I'm sick, sick, sick of seeing the same crap repeated over again. So I thought I'd address the major fallacies in the arguments of those who currently wallow in their own ignorance.
"This is only about the oil. We won't have blood for oil!"
Curious, indeed. I mean, we did move quickly to secure the oil wells. That was one of the main priorities, evidenced by the fact that we initialized the ground campaign immidiately so as to prevent their destruction. Surely this must be proof that we want nothing more than to prosper off the oil of the Iraqi people?
Of course, that would be incorrect.
Let's look at this, well, logically.
1. Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world.
2. Iraq's capacity to produce oil can be ramped up with moderate investment capital.
3. Iraq's links to terrorism are tedious at best.
4. Iraq has a moderately sized standing army.
Good on paper, right? We can go in there, get a buttload of oil, with reasonable casualties, and we can play the "Terror card."
Only, if oil were ACTUALLY the reason we were going in there, there'd be a better option.
1. Saudi Arabia has THE largest reserves of oil in the world.
2. Saudi Arabia's capacity to produce oil is already at 50%, and could be brought to 100% with no investment - The infrastructure is already in place.
3. There is enough circumstantial evidence to build a sizeable case against Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks. For example, evidence suggests the Saudi royal family met with Osama bin Laden and provided over $300 million to support al-Qaeda, (Link), and fifteen of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian (Link.
4. Saudi Arabia currently has American troops stationed there to DEFEND it. A war on Saudi Arabia would be a walk in the park.
Add to that the fact that the U.S. currently only imports 3.5% of our oil from Iraq, and you'd see that Iraqi oil is of little import in the grand scheme of things.
Now, the French, Germans, and other nations that have spoke out against war, they care about oil. Hooo, boy do they care about oil. Those countries recieve upwards of 10% of their oil from Iraq, and not only that, they recieve it much cheaper than they do from other OPEC nations. Why? Lucrative trade deals with Saddam's Regime. If the U.S. goes in, and hand power over to the Iraqi people, they will have to negotiate new deals with Iraq - Ones that, given their support of Saddam's regime, would not likely be as juicy as they're used to. War on Iraq DIRECTLY effects the French and German economies, so their defiance is certainly not a result of some deep care for the Iraqi people. They're willing to see them slaughtered under Saddam's regime so they can save a few francs at the pump.
In essence, thanks to France and Germany, there is already blood in the oil. The U.S. is going in to remove it.
"But the links connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda are weak, tenuous at best. You can't possibly lie to us that attacking Iraq is a move in the war on Terror! THAT'S A LIE!"
Where, exactly, can terrorists be found? Many would say to look in the Philippines (Abu-Sayyaff), Afghanistan (al-Qaeda), or Lebanon (Hezbollah). But this is where you find the end result of terrorist action - the poor and deprived people of the world who have been raised to believe a suicide bomber is a martyr, and becoming a martyr is the greatest human achievement. The terrorists are fed, clothed, trained and encouraged by totalitarian leaders.
Killing the terrorists themselves solves nothing, yet terrorism practically extinguishes the possibility of peace, and therefore must be reduced if not fully eliminated. Just as we fight fire by removing the fuel, we also fight terrorism by removing the support structure it depends on. Unfortunately for us all, terrorism has found a safe harbor in the Middle East.
Certainly the suffering of many people would be lessened by Saddam Hussein's removal from power. As he has chosen not to seek exile, what option is there other than war? Any recent concessions on the part of Iraq are not founded on a fear of UN arms inspectors; they come from a fear of the massive military buildup on Iraq's borders. We have given the peace process a chance, for over a decade. Saddam has not.
Some seem unwilling to believe that Iraq supports terrorism in any way, which baffles me. Certainly there are many readers out there who remember Abu Nidal, who was recently killed after years of hiding in Baghdad. For those of you too young to know who Abu Nidal is, his name was synonymous with terrorism, before being upstaged by Osama bin Laden. I leave you to read up on his activities if you care to know what type of person is welcome under Saddam's rule.
In a remarkable attempt to seek the friendship and support promised to America after September 11, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the UN and showed satellite photographs of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Audiotapes were played of Iraqi soldiers as they discussed how to hide chemical weapons from UN inspectors. In the secret world of intelligence, it is always possible that the most damning evidence might never be presented to the public, simply to preserve our most valuable intelligence gathering methods.
There is also Abu Musab Zarqawi, who Colin Powell identified as a former al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical weapons specialist, and who once planned the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan. He is now suspected of helping Ansar al-Islam, another terrorist organization dedicated to the genocide of Iraqi Kurds, based in Northern Iraq. (Link)
If this is, in fact, a "war on terrorism", then what better tactical and logistical advantage could possibly be gained other than an Iraqi invasion? Take a moment to bring up a map of the Middle East (Lonely Planet works well, see http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/loc-mea.htm for a clean, convenient reference), and see where Iraq fits in the whole picture. Iran, one of the three "Axis of Evil" nations, would find itself stuck in a vise between an occupied Afghanistan and an occupied Iraq. Syria, which is also a major supporter of terrorism, would likewise find itself caught between an occupied Iraq and a democratic Turkey. Most important of all, an occupation of Iraq would cut the flow of funds and equipment through Iran, to Iraq, then Syria, into Lebanon, to finally explode in the discos and cafes of Israel. If the West Bank is where terrorists are found, then Iraq is where the terrorist supply network is found, and war is all about logistics.
Terrorism is enacted by the poor and suffering, who are duped into killing themselves by totalitarian leaders. It is those same totalitarian leaders who keep their source of martyrs poor. Again and again, Saddam has refused to use aid money to feed his own people. In March, 2000, the Iraqi government refused a UN Security Council proposal to provide over $49.4 million in aid to Iraqi pilgrims destined for Mecca. Instead, Iraq insisted the money be put directly into its central bank for them to spend at their own discretion.
"But the civilians! What about the civilian deaths! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
It concerns us all. War is the ugliest facet of reality, and women, children, and the elderly will all fall victim, along with thousands of thousands of Iraqi combatants.
But it isn't Britain, or the United States, or Canada or France, who decided to put weapons in mosques to keep them from being destroyed. George Bush and Tony Blair are not surrounding themselves with human shields, and I would like to think they never would.
After 12 years of a cease-fire, 12 years of sanctions, 12 years of UN resolutions, Saddam was given a choice - Leave in exile, or be overtaken. He chose the former, and his decision is the one that has put Iraqis in the possible line of fire.
I believe the French and other countries which threatened veto of stricter UN resolutions in the final days share some of that blood on their hands.
Consider one of the first rules in the military. When in the presence of a commanding officer and the grunts below you, giving an order he's given you, you NEVER contradict what he's said. The men lower than you in rank must not be shown any rift in the chain of command. If you have issues with the order, you bring them up in private, because doing so in front of the troops will cause confusion and possibly worse. They may, thinking that you will stand up with them, refuse to obey the command.
In the same vein, if every nation in the UN stood together and told Saddam to disarm, there is a damn good chance he would've. But by threatening veto, by coming out in public against the march of Bush and Blair, they gave Saddam a card to play. He was then able to work that rift like the skilled manipulator he is, destroying a few missiles here, letting a few inspectors go there, but never complying with the spirit of the UN resolutions. He was able to tiptoe across the Line of Material Breach, and back again, without incurring the consequences.
"I don't care what Bush does. He didn't win the Presidency! GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!!! Isn't this a democracy?
No. It's not a democracy, you twit. Perhaps if you didn't sleep through Goverment class in High School you'd know that.
::hushed silence::
The Constitution of the United States of America reads:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The Electoral College is a simple and basic component of our Constitution. It was contemplated for long periods of time by our founding fathers. It is designed, as all democracy should be, to protect the rights of the minority while expressing the will of the majority. It is perhaps the most effective and efficient institution of our government. It is simply a scapegoat because it has no opportunity to protect itself.
Our constitution is the law of our land and the legacy of our founding fathers. The moment we start to dissect when there is no need is disrespectful and detrimental to our society as a whole.
Many will argue that the idea is outdated. It has been reformed three times! - and as recently as 1961. It is not outdated, but effective and historical. People might argue that since it has been reformed before, it should be again. This is not the case. As the organization now stands, it is the best for the country and it's people.
States' Rights are upheld by the electoral college.
In a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. The highest official elected by popular vote is the State's Governor. This protects the rights of the state, which a direct vote would undermine.
Proposition is futile. The Electoral College is a constitutional aspect and would have to be changed by the senate. Since the senate is run by the small states, which the Electoral College represents, the proposition would be shot down. Minority interests are thence protected.
The electoral college is Effective and Efficient as stands.
The Electoral College meets once every four years, at their own capitals. No travel expenses. Many states don't even pay for lunch. They cast two votes in an office and send these to Washington.
Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of a popular support to be elected president.
Thus I stand in the affirmative for keeping and not changing the Electoral College.
Conclusion
It's not about oil, this war supports the overall "War on Terror," civilian casualties, though regrettable, weigh on Saddam, his regime, and those in the United Nations which failed to put pressure on Iraq to follow their own Resolutions, AND Bush won the election, fair and square, and you can f*cking remove that misleading rubbish from your signatures.
I'm done.
"This is only about the oil. We won't have blood for oil!"
Curious, indeed. I mean, we did move quickly to secure the oil wells. That was one of the main priorities, evidenced by the fact that we initialized the ground campaign immidiately so as to prevent their destruction. Surely this must be proof that we want nothing more than to prosper off the oil of the Iraqi people?
Of course, that would be incorrect.
Let's look at this, well, logically.
1. Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of oil in the world.
2. Iraq's capacity to produce oil can be ramped up with moderate investment capital.
3. Iraq's links to terrorism are tedious at best.
4. Iraq has a moderately sized standing army.
Good on paper, right? We can go in there, get a buttload of oil, with reasonable casualties, and we can play the "Terror card."
Only, if oil were ACTUALLY the reason we were going in there, there'd be a better option.
1. Saudi Arabia has THE largest reserves of oil in the world.
2. Saudi Arabia's capacity to produce oil is already at 50%, and could be brought to 100% with no investment - The infrastructure is already in place.
3. There is enough circumstantial evidence to build a sizeable case against Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks. For example, evidence suggests the Saudi royal family met with Osama bin Laden and provided over $300 million to support al-Qaeda, (Link), and fifteen of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian (Link.
4. Saudi Arabia currently has American troops stationed there to DEFEND it. A war on Saudi Arabia would be a walk in the park.
Add to that the fact that the U.S. currently only imports 3.5% of our oil from Iraq, and you'd see that Iraqi oil is of little import in the grand scheme of things.
Now, the French, Germans, and other nations that have spoke out against war, they care about oil. Hooo, boy do they care about oil. Those countries recieve upwards of 10% of their oil from Iraq, and not only that, they recieve it much cheaper than they do from other OPEC nations. Why? Lucrative trade deals with Saddam's Regime. If the U.S. goes in, and hand power over to the Iraqi people, they will have to negotiate new deals with Iraq - Ones that, given their support of Saddam's regime, would not likely be as juicy as they're used to. War on Iraq DIRECTLY effects the French and German economies, so their defiance is certainly not a result of some deep care for the Iraqi people. They're willing to see them slaughtered under Saddam's regime so they can save a few francs at the pump.
In essence, thanks to France and Germany, there is already blood in the oil. The U.S. is going in to remove it.
"But the links connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda are weak, tenuous at best. You can't possibly lie to us that attacking Iraq is a move in the war on Terror! THAT'S A LIE!"
Where, exactly, can terrorists be found? Many would say to look in the Philippines (Abu-Sayyaff), Afghanistan (al-Qaeda), or Lebanon (Hezbollah). But this is where you find the end result of terrorist action - the poor and deprived people of the world who have been raised to believe a suicide bomber is a martyr, and becoming a martyr is the greatest human achievement. The terrorists are fed, clothed, trained and encouraged by totalitarian leaders.
Killing the terrorists themselves solves nothing, yet terrorism practically extinguishes the possibility of peace, and therefore must be reduced if not fully eliminated. Just as we fight fire by removing the fuel, we also fight terrorism by removing the support structure it depends on. Unfortunately for us all, terrorism has found a safe harbor in the Middle East.
Certainly the suffering of many people would be lessened by Saddam Hussein's removal from power. As he has chosen not to seek exile, what option is there other than war? Any recent concessions on the part of Iraq are not founded on a fear of UN arms inspectors; they come from a fear of the massive military buildup on Iraq's borders. We have given the peace process a chance, for over a decade. Saddam has not.
Some seem unwilling to believe that Iraq supports terrorism in any way, which baffles me. Certainly there are many readers out there who remember Abu Nidal, who was recently killed after years of hiding in Baghdad. For those of you too young to know who Abu Nidal is, his name was synonymous with terrorism, before being upstaged by Osama bin Laden. I leave you to read up on his activities if you care to know what type of person is welcome under Saddam's rule.
In a remarkable attempt to seek the friendship and support promised to America after September 11, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the UN and showed satellite photographs of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Audiotapes were played of Iraqi soldiers as they discussed how to hide chemical weapons from UN inspectors. In the secret world of intelligence, it is always possible that the most damning evidence might never be presented to the public, simply to preserve our most valuable intelligence gathering methods.
There is also Abu Musab Zarqawi, who Colin Powell identified as a former al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical weapons specialist, and who once planned the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan. He is now suspected of helping Ansar al-Islam, another terrorist organization dedicated to the genocide of Iraqi Kurds, based in Northern Iraq. (Link)
If this is, in fact, a "war on terrorism", then what better tactical and logistical advantage could possibly be gained other than an Iraqi invasion? Take a moment to bring up a map of the Middle East (Lonely Planet works well, see http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/loc-mea.htm for a clean, convenient reference), and see where Iraq fits in the whole picture. Iran, one of the three "Axis of Evil" nations, would find itself stuck in a vise between an occupied Afghanistan and an occupied Iraq. Syria, which is also a major supporter of terrorism, would likewise find itself caught between an occupied Iraq and a democratic Turkey. Most important of all, an occupation of Iraq would cut the flow of funds and equipment through Iran, to Iraq, then Syria, into Lebanon, to finally explode in the discos and cafes of Israel. If the West Bank is where terrorists are found, then Iraq is where the terrorist supply network is found, and war is all about logistics.
Terrorism is enacted by the poor and suffering, who are duped into killing themselves by totalitarian leaders. It is those same totalitarian leaders who keep their source of martyrs poor. Again and again, Saddam has refused to use aid money to feed his own people. In March, 2000, the Iraqi government refused a UN Security Council proposal to provide over $49.4 million in aid to Iraqi pilgrims destined for Mecca. Instead, Iraq insisted the money be put directly into its central bank for them to spend at their own discretion.
"But the civilians! What about the civilian deaths! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
It concerns us all. War is the ugliest facet of reality, and women, children, and the elderly will all fall victim, along with thousands of thousands of Iraqi combatants.
But it isn't Britain, or the United States, or Canada or France, who decided to put weapons in mosques to keep them from being destroyed. George Bush and Tony Blair are not surrounding themselves with human shields, and I would like to think they never would.
After 12 years of a cease-fire, 12 years of sanctions, 12 years of UN resolutions, Saddam was given a choice - Leave in exile, or be overtaken. He chose the former, and his decision is the one that has put Iraqis in the possible line of fire.
I believe the French and other countries which threatened veto of stricter UN resolutions in the final days share some of that blood on their hands.
Consider one of the first rules in the military. When in the presence of a commanding officer and the grunts below you, giving an order he's given you, you NEVER contradict what he's said. The men lower than you in rank must not be shown any rift in the chain of command. If you have issues with the order, you bring them up in private, because doing so in front of the troops will cause confusion and possibly worse. They may, thinking that you will stand up with them, refuse to obey the command.
In the same vein, if every nation in the UN stood together and told Saddam to disarm, there is a damn good chance he would've. But by threatening veto, by coming out in public against the march of Bush and Blair, they gave Saddam a card to play. He was then able to work that rift like the skilled manipulator he is, destroying a few missiles here, letting a few inspectors go there, but never complying with the spirit of the UN resolutions. He was able to tiptoe across the Line of Material Breach, and back again, without incurring the consequences.
"I don't care what Bush does. He didn't win the Presidency! GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!!! Isn't this a democracy?
No. It's not a democracy, you twit. Perhaps if you didn't sleep through Goverment class in High School you'd know that.
::hushed silence::
The Constitution of the United States of America reads:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The Electoral College is a simple and basic component of our Constitution. It was contemplated for long periods of time by our founding fathers. It is designed, as all democracy should be, to protect the rights of the minority while expressing the will of the majority. It is perhaps the most effective and efficient institution of our government. It is simply a scapegoat because it has no opportunity to protect itself.
Our constitution is the law of our land and the legacy of our founding fathers. The moment we start to dissect when there is no need is disrespectful and detrimental to our society as a whole.
Many will argue that the idea is outdated. It has been reformed three times! - and as recently as 1961. It is not outdated, but effective and historical. People might argue that since it has been reformed before, it should be again. This is not the case. As the organization now stands, it is the best for the country and it's people.
States' Rights are upheld by the electoral college.
In a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. The highest official elected by popular vote is the State's Governor. This protects the rights of the state, which a direct vote would undermine.
Proposition is futile. The Electoral College is a constitutional aspect and would have to be changed by the senate. Since the senate is run by the small states, which the Electoral College represents, the proposition would be shot down. Minority interests are thence protected.
The electoral college is Effective and Efficient as stands.
The Electoral College meets once every four years, at their own capitals. No travel expenses. Many states don't even pay for lunch. They cast two votes in an office and send these to Washington.
Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of a popular support to be elected president.
Thus I stand in the affirmative for keeping and not changing the Electoral College.
Conclusion
It's not about oil, this war supports the overall "War on Terror," civilian casualties, though regrettable, weigh on Saddam, his regime, and those in the United Nations which failed to put pressure on Iraq to follow their own Resolutions, AND Bush won the election, fair and square, and you can f*cking remove that misleading rubbish from your signatures.
I'm done.
Facebook
Twitter