IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

[msfe]

`every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.´

it becomes dangerously significant if an intellectually and morally retard born-again christian fundamentalist maniac is in charge of far-reaching decisions, unrestricted by constitutional or other legal limitations of his powers.

 

[darkhorse]

Quote from msfe:

`every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.´

you should be reading that quote to yourself

 

[KymarFye]

Quote from darkhorse:

some thoughts/questions:


-has anyone considered that oil is a factor because it is a source of revenue for Saddam's WMD dreams. i.e. if Saddam did not have access to oil money, he would not be able to afford weapons labs, nuclear reactors, scientist payoffs etc. So ironically, the notion that "if not for oil we wouldn't be going in" is partially true in a sense, in that if not for oil Saddam would be a poor and scrawny tyrant- and much weaker at that- instead of a bloated and entrenched tyrant with the ways and means to fund armageddon.

I believe that many have considered the point, but that for various reasons (including intellectual laziness and rhetorical convenience) it is frequently forgotten or neglected.

Bush's formulation from the State of the Union address implicitly recognized the problem, though I suppose he and his supporters could be faulted for not being even more clear:

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

When discussing the possibility of war, many focus on very short-term concerns and narrow contexts, and seem to be unable to consider the larger issues or the likely and potential costs of alternatives to current policy. This tendency is of course also very frequently observable in discussion of past events as justifications for whatever point of view.

-much has been said about America wanting to 'steal' Iraq's oil, which is patently ridiculous (and thankfully the left has backed off this charge as common sense was simply too glaring even for them). but has anyone considered the fact that Saddam himself is literally stealing Iraq's oil in every sense of the word, and diverting the revenues exclusively to his own ends?

Very nicely stated, in my opinion. As Provisional International Judge of Proper Thinking, I'd like to offer you a gold star.

-is it ethical, or indeed even possible, to morally legitimize a brutal dictatorship engaged in mass theft and deprivation, and by extension murder, on a grand scale? (Hate Bush all you want, but he is still an elected leader of a free country.) Are countries like france and russia not implicitly legitimizing a murdering and thieving dictatorship by accepting the status quo of Saddam's rule, and helping him with word and deed (and even cold hard cash)? If yes, then what moral authority can they claim?

It is truly confounding to me to see large numbers of thoroughly well-intentioned people marching or otherwise acting in support of a fascist dictator. Beyond an occasional concession to the effect that "yes, Saddam is monstrous," anti-war leaders and activists never seem to consider that, setting aside all geopolitical issues, they are advocating that the Iraqi people be left under the control of Saddam (or his Ba'ath successors) in perpetuity. It's this realization that led a long-time leftist like Christopher Hitchens to leave THE NATION magazine and to put himself vocally on the side of an aggressive anti-Saddam policy.

 

[KymarFye]

Just for illustration - and for those interested - one of Hitchens' many recent statements in support of action against Hussein from the perspective of a veteran leftist:

from "We must fight Iraq"
By Christopher Hitchens, The Mirror, September 25, 2002

IT is almost certainly a mistake to assume anybody's position on Iraq is determined by evidence alone.

* * *

I doubt that even if this evidence could be upgraded to 100 per cent it would persuade the sort of people who go on self-appointed missions of mediation to Baghdad.

These people further fail to see that governments now have a further responsibility to their citizens - namely to see that something is done to prevent future assaults on civilisation.

Full text at:

http://www.news.mflaterz.com/Op-Ed/Christopher Hitchens We Must Fight Iraq 092502a.htm

 

[KymarFye]

From the same Hitchens piece, relating to the main topic of this thread:

Just on the material aspect - I love it when people darkly describe the coming intervention as "blood for oil", or equivalent gibberish.

Does this mean what it appears to mean, namely that oil is not worth fighting over?

Or that it's no cause for alarm that the oil resources of the region are permanently menaced by a crazy sadist who has already invaded two of his neighbours?

 

[trader556]

This post is dedicated to all the chickenhawks trolling the chitchat forums

You know who you are.. maxine keymarfye hapaboy freealways(nice new nick how to you keep track with all your aliases?) daniela... hey Tony have a beer when watching the blood spills on your boobtube... man o man not enough space on Baron's drives to list em all..cannyon where are you?

Take look at the TOP CHICKENHAWKS controlling my country and their excuses to dodge military, and yet they are so willing sending others into harm's way
disgusting!!! who's worst??? they or the morons who put them in office????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???


http://www.takebackthemedia.com/chickenhawks.html

No blood for oil!!! take the monkey's fingers off the nuke buttons, monkey's done for good if no war

READ Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech excerpt at the end
READ IT TWICE to get it through your friggin thick scull


I want my country back and what it USED to stand for

 

[msfe]

kymarfye: `every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.´

darkhorse: `you should be reading that quote to yourself´

i am an independent Schweizerbürger and do not take orders from anyone (except from my wife, an independent Schweizerbürgerin). i am not on mr. rumsfeld´s payroll as `Provisional International Judge of Proper Thinking´ or in any other capacity. i decide for myself what to read, what to think, what to say and which ill-informed or narrowly considered opinion to find significant. i do not find kymarfye´s parrot opinion even remotely significant.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from msfe:

kymarfye: `every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.´

darkhorse: `you should be reading that quote to yourself´

i am an independent Schweizerbürger and do not take orders from anyone (except from my wife, an independent Schweizerbürgerin). i am not on mr. rumsfeld´s payroll as `Provisional International Judge of Proper Thinking´ or in any other capacity. i decide for myself what to read, what to think, what to say and which ill-informed or narrowly considered opinion to find significant. i do not find kymarfye´s parrot opinion even remotely significant.

You can be rest assured that your opinion is even less remotely significant as you are safely ensconced in some remote valley in the Swiss Alps and have little to fear from terrorists. If Al Queda took a sudden interest in your banking institutions that would probably get your hackles up; however the likelihood of that happening is probably zilch as Bin Laden and his cronies probably are using your financial institutions with as much zeal as former Nazis.

How convenient it is to live in a neutral nation whose main religion is the almighty dollar, and the euro, and the yen, etc. Enjoy your sideline rants while you can.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from trader556:

This post is dedicated to all the chickenhawks trolling the chitchat forums

You know who you are.. maxine keymarfye hapaboy freealways(nice new nick how to you keep track with all your aliases?) daniela... hey Tony have a beer when watching the blood spills on your boobtube... man o man not enough space on Baron's drives to list em all..cannyon where are you?

Take look at the TOP CHICKENHAWKS controlling my country and their excuses to dodge military, and yet they are so willing sending others into harm's way
disgusting!!! who's worst??? they or the morons who put them in office????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???


http://www.takebackthemedia.com/chickenhawks.html

No blood for oil!!! take the monkey's fingers off the nuke buttons, monkey's done for good if no war

READ Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech excerpt at the end
READ IT TWICE to get it through your friggin thick scull


I want my country back and what it USED to stand for

Your country IS standing up for what it always has exemplefied, despite the opinion of you and those like you. If it were up to you we'd curl up, wish happy thoughts, and pray for terrorists and madmen to just leave us alone. I suggest you contact msfe and see if he has a room to rent you in that remote Swiss valley of his.

 

[msfe]

An undercurrent of profound unease over a war against Iraq is sweeping through Britain's military establishment, with senior commanders worried about confused objectives and the ethics of launching a pre-emptive strike.

Serious concerns were reflected yesterday by several well-placed sources close to the Ministry of Defence who, because of the sensitivity of the issue, insisted on remaining anonymous. "There is general disquiet not just about the issue of UN resolutions but about the ethical dimension," one said. "There is a feeling that in order to attack there has to be some kind of aggression in the opposite direction. This would be a first".

These underlying concerns were reflected last week by General Sir Jack Deverell, commander-in-chief of allied forces, Northern Europe, who told the BBC he would not like to go to war without the support of the country.

It has also been echoed by a string of former military officers, including General Sir Roger Wheeler, who was head of the army until 2000, General Sir Michael Rose, former UN commander in Bosnia, and Major-General Patrick Cordingley, commander of the 'Desert Rats' armoured brigade in the 1991 Gulf war.

Sir Roger said yesterday: "If we are going to war, we need the backing of the international community and the country and that means a second [UN] resolution. The military need to know what the political objectives are".

A number of well-placed sources pointed to what they called confused objectives - whether action was in pursuit of regime change, or the discovery and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

"What if there aren't any [such weapons] or you can never find them?", asked one source close to Whitehall's military advisers.

Britain's military commanders hope that the Iraqi regime will "implode" after a massive bombing assault by the US. "What happens then?" asked another source."Do you go in, or stand and watch?"

Whatever happens, defence officials admit, the US will ask British and other European countries to stay on in Iraq to maintain law and order. "Obviously we will be in Iraq for several years to come", one senior defence official said yesterday. However, sources pointed out that any significant British forces remaining in Iraq would have serious implications for the defence budget.

There is growing frustration among the British military because they still have not been told about their role in US operational plans.

British intelligence agencies, meanwhile, maintained yesterday there was no evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida terrorist networks.