Commonly Heard Complaints Regarding Iraq...

JavaFox

There are three big complaints that world leaders, peaceniks, and anti-Americans alike are throwing at the US regarding its war campaign on Iraq. I've examined them and, after careful examination, found all three to be deeply rooted in hypocrisy.

--

1) The US only wants Iraqi oil.

Actually, if this war was about doing the bidding of the Oil Industry, the United States would have pushed the international community to lift sanctions. The oil industry has long lobbied our government to lift sanctions, not wage war. Furthermore, certainly would have purchased more oil under the Oil for Food Program. So there really isn't any way to show that the US government is just doing the bidding of the oil industry, since war is a poor way to get ahold of a country's oil.

In fact, many of the countries NOT on board with this war are only against it because of their own oil interests. Take France, for example. France trades extensively with Iraq under the Oil for Food Program. France also has billions of dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq. The reason they oppose a war on Iraq is because they might lose those contracts!

Or take Russia. Russia, too, has oil interests in Iraq. And Iraq owes them $8 billion. Perhaps these things have something to do with Russia's lack of interest in war?

Examine the facts, and you will see that is not the US whose only interest is oil -- it is countries like France and Russia who think in this manner. Perhaps their governments should be protested!

--

2) America's gung-ho attitude undermines the authority of the United Nations.

Actually, America's actions will prevent the United Nations from becoming irrelevant and weak. The UN Security Council has made various Chapter 7 Resolutions (Chapter 7 Resolutions are to be enforced using military power) regarding Iraq. Iraq is not supposed to be able to set any conditions on inspections, and was supposed to deliver an accurate weapons declaration to the UN. Did it? Indeed, by disallowing the UN to over-fly Iraq using U2, by having undeclared weapons, and by not accounting for previously existing weapons, Iraq --not the United States-- is undermining the will of the UN.

Furthermore, many European nations are doing the same. Examine, for example, Germany said they would not back a war on Iraq even if they were found in material breach. Does this not undermine the UN? When member nations refuse to comply with the terms of UN resolutions, they are meaningless.

Indeed, America, not its critics, are doing the right thing in this regard.

---

3) This war is only to kick-start the US's failing economy.

Nevermind the fact that the US economy is on the rebound, it was the EU who yesterday said they had reservations about this war because it would affect their economies!

Many anti-war proponents in the US make this argument as well.

---

So exactly how is the US being an aggressor? Our only interest is not oil. We want to enforce UN resolutions. We are acting even though it may affect our economy.

Yet our critics are doing exactly what they criticize the US of doing.

digitalwanderer

Why not just give it up? We ain't buying what you're selling. Life for money is WRONG, it don't matter how you shade it.

jp306

I Agree with ya JF ,but like DW said they ar'nt buying cause they have closed there minds when it comes to this, but those running the show know what they are doing and are doing it cause they think it's the right thing to do for the future of our Country and the World.

JavaFox

I'm not shading anything. Life for money? The only people who have a position on this war that relates to money are the Europeans and the Russians, not us.

Risking the lives of soldiers to prevent death in the future is moral.

digitalwanderer

...show us the proof. (Well, not you , the president.) If'n it's worth justifying a war over than show it to us. (Don't forget Java, I like you and I'm your friend...but I will be ruthless on this one. )

JavaFox

I'll repost:

ToshiroOC

Y'know, I'm tired, I agree that we need to get Saddam (provided that there are extremely EXTREMELY limited civilian casualties predicted...), however, I disagree with a lot Javafox said... if the debate turns into a pissing war, I'll come back

JavaFox

How can you disagree with what I posted in this thread when it is all fact?

ToshiroOC

I disagree with some of your statements, which I must strongly insist are NOT fact but most definitely opinion:

I don't care about France - they matter little in the grand scheme of things to me, and if you want to debate em, some other time... however, Russia was badly burned by Iraq for oil with Iraq cutting off a multi-million dollar oil deal on the Iraq side of things, and really wants to sock it to Iraq, and is pushing also for war...

This stikes me as some minor hypocrisy, given that the US, if it unilaterally attacked Iraq, would be going against what the UN has decided - which is to wait and give inspections their time to run. I do know that Iraq broke Chapter 7 resoluions, but that doesn't mean that the US and the US alone should be going against the consensus of the security council and attacking Iraq before the council decides that it is the appropriate action at that time...

As I recall, the anti-war people were saying that the $1,000,000,000 per day war wasn't going to help the economy at all, and it was the people who were asking for the war who were saying that the war was going to do wonders for the economy...

---

Thats basically it, but I'm extremely tired for various reasons right now and I know I'm going to regret something stupid I'm sure to have said up there, but oh well, better to say it and learn from the mistake than to never say it at all, eh?

ToshiroOC
COorihsoT

Vampyromaniac

raid517

Oh... I don't know JavaFox, your beyond redemption. We already had this conversation on the other Iraqi oil thread. How many other quotes must you hear from your own government inspired institutions, or how many other behind the scenes meetings between top American government representatives and the oil industry must you learn of before you will believe that this IS about oil? You bang on like some moronic brainwashed bleating sheep who is simply incapable of accepting the facts when they are presented to them - and would rather pretend these facts don't exist than accept the reality that America is about to engage in one of the biggest acts of theft and international piracy in the history of the world.

Well I can't help you if your in denial. Perhaps you and your President would benefit from a visit to a shrink, or indeed anyone who can put you back in touch with reality? I don't want to go on proving exactly where and how wrong you are (even though it is admirable that you feel able to continue in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position) - but if you force me to I will - and I will keep doing it until either America torches the rest of the Middle East, or something happens to dissuade you from continuing with these insane 'beliefs'. Even if you do choose to live in ignorance and deny the facts (I bet you even believe in holocaust denial too - since facts don't seem to interest you) you cannot deny that the majority of the rest of world sees America's current policy as an exercise in economic plunder and piracy. But it is clear that you are unable to recognise how this might even be important.

America has no interest in representing the views of the international community, which is demonstrated by their recent offer to grant UN inspectors 'more time' to carry out their inspections. How much more time? About 4 weeks... Which just so happens to be exactly the amount of time America needs before it is battle ready anyway. So in reality, no more time at all.

If you can't see how a large Middle Eastern military base with a readily available huge fuel dump might be useful to America's domestic and strategic interests, even when top Pentagon and Republican party advisors are openly discussing this, if you would rather accept the CNN/ABC inspired propaganda, where all suggestion that this war might be oil inspired is almost completely suppressed, then so be it. But I almost feel sorry for you - as I would for anyone capable of maintaining such a gross level of ignorance.

It is clear in several of the statements made by your government's own advisors and representatives that the reason such a resource would be useful is because America plans a number of other Middle Eastern adventures and fears that this could cause instability in Saudi Arabia and among other OPEC countries. (Indeed this instability is also the goal). And since this very much is the objective, a Middle Eastern military base with a guaranteed supply of oil is without doubt an important component in this strategy.

In any case here is some more 'left wing' propaganda for you (since this is what you appear to like to call any 'evidence' (that nasty word again) that anyone presents you with that goes against your own engrained and wholly dogmatic perspective. Lets start with USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...08-saudi_x.htm

Now here's another interesting one, it talks about creating a Muslim Republic of East Arabia, from the portion of Saudi Arabia that just so happens to contain all the oil fields. The article is published by The Hudson Institute a very right wing Republican think tank with strong ties to the right wing Likud party in Israel - and which Paul Wolfowitz Bush's senior foreign affairs advisor is a fully paid up member of.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1659

While many of the assertions here might seem reasonable to an uneducated eye (remember the people discussing this subject in actual fact know very little about Arab/Muslim culture) you have to keep pinching yourself to remember that this policy is coming from the angle of a right wing Jewish extremist who has an ulterior agenda in mind, which is simply to use the US to nullify any threat to Israel and to make it the dominant power in the Middle East. So in this sense the American administration is behaving like little more than Jewish puppets, who are continually having their strings pulled by the extreme right wing anti-Muslim elements within the Israeli political elite. The perspective offered is therefore likely to be highly warped.

(Note exactly also where this article was first published at the bottom....)

France and Russia have legitimate business interests in Iraq, they are owed billions in trading deals and in oil contracts with Iraq, since before the days when America decided it wanted the whole cookie jar for itself. However in an attempted act if international bullying America has warned both France and Russia that if they do not 'come on board' that the subsequent Iraqi government that America installs will find it very hard to 'do business with them.' So America plans to cut them out of the deal and if need be break these contracts, effectively stealing the cash (and the contracts) for herself. Which begs the question (a legitimate question both France and Russia are asking) just who the hell does America think she is to try to push independent nation states about in this way? Yet another example of American arrogance and ignorance in her attitudes to the world. France and Russia have at least taken a stand and this look prepared to say "look screw the billions we are owed, we won't let you push us around." Other nations in the world have long memories too...

So do you think that Arabs might be justified in seeing a Jewish connection? Dammed right they are. Will they resent the US because of it? You bet your bottom oil stained dollar they will. Will this resolve international terrorism? Not a cat's chance in hell of that happening, not if the Arabs think their being screwed over by the US on behalf of the Jews.

Don't you even think its a little odd that America is currently defining all her military targets as specifically those countries that produce oil? Odd too perhaps that America is openly discussing taking control of all of the old regions that were traditionally seen as ex British colonies. It would seem then from an Arab perspective that your aim is simply to supplant one empire with another. So once more this begs the question, exactly how many friends is this likely to make you? The whole situation reminds me of Israel where the Jews attack the Arabs and the Arabs retaliate and then the Jews Attack the Arabs and the Arabs retaliate and on and on it goes, as it has for thousands of years. America has in effect become a Greater Israel.

The reasoning behind this is clear, the Jews know how to manipulate the American psyche, they pour poison in Bush's ear about 'the threat of terrorism' and then extol to him the benefits of smashing Israel's enemies (real or imagined) and how this would pay off in terms of returns in revenue and control of the world's oil reserves. For an insular America (who is blinded to international opinion) this is exactly the simple language that she understands best.

However I am certain that you will discover that the price of oil will add up to much more than you pay at your gas stations. One day not too far off you will learn the value of co-operation and engagement with your neighbours. If you fail to do this, then I'm afraid the terrorists and those who sought to undo all the good things that America once represented may already have won.

Q

digitalwanderer

Yeah, what he said! (Looks like we found a sparring partner for ya Java! )

raid517

Sparring is for fun, but I confess I take no pleasure at all from pointing out the errors of America's ways at this present time. To be frank I have far too many better things I would rather do with my time than correct the lies and misinformation posted by people like JF (and others) who would have me - and the world believe (only the world does not believe it) that America is the sole bastion of moral decency and civilistation that exists in this world, because very clearly she is not. But if JF, or anyone else wants to go on with this pointless exercise, where he/she/they continue endlessly trying to justify things that clearly cannot be justified, then they should not be suprised when their views are shown to be unsupportable and the assertions they make are quickly discounted by the readily available evidence. (Something that many Americans are uncomfortable with). But no doubt I will hear more denials and more BS about how America plans to open a Macdonalds in Meca and over run a vast portion of the Middle East and how she will do it all for the good of the world... I am by tradition no supporter of Muslims, but even I can see how this present policy is likely to upset a great many very influential Muslim thinkers.

Q

digitalwanderer

Idealistic words and pithy slogans are a crappy replacement for common sense and logic, beware statesmen who try and rally ya around the flag! That's when you should be questioning them the most.

raid517

Then Sir, you have my sincere respect as a true American patriot. To question and doubt your leaders and their intentions is possibly the most noble form of patriotism that can exist. Failure to do so is how things like Nazi Germany and Milosevic's Serbia can emerge in this world. Unchecked patriotism and nationalism have only ever led to disaster. Too many Americans on these threads are fond of repeating history, but far too few are prepared to try learn anything significant or valuable from it. However it is good to see that at least some dissent is still possible. But how much longer will this be possible I wonder? JF and his friends are fond of discounting the views of others as the ravings of aniti-Americans and idiots. What he and his ilk fail to see is that dissent is the only truly patriotic pursuit worth caring about. If he can see that valuing the opinions of others might be useful, then I think he and the rest of the world might take take a tiny step forward toward a better understanding of each others individual viewpoints... When that day comes I think all terror in this world will have finally been defeated.

However I doubt it is in his, or his President's capacity to do so.

Q

digitalwanderer

Well, to quote a favorite old Irish tune-o-mine:

JavaFox

SIR, the oil industry doesn't want war! They have always wanted the lifting of sanctions.

Sir, your belligerence and pugnacity are rapidly becoming an annoyance to me. I have publically and openly pledged to make my posts less antagonistic and caustic, and I should hope that you would do the same. This isn't the Flame WarZone, it is the place for legitimate political debates. Calling someone who doesn't share your view "cowardly" or calling my beliefs "insane" isn't very conducive to debate. I am not a crazy moderator, and I'm threatening to squelch you or anything. I am only asking you to tone down the abusive words. I can take anything you have to dish out, but it's hard for me --and perhaps anybody-- to take you seriously when your otherwise intelligent posts are marred in this way.

Actually, I never even tune to ABC, let alone watch its news. As one might expect, I generally stray away from the biased news sources like ABC, CBS, and NBC. Raid, while it is true that some Americans are thirsty for oil, the views of USAToday and The Hudson Institute are largely --if not completely-- irrelevant to the views of the administration. I like The Economist and The Heritage Foundation more anyway.

When it boils down to it, what you are posting isn't fact. It's your opinion that the views expressed by the think tank and that newspaper (I've heard many people say disparaging things about USAToday -- I generally find that paper to be mostly pleasant, though) have bearing on the plans of the administration. That is assumption at best.

You say that this war is about oil, about doing the bidding of the industry. And the only thing I can see in regard to that is that the oil companies never lobbied for and never supported a war on Iraq. They only wanted lifted sanctions.


Oh my gosh. To what ends will you go to disparage the United States? France and Russia are opposed to the war because they don't want to lose their oil contracts and the monies they are owed. They don't necessarily care about the Iraqis. This is nothing but business to them.

Germany may be acting in a moral way, but France and Russia are not. They oppose the war because of their business interests.

I'm not really going to address your comments regarding Israel or American becoming Israel because I don't really know what to say in response. I resent and disrespect anti-Semitic opinions deeply, and I really have no desire in entertaining a Baraka-esque condemnation of the Jews.

raid517

SIR, the oil industry doesn't want war! They have always wanted the lifting of sanctions.

Lol, so you think by continually repeating a void point it will wash any better the 10th time you say it than it did the first? Well on that point we will always disagree. I have posted plenty of evidence from plenty of sources, including your favourite rag the Economist where many of your government officials and respected government advisors talk openly about taking Iraqi oil... You accuse me of only posting opinion, yet I have supplied many examples of your government, the press and even your favourite rightwing news paper discussing how Iraqi oil should be carved up. You on the other hand have provided nothing. Not only that, a whole swathe of the Middle East has been discussed as being up for grabs. Only time will tell who is right. Wait until Iraq is over, what is the betting that we will hear about the next (coincidentally oil rich) target on Bush's hit list? In any case this isn't wholly about what the oil companies did or didn't lobby for, this is as much about political and geo-economic interests as it is about oil. Bush has set his own agenda and (with their guidance) he has set out to ruthlessly pursue it.

Sir, your belligerence and pugnacity are rapidly becoming an annoyance to me. I have publicly and openly pledged to make my posts less antagonistic and caustic, and I should hope that you would do the same.

Hmm well JavaFox I think I heard you apologising to the forum, but since it was specifically me you called stupid and dumb on several occasions and continued to infer this in a number of your posts after making your public apology I have just met your posts with the same level of contempt with which you have treated mine. It seems from my perspective that you like to give it, but you can't take it.

Besides that I think these issues are wider than any personal quibble I may, or may not have with you and where you are in error this error should be pointed out

Actually, I never even tune to ABC, let alone watch its news. As one might expect, I generally stray away from the biased news sources like ABC, CBS, and NABCO. Raid, while it is true that some Americans are thirsty for oil, the views of USAToday and The Hudson Institute are largely --if not completely-- irrelevant to the views of the administration. I like The Economist and The Heritage Foundation more anyway.

When it boils down to it, what you are posting isn't fact. It's your opinion that the views expressed by the think tank and that newspaper (I've heard many people say disparaging things about USAToday -- I generally find that paper to be mostly pleasant, though) have bearing on the plans of the administration. That is assumption at best.

So when your President's top foreign affairs advisor say's 'hey, lets go get that oil' then that's not proof enough for you? When the entire establishment and right wing press are saying it, its still not enough for you? Well then I doubts anything will ever be enough for you. Perhaps you will wish to call the Economist left wing too?

You say that this war is about oil, about doing the bidding of the industry. And the only thing I can see in regard to that is that the oil companies never lobbied for and never supported a war on Iraq. They only wanted lifted sanctions.

Yes that may have been what they asked for, because its its all they thought they could get, until they bought the presidency for Bush. Its not the done thing to say, hey we want to invade a small country and steal all their oil.

Oh my gosh. To what ends will you go to disparage the United States? France and Russia are opposed to the war because they don't want to lose their oil contracts and the monies they are owed. They don't necessarily care about the Iraqis. This is nothing but business to them.

And once again you insult me by calling me anti- American. I am far from it. I am for a saner more co-operative less insular America than the war like one that confronts the world today. Does that make me anti-American. No! It just makes it convenient in your books if I was. Might I suggest that this invasion plan is nothing but business to the USA too?

Germany may be acting in a moral way, but France and Russia are not. They oppose the war because of their business interests.

And that's why several top US oil companies attended a conference in London last month to discuss with the UK government how best to divide up the available oil reserves in Iraq? I guess they were there to indulge purely in an act of philanthropy - and do what oil companies do best and make sure the countries and people they take oil from get a fair/equal share of the profits that are generated... (Not).

I'm not really going to address your comments regarding Israel or American becoming Israel because I don't really know what to say in response. I resent and disrespect anti-Semitic opinions deeply, and I really have no desire in entertaining a Brake-sequel condemnation of the Jews.

Haha, there you go again using your cheap tricks to try to marginalise me - and then expect me to address to in calm and honeyed tones as though I should somehow be grateful for the insult.

I resent wholeheartedly any suggestion that I am anti-Semitic. If that is what you read then your reading skills are questionable at best. What I said was that a number of top government officials are also advisors within the present extreme right wing Israeli government. Again just because I do not agree with the right wing policies of this government does not mean I am anti-American or Jewish... Another cheap ploy JF, one your government is adopting a lot too, marginalise them, call them un-American or anti-Jewish, do it often enough and people with less intelligence will eventually begin to believe it. A cheap and ineffective trick JF, you cannot silence dissent by simple name calling.

On another note if you do not want to partake of my views, the best thing to do is not to respond to them. I would personally find it a relief to not have to respond anymore to the false and cosy picture of US Politics that you seem so anxious to present. I must quit soon anyway because this is all far too time consuming to keep up. If you are willing I will simply agree to disagree on almost everything you have said and you can do likewise with me. It is a shame that after all this effort and simply trying to make you see that there are other perspectives in this world and that these perspectives are important, nothing has changed and you still seem blinded to this need.

This is why the prospect of several hundred people like you currently being in power in Washington is as scary a prospect as can be imagined. You are a positive liberal, a dove compared to the way some of these people think...

In any case you know when an argument is really over, because it all just comes down to the name calling when no one has anything useful left to say.

I think that this is where we have arrived at now...

Q

Ps

I haven't edited this for errors. I'm way too sleepy. I will do it tomorrow if needs be.