests in the Shell, BP, Exxon etc. I think you'll be surprised.

And? Israel has failed to obey UN resolutions for 40 years, but I don't see anybody clammoring to go to war over it...

Ahhh...why am I not suprised Dowding has a problem with Isreal?

Your true colors are showing.