Woh, an honest republican politician on the real reason for the war with Iraq?! NO WAY!

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

- Senior Al Queda members have been spotted in Baghdad.
- Al Queda training camps in Iraq (including the mysterious airliner)
- One of the 9/11 hijackers was in iraq before 9/11.
- Hussein openly does not the Like.
- Openly supports terrorism

There is not smoking gun, but some dots can be connected.
-

1) Only an unsubstantiated allegation
2) Ok i never heard of Al Quaeda camps in Iraq, I would think Bush would've used this to leverage his war on Iraq. And if there were Al quaeda camps in iraq, you would have to prove Saddam knew of them and sponsored them.
3) They were in a lot of countries before 9/11
4) I'm assuming you mean openly does not like the US. A lot of world leaders don't like the US, justifiably or not.
5) But does not commit it. He commits attrocities against his own people maybe, but certainly does not commit terrorism. Addendum: and by support, you do not mean funding Al Quaeda terrorists, do you? He vocally supports them maybe.

1.According the US intelligence it is true.
2.This is also according to US intelligence. Even if Saddam knew about them and did nothing, that would be reason enough.
3.As I said, it is circumstantial.
4.No disagreement.
5.He funds it and/or encourages it. He may not get his hands dirty, but he still is behind it.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: gotsmack
what % of the world's oil is from Iraq anyway?

I always thought we could do without Iraq oil because they have oil spread around S. America, Canada, come countries in Africa, Mexico, and Russia.

About 25% of the worlds proven reservers.

You sure about that?
I thought it was more like 10-12%.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: gotsmack
what % of the world's oil is from Iraq anyway?

I always thought we could do without Iraq oil because they have oil spread around S. America, Canada, come countries in Africa, Mexico, and Russia.

About 25% of the worlds proven reservers.

You sure about that?
I thought it was more like 10-12%.

You are correct.

 

[ElFenix]

bah, you say it like its a bad thing

 

[wQuay]

Saddam is an egomanical, sadistic tyrant.

Funny, that's what I think of when I read your posts.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Oh my, my, my. Saddam is an egomanical, sadistic tyrant. AFAIK, he's never [/i]claimed[/i] "Islam" as a basis for his little activities. However, ALL of those middle eastern countries conveniently unite, when it's convenient for them, of course, under the umbrella of Islam. If you think Osama and Saddam have never met, you're seriously deluding yourself.

They share a mutual interest: hatred of the USA. They share a common goal: complete and utter destruction of the USA and every man, woman and child that breathes here.

I will gladly give my life so that my son and my GF and my mother and brother and friends can go on living FREE. W/O fear of evil little men such as these.

Then are you going to put your money where your mouth is and join our armed forces?

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
This is no suprise. I live in Texas, big time conservative country. Most of the extremist conservatives arent afraid to say that oil is the real reason we are going into Iraq. They'll openly admit it, but do say that if Bush told the truth, Democrats would jump all over him for it, and the public would likely fall in line with the Democrats afterwards. So he has to come up with a reason to invade Iraq, which is what he has been working on.

Of course, instead of spending the estimated $300 billion on a war with Iraq and restructuring afterwards, if that money was spent of fuel cell research and development, we wouldnt need all that oil. GM has spent $1 billion on R&D for their fuel cell cars and plan on having it fully in place in 8-10 years. Spend 300 times that amount and we can make the conversion from oil to fuel cell alot easier and quicker, but that does kill off a few companies (in exchange for new companies of course).

Good post. Expose Bush's thrist for oil and support for war falters? Perhaps but some Americans might be willing to die for oil. Why not ask them? After all, they'll do all the dying while Bush commands from the bunker.

Hmmm $300 million might go a long way toward oil-independence might it not? If most of Europe can get people driving decent cars with an average MPG rating of around 50 we can surely do something similar here while we wait for alternative energy development.

This should have been part of a post 9/11 Comprehensive Plan. War might be more sexy and benefit the Elite but obviously it's not the only option.

 

[laFiera]

Hmmm...can anybody who is in mr bush's team has gone to war?????



http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/war_opposition021014.html (link might dissappear in a a few days)

America speaks with one voice," says President Bush.

In Washington, Bush, having been empowered by both houses of Congress to use force, seems to face very little opposition on Iraq.

On the streets of America, nothing could be further from the truth.

Across the nation, in city after city, ABCNEWS found voices of opposition, and many of them were from military towns.

"I am not convinced President Bush has yet made the case," said Miles Harvey, a San Diego retiree. San Diego is home port to the Navy's Pacific Fleet, which directly employs more than 100,000 people.

"We have to be convinced that there is a credible threat from Iraq and that's what I haven't seen," said Harvey.

Algene Miller, a Vietnam War veteran, said he was worried about potential casualties.

"You can't have a war without them," he said. "I know, I've been there."

 

[sandorski]

Damned Petroleum Addicts! Running around the neighbourhood, breaking into homes, and busting things up. If they come busting in here I'll put one right between the eyes! :disgust:

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: gotsmack
what % of the world's oil is from Iraq anyway?

I always thought we could do without Iraq oil because they have oil spread around S. America, Canada, come countries in Africa, Mexico, and Russia.

Right around, or less than 10% - fluxating between 2.5bb/day (billion barrels/day) and 3.5 bb/day - of course it would likely be higher without the embargo. Iraq is the #3 producer in the region.
Thus the Russian connection - Russia is the embargo outlet for most of the iraqi oil that they are permitted to sell in exchange for necessary goods. Russia has rights to vast amounts of iraqi oil which they fear would be cancelled by us invasion.

we produce 6 bb/day ourselves btw.

There are a couple of childishly fallacious lines of thought in here:
- there is one and only one "real" reason why this action is being considered
- if there is some kind of economic benefit to us that might result from this action, then clearly this is the "real" motive
- everything that comes from an authority figure representing an ideology that I do not subscribe to is a bold-faced lie b/c these people cannot be trusted, care nothing for truth and ideals, and are ALWAYS out for personal gain ALWAYS using subterfuge and conspiracy to manipulate global events to their desires
- I know what's REALLY going on - its quite clear to me that there is ONE way of looking at this, depsite the fact that those vastly more informed are split on the isssue

Take, for instance, the previous gulf war. Were we there for the oil or to protect Kuwait?
If "for the oil," do you mean:
- to take the oil for ourselves (as was often said at the time)?
- to protect the US-friendly regime in Kuwait so the oil would still be for sale to us?
- to prevent a hostile regime from controling the oil and cutting us off?
- to use our power to protect Kuwait from Saddam as leverage to bargain for better oil prices?

All of these could be said to be "for the oil" yet there are marked differences between the thinking behind them.

You might even say that we went "for the oil" because it would have been bad for global security to allow Saddam to roll over into Kuwait and then hold the world hostage through his control of their oil production + his own, and this perspective would indicate a VASTLY different motive from the selfish one that is suggested by "for the oil."

Also, there is a philisophical point to consider here.
IF the "powers that be" had less than commendable motives for the move to repulse Iraq 10 years ago, if we really didn't care about protecting the people of Kuwait from the kind of ruler who uses chemical/biological weapons on his own people (and who thinks that the world is stupid enough to believe that an election with a claimed 100% voter turn-out and 100% affirmation was legit), YET by our actions we accomplished this protection, did the motives matter?

I.e. if an action has selfish motives, yet results in greater "good," should it be entirely faulted and dismissed? Or, even better, if you stand to benefit from an action that would also result in the benefit of another, are you a priori doing it for your own benefit, despite you protestations otherwise?

For indeed, we DID protect the people of Kuwait from living under Saddam's rule, whether that was why we were there or not.
And, if the administration says "we go to protect the people of Kuwait" and we DO protect the people of Kuwait, from what evidence can you argue that this was not the "REAL" motive? Simply your dogmatic belief that those operating within the "institution" are always motivated by selfish gain, regardless of their claims?

Forgive me for being then unconvinced, since your only argument is your dogma, and forgive me for also thinking you childish when you make claims as truth that pertain to data you cannot possibly possess and dismiss claims that are otherwise possible/probable as lies when you are equally removed from any position of authority as it is a tautology to use your own assumptions of unreliablity as evidence for unreliability.

 

[isildur]

Originally posted by: laFiera
Hmmm...can anybody who is in mr bush's team has gone to war?????



http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/war_opposition021014.html (link might dissappear in a a few days)

America speaks with one voice," says President Bush.

In Washington, Bush, having been empowered by both houses of Congress to use force, seems to face very little opposition on Iraq.

On the streets of America, nothing could be further from the truth.

Across the nation, in city after city, ABCNEWS found voices of opposition, and many of them were from military towns.

"I am not convinced President Bush has yet made the case," said Miles Harvey, a San Diego retiree. San Diego is home port to the Navy's Pacific Fleet, which directly employs more than 100,000 people.

"We have to be convinced that there is a credible threat from Iraq and that's what I haven't seen," said Harvey.

Algene Miller, a Vietnam War veteran, said he was worried about potential casualties.

"You can't have a war without them," he said. "I know, I've been there."

Sure, we should be convinced that there is a credible threat from Iraq, but just because you were in the military once and saw combat doesn't mean you would somehow mystically know whether or not there was one.

This is about as rational as interviewing the victims of some crime and using their emotional testimony over the impact of the tragedy as if it were somehow evidence for the guilt of the accused.

 

[Gaard]

<<Forgive me for being then unconvinced, since your only argument is your dogma, and forgive me for also thinking you childish when you make claims as truth that pertain to data you cannot possibly possess and dismiss claims that are otherwise possible/probable as lies when you are equally removed from any position of authority as it is a tautology to use your own assumptions of unreliablity as evidence for unreliability.>>

Um..what?

 

[Corn]

isildur said:

There are a couple of childishly fallacious lines of thought in here:
- there is one and only one "real" reason why this action is being considered
- if there is some kind of economic benefit to us that might result from this action, then clearly this is the "real" motive
- everything that comes from an authority figure representing an ideology that I do not subscribe to is a bold-faced lie b/c these people cannot be trusted, care nothing for truth and ideals, and are ALWAYS out for personal gain ALWAYS using subterfuge and conspiracy to manipulate global events to their desires
- I know what's REALLY going on - its quite clear to me that there is ONE way of looking at this, depsite the fact that those vastly more informed are split on the isssue

Take, for instance, the previous gulf war. Were we there for the oil or to protect Kuwait?
If "for the oil," do you mean:
- to take the oil for ourselves (as was often said at the time)?
- to protect the US-friendly regime in Kuwait so the oil would still be for sale to us?
- to prevent a hostile regime from controling the oil and cutting us off?
- to use our power to protect Kuwait from Saddam as leverage to bargain for better oil prices?

All of these could be said to be "for the oil" yet there are marked differences between the thinking behind them.

You might even say that we went "for the oil" because it would have been bad for global security to allow Saddam to roll over into Kuwait and then hold the world hostage through his control of their oil production + his own, and this perspective would indicate a VASTLY different motive from the selfish one that is suggested by "for the oil."

Also, there is a philisophical point to consider here.
IF the "powers that be" had less than commendable motives for the move to repulse Iraq 10 years ago, if we really didn't care about protecting the people of Kuwait from the kind of ruler who uses chemical/biological weapons on his own people (and who thinks that the world is stupid enough to believe that an election with a claimed 100% voter turn-out and 100% affirmation was legit), YET by our actions we accomplished this protection, did the motives matter?

I.e. if an action has selfish motives, yet results in greater "good," should it be entirely faulted and dismissed? Or, even better, if you stand to benefit from an action that would also result in the benefit of another, are you a priori doing it for your own benefit, despite you protestations otherwise?

For indeed, we DID protect the people of Kuwait from living under Saddam's rule, whether that was why we were there or not.
And, if the administration says "we go to protect the people of Kuwait" and we DO protect the people of Kuwait, from what evidence can you argue that this was not the "REAL" motive? Simply your dogmatic belief that those operating within the "institution" are always motivated by selfish gain, regardless of their claims?

Forgive me for being then unconvinced, since your only argument is your dogma, and forgive me for also thinking you childish when you make claims as truth that pertain to data you cannot possibly possess and dismiss claims that are otherwise possible/probable as lies when you are equally removed from any position of authority as it is a tautology to use your own assumptions of unreliablity as evidence for unreliability.

Very well said, too bad it will be ignored (and possibly not even be understood ) by those of whom it rebuts.

 

[Chaotic42]

Doesn't Saskatchewan have a huge amount of oil in it? What would be the problem with getting our oil from there?

 

[Koba1t]

Edit.

 

[HendrixFan]

The "real" reason as some conservatives have explained is economic stability here and worldwide. They feel that a regime change in Iraq, with a "friendly" ruler would help us tremendously. Here is a well thought out (though I disagree with his direction) post from another board from a conservative:

The truth is they are afraid to mention the role that Oil plays in this. They know if they mention Oil once, the Dems will have a field day saying they are shilling for Oil comanies which is bull*** but large segments of the public are ignorant enough to buy that kind of demagoguery.

What is the role that oil plays ?

1) The US has a strategic interest in the Persian Gulf and a need for one ally among the big 3 nations in the Gulf; Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Iran is an enemy and the Saudis have proven to be an unreliable ally at best.

2) Oil exports pay for Sadam's WMD programs. Whether we have evidence or not, past history has shown that Saddam has a hard-on for WMD and I don't care what Scott Ritter or anybody has to say. I am certain he is actively working on expanding his WMD capabilities.

As for the other reasons, I think they are twofold

1) Reverse Dominoe as Pasotex likes to call it. Set up an alternative to theocracies, monarchies, and military dictatorships in the Arab world. One in Iraq and one in Palestine. And one in Syria if they (Syria) want to keep supporting Hezbollah and other terrorists (I base this on what was said a few days ago by one of the administrations officials in Lebabnon - "Hezbollah is now the A-team of international terrorism, not Al Queda". So, I'm guessing the active war on terrorism will not end with Iraq but will end with Syria). We have to understand that there is a jihadist movement in the Islamic world that will continue with or without Al Queda and it's figurehead Bin Laden. If we show the disaffected that there is a better alternative to Ayatollah Khomeni, that will help take the wind out of the sails out of that movement.

2) Put pressure on Syria and Iran. A pro American regime that does not squander their oil wealth for weapons (Saddam) or Lear Jets (the Saudis) will provide their citizens with an example of how life could be if they overthrew their leaders. Even if that does not happen, the Syrians and the Iranians will understand that if they continue to promote international terrorism, their regimes could receive the "death penalty" just like Iraq. As far as the Saudis go, I think they are more reactive than proactive and if the more powerful Gulf States (Iran and Iraq) modify their policies, the Saudis will be a lot less likely to keep flirting with and paying protection money to our enemies.

And finally, there is simple deterrance. Some wrongly view us as a Paper Tiger. I think in the year 2004 or 2005, a lot of the ***hole leaders of the world will understand there are tremendous risks to abetting terrorist groups whose goal is to come into the USA and kill several thousand civilians.

Some are afraid we are going to piss the Arabs off too much. I would not worry about that. How much more pissed off can they be ? What I worry about is whether it is worth losing our people in all of this.

But I do agree that Bush should make a case.


Though I disagree with his stance, at least I understand his reasoning.

Now, in Kuwait the situation was quite different. Iraq had overstepped its bounds by invading another country (sound familiar?), and we had international support abroad, and public support at home for kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Of course then we didnt have the support for going into Iraq, though it was certainly more reasonable at the time than it is now. Using the "chemical/biological weapons on his own people" is a sham to bring up. He did that in the 80s, with weapons we provided him. This was during the Iran/Iraq war and his "own people" were rebels. That doesnt clear Iraq's actions, it just means you have to implicate the US for it as well, which kind of steals your own thunder.

I disagree completely with selfish motives resulting in a greater good as an ideal way to have foriegn policy. First off, that means you are lying to the American public about policy. I dont care if you arent up front about personal issues, but when you are lying to the public about policy that is another story. Hell, if the primary motive is oil, tell the people and let them decide. Dont pull wool over their eyes.

Now the reason I claim the Bush Administration to have alterior motives is that they have already admitted TWICE to lying about the Iraq issue (they dont call it a lie though). First, the US had PROOF that Iraq and the al Qaeada had been working together. After foreign leaders came forward claiming the US showed no evidence to support their claims, Cheney and Rumsfeld, in August, admitted that despite their efforts to find *anything*, there was no evidence to support those claims. Then it shifted to weapons inspections that were part of the UN security council's agreement. They said the inspections had to happen, or we must attack. Then Iraq said "ok". We then added a stipulation that wasnt in the original agreement that the palaces would have to be included. Iraq said "ok". Those damn peacemongers! The Bush Administration, seeing the inevitable world peace, changed their tune again. Cheney claimed that the inspections were no good anyway, because we *know* Iraq has WMD and the inspections that turn up nothing just give the US a false sense of security. Now its been changed to claiming Iraq has WMD, and we have to attack, going against the UN (even though Iraq going against the UN was one of our prior excuses).

 

[StageLeft]

Yes, that's always a lovely reason for violating someone else's sovereignty.

I don't believe that a country run how Iraq is run has the right to sovereignty. Saddamn is a joke and we should all feel bad for the Iraqis - even the 12 million who just unanimously voted him into power again

 

[JellyBaby]

I don't believe that a country run how Iraq is run has the right to sovereignty. Saddamn is a joke and we should all feel bad for the Iraqis - even the 12 million who just unanimously voted him into power again

Is that decision up to you? To Bush? To the U.N.? You're perfectly free to join a mercenary group. Head on over there and oust Saddum merc-style.