I'm getting tired of repeating the same things just to keep you amused Hagbard so I am just going to address this one part for now.
"The United States must defend the interests of the alliance by bringing new supplies into production. This was what the invasion of Afghanistan was all about: establishing protection over a new pipeline from the Caspian Sea oil fields, either through Afghanistan and Pakistan and into the tankers, or through Turkey. This pipeline is important if Russia is not to control this flow of oil."
The US did not goto war in Afghanistan over an oil pipeline. A oil pipeline has never been proposed for Afghanistan. A natural gas pipeline has been proposed. Even a company in Brazil was in the bidding to build it. Just the fact of that one factual error implies the rest of his conclusions are in doubt.
One more. The US will not want the price of oil to drop below about $25 per barrel. If you ask nicely, I'll take the time to explain it to you if someone else doesn't do it for me.
If our plan is to keep troops there and control the oil fields why are we drawing down the active duty end-strength numbers? That has been Rumsfelds plan from the beginning and it is one that is still moving forward.
This is dissapointing but not surprising. No one can come up with anything even remotely substantial. All over this board I see people posting that we're going to war no matter what, we're not going to fight NK because they don't have oil, Bush is going to give the oil fields to his and Cheney's friends, etc., etc. I understand that it is for the most part opinion but what are you basing it on? What facts are you drawing upon to make this supposedly intelligent, informed opinion?
IMHO it's a combination of answers 1 and 2. Still, I would lean more towards answer 2 for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the North Korea situation clearly shows that our primary concern is not WMD in the hands of crazy dictators. If that was the main concern, we would have troops headed to Korea, not Iraq. Further, the oil is definitely an incentive: As long as Iraq has deals with France and Russian oil companies but not with US companies, the US companies are missing out on billions of potential profits. Installing a puppet government in Iraq would solve that problem, providing us with a steady safe supply of oil without needing the Saudis. Of course we'd have troops there to guard the oil (under the pretext of helping the new government maintain stability).
It makes a lot of sense. On the flip side, I do believe "W" wants to also help the Iraqi people and remove the threat to Israel, so it's a little of answer 1, a lot of answer 2.
There's a mountain of literature out there that would support #2, but I'm not convinced the "W" is that kinda guy.
It makes a lot of sense. On the flip side, I do believe "W" wants to also help the Iraqi people and remove the threat to Israel, so it's a little of answer 1, a lot of answer 2.
There's a mountain of literature out there that would support #2, but I'm not convinced the "W" is that kinda guy.
He's not stating that there are overt plans but that once gaining control over the oil, such a development is certainly in the minds of those planning the invasion. Bring up this point again in about a year.
He gives reasons why they might be increased or decreased, depending on the desired outcome. Go ahead, explain.
Besides the fact that it is our official stated policy? I normally don't call someone a liar unless I have contradictory evidence.
I am in no way dismissing Answer 2 but it does seem to be based on a lot of supposition and not a lot of concrete fact.
flavio
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,823
- 1
- 76
I don't see any concrete facts backing up one more than the other. You can't have an unbiased discussion on this if your going to use "take my word for it" with one answer and "show me concrete evidence" for the other. Basic critical thinking guidelines.
So it is your contention that the statements, speech's, testimony,transcripts of meetings, etc from Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice ,etc., etc. carry no more credence and bear no more scrutiny than an Op/Ed piece out of the Des Moines Times? Accuracy of source is also part of the basic critical thinking guidelines.
I named a lot more people than Bush and I am always interested in a discussion that is as unbiased as humanly possible.
DaveSohmer:
<<So it is your contention that the statements, speech's, testimony,transcripts of meetings, etc from Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice ,etc., etc. carry no more credence and bear no more scrutiny than an Op/Ed piece out of the Des Moines Times?>>
Indeed, when it comes to evaluating the motivation behind something (for example, the motivation behind the imminent attack on Iraq), statements, speeches and the like of the administration carry no more weight to me than some Op/Ed piece. Each contains the view of the speaker, with nifty facts and assorted information strictly to back the point of view of the conveyor. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that government should NEVER be blindly trusted.
Perhaps the administration has hard facts that clearly show Saddam is building nuclear weapons, and intends to use them. Unfortunately, they have chosen not to release such information. Either there is no "smoking gun", or they do not want to risk their sources by releasing the info (I'm guessing the latter). Either way, I can not make an informed decision about something based on "facts" that cannot be revealed to me. It's, in effect, somewhat of a circular reference:
"Saddam is planning to blow up the world with his new nukes that he's almost finished building". Hmm, sounds bad. Can you show me evidence of this, the inspectors have not been able to find the smoking gun (yet). "No, we can't reveal it to you". So why should we attack Saddam? "Because we're telling you he's evil and building nukes". Do you have evidence to show to back up your assertion? "Yes, but you can't have it".
The question then boils down to, "in the absence of facts (at least to me) one way or the other, what do I think is the most likely motivation behind an attack?" There's a LOT of things pointing to oil as a motivation. If oil is not the primary reason, then it's certainly a consideration - numerous statements by Rumsfeld have confirmed as much. Not specifically of course, but when they start talking about the future of the oil industry in Iraq post-Saddam, you know they've been thinking about what that could do for the US oil companies. To me, securing the peace and preventing a nuclear attack on someone is a good reason to attack. Profit and oil is not. Thus, I want to see the inspectors do their job and find what's there - even if it takes longer. Let them determine the 'facts', and lets act based on their findings, not based on "facts" that nobody except the administration are privy to.
<<So it is your contention that the statements, speech's, testimony,transcripts of meetings, etc from Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice ,etc., etc. carry no more credence and bear no more scrutiny than an Op/Ed piece out of the Des Moines Times?>>
Indeed, when it comes to evaluating the motivation behind something (for example, the motivation behind the imminent attack on Iraq), statements, speeches and the like of the administration carry no more weight to me than some Op/Ed piece. Each contains the view of the speaker, with nifty facts and assorted information strictly to back the point of view of the conveyor. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that government should NEVER be blindly trusted.
Perhaps the administration has hard facts that clearly show Saddam is building nuclear weapons, and intends to use them. Unfortunately, they have chosen not to release such information. Either there is no "smoking gun", or they do not want to risk their sources by releasing the info (I'm guessing the latter). Either way, I can not make an informed decision about something based on "facts" that cannot be revealed to me. It's, in effect, somewhat of a circular reference:
"Saddam is planning to blow up the world with his new nukes that he's almost finished building". Hmm, sounds bad. Can you show me evidence of this, the inspectors have not been able to find the smoking gun (yet). "No, we can't reveal it to you". So why should we attack Saddam? "Because we're telling you he's evil and building nukes". Do you have evidence to show to back up your assertion? "Yes, but you can't have it".
The question then boils down to, "in the absence of facts (at least to me) one way or the other, what do I think is the most likely motivation behind an attack?" There's a LOT of things pointing to oil as a motivation. If oil is not the primary reason, then it's certainly a consideration - numerous statements by Rumsfeld have confirmed as much. Not specifically of course, but when they start talking about the future of the oil industry in Iraq post-Saddam, you know they've been thinking about what that could do for the US oil companies. To me, securing the peace and preventing a nuclear attack on someone is a good reason to attack. Profit and oil is not. Thus, I want to see the inspectors do their job and find what's there - even if it takes longer. Let them determine the 'facts', and lets act based on their findings, not based on "facts" that nobody except the administration are privy to.
Did anyone ever present any definitive evidence to back up position #2?
I haven't seen it yet? Did I miss it?
I haven't seen it yet? Did I miss it?
It is one thing to make the point that we should wait, let the inspectors do their job, etc. etc. when it come to discussing the situation in Iraq. Those are all credible arguments based on preferred methodology. It is quite another to make the leap to the arguments that I hear constantly about " blood for oil" and "bush is a war monger" and all the other arguments you constantly read here and other places. To dismiss the Bush admins position as biased cannot apply here because it is the entering argument. Without it there is no further discussion.
I guess we're not going to know for sure until it is over however I will defend my position and then declare weapons free. I do believe that answer 1 is the closest approximation to the reason we are doing what we are doing. This admin. came into office with the very clear intention of getting Saddam out of office (an intention that was made our official gov't policy in 1998). This was the topic of discussion at NSC meetings prior to 9/11. Their reasons for doing so have been very clearly stated by the admin. time and time again, ad naseum. I will tell you that if it was just Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and to some extent Rice saying this I wouldn't believe what I do. But it is not the case. Powell and Armitage are saying it to. They are the reason we went to the UN instead of acting unilaterally. They have been the voices of restraint but they are also saying that they believe Saddam has WMD and needs to come clean or face the consequences. Powell is universally recognized as a man of intelligence, honor and integrity. I simply do not believe he has been duped by the rest of the admin. and I do not believe that he would knowingly allow the lives of US soldiers to be put in jeopardy because someone else has a personal agenda. Powell is a team player and knows the consequences of not supporting the boss but he also has his limits. He spoke out yesterday in a somewhat contrary position with regards to AA. I am convinced he would speak out if he thought we were entering an unjust or corrupt course of action wrt Iraq. Remember I am only arguing about motives not methods. You are weapons free.
johnjohn320
Diamond Member
- Jan 9, 2001
- 7,572
- 2
- 76
No, Saddam controls a huge portion of the world's oil. We need to still be able to import it. Well, actually we don't NEED that, but people think we do, thus this whole mess.
<----is on medication right now, sorry if I'm a bit "disconnected" sounding here.
Sorry, but I don't see how that answered the questions I posted above. Send me some of your pills, maybe it will make sense if I'm on the same meds.
It's unfortunate that people have such a black and white perception of things. That said, I didn't see anything substantial to back up Answer 1 
So I guess the reasoning behind answer 2 is the "liar, liar, pants on fire " defense. Colin Powell, who many of you here hail as the man of integrity, the voice of reason, the moderate in an admin. full of war mongers, the man who is above all politics, has suddenly completely changed his character and is lying through his teeth about the threat Iraq poses and our reasons for possibly going to war. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the ~50 or so of you who checked number 2 are saying, right?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter