More Liberal Crap (and why I hate it.)

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:50 pm

Snagged this from a blog; no idea of the initial author.<hr>Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a Good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for Growing flowers, that was OK, but not if hey cut people's heads and Hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the
penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except For her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of Patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her Eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to Support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't Do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade...

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American Corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attached Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head.
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works, Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Goodnight.

Goodnight daddy._
Why is it that liberals are completely unable to grasp the concept that nationstates always, always, always do what they believe to be int their own best interest, regardless of morality?

I love the comparisons to China. Does the author actually desire an attack on China, an act that would spur a nuclear exchange and kill millions? Since we can't attack China, for numerous reasons beyond money, does that make the Hussein regime any less repugnant? Should we do nothing because we're incapable of doing anything?

I wonder when we stopped being allowed to fight. We musn't upset anyone, musn't disagree with out /wonderful/ European friends. We can't attack a deplorable government that kills thousands of its own, because we might accidently kill some of its civilians too. We can't attack here because it's not fair for us to fight one country when another country is doing the same thing. Double standards are the lifeblood of politics! It's life! It's how we get anything done!

I find it unbeleivable that people are so horrified over Iraq. Do you honestly believe that Syria would have ended its weapons programs without an American army on its borders? That Iranian students would be free to protest against their governments in the streets? Can you not see the options availible to us in diplomacy the world over once we're no longer shackled to Saudi oil?

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:58 pm

Why is it that conservatives (or at least you) completely fail to grasp humor? Perhaps it's because you take things (especially /anything/ posted on a frickin blog) too seriously.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:59 pm

Probably because a great number of people my age believe this to be the Gospel Truth. It's far more annoying when you're utterly surrounded by it.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:02 pm

Nationalism births strange moralities. Let's just be happy that we destroyed an oppressive, genocidal regime, and vote Bush out in 2004, hmm?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:04 pm

Since we can't attack China, for numerous reasons beyond money, does that make the Hussein regime any less repugnant? Should we do nothing because we're incapable of doing anything?

Some people (including myself) see it as this, don't go into a war claiming it's about freedom, security, and terrorism, when everyone with a brain between their ears knows damn sure that it's about the oil.

If the American military can romp around Iraq for months now, for the most part unhindered, and still not find a single shread of evidence of WMD then maybe your President was (and is) full of shit, and if that's the case then perhaps conversatives and the braindead should wake up and realize that thousands of people were killed (and are being killed) in the name of oil profits and oil consumption, something which most of the rest of the world cannot understand. Blood for oil is bullshit, and the sooner some people (Americans) understand it the better!

American lives are being lost everyday also, perhaps that should mean something to the sooo many Arm-Chair Generals in America, sitting on the asses and not giving a crap about the people who have to kill someone else because some asshole in the whitehouse made a decision based on his pocketbook.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:05 pm

I'm sort of conservative at times, on certain issues, and I laughed? Does that count?

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:11 pm

I'm interested, why'd you use the term 'liberal' and 'liberals'? Just seems to be a bit of a blanket statement. Although I have noticed from what I've read about American politics that both sides, whilst practically calling each other the same names, seem to make sweeping generalisations by throwing terms like liberals and conservatives/republicans about.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:14 pm

Very true Flak! I can be conservative on issues and very liberal on others.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:15 pm

But you can't win unless you know who is on your team, and who is one their team!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:19 pm

Rev wrote:But you can't win unless you know who is on your team, and who is one their team!

If that's the case then why aren't there more people registered as party members? And just because someone voted for a particular party does not make them a registered member or supported of a party either.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:24 pm

Because its much cooler to be all aloof and call yourself an independant, even if you always vote for one party or the other. It lets you dodge any blame for the candidates on your team being less than one might hope for.

I remember reading some statistic that more than half (can't remember what the percentage was) of those who call themselves independants actually vote almost exclusively for one party.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:29 pm

Angel:: Welcome to the wonderful world of "You didn't vote how I did? You must have voted for the exact opposite."

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:34 pm

Angel wrote: Blood for oil is bullshit, and the sooner some people (Americans) understand it the better!

American lives are being lost everyday also, perhaps that should mean something to the sooo many Arm-Chair Generals in America, sitting on the asses and not giving a crap about the people who have to kill someone else because some asshole in the whitehouse made a decision based on his pocketbook.

The assumption that Gulf II was all about Iraqi oil is infantile and ignores the real strategic implications of our presence in the Mid East. Repeat after me: "American troops aren't in Iraq for oil. They are there projecting American military power into a region known for it's antipathy to American interests." This administration is about using the American military predominance to enforce American national interests. Oil is completely tertiary, if it's even a consideration.

If you want to object to American military action in Iraq, then do so on the grounds of whether or not it's right or useful for us to be enforcing our interests with troops and quit arguing the "blood for oil" strawman.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:40 pm

Repeat after me: "American troops aren't in Iraq for oil. They are there projecting American military power into a region known for it's antipathy to American interests."

Repeat after me, "I am a brainwashed dittohead!"

This administration is about using the American military predominance to enforce American national interests.

So America (Bush) is sending the American military to invade another country, not because the country holds oil reserves only equaled by Saudi Arabia, but because of America's national interests.

American interests... could that be spreading joy and happiness to the world? Nahhh, I'll stick with the oil thingie, it's the most plausible.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:45 pm

Angel wrote:American interests... could that be spreading joy and happiness to the world? Nahhh, I'll stick with the oil thingie, it's the most plausible.

Okay, then explain it to me, because I've never understood the rationale. No one's ever explained why we're "there for oli" to me; it's one of those things people say as if it's self-evident, and so I never get a good explanation for it. Why are we in Iraq? What is it about the oil that we're "there for?"

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:56 pm

One possiblity...

The American government (it's President) sends the United States of America military to remove Iraq's government, spending... let's say... 200 billion dollars, of tax-payer's money. The American government then decides that it will take bids for reconstructing Iraq, but only from countries participating in the invasion (most, Biritsh and Americna firms). These services will be paid for by the American tax-payer, with the money going to large companies, such as... Halliburton. (http://www.militaryconnections.com/news ... newsid=695).

The national resources of Iraq (Oil) will be controlled by the American military, but adminstered by American and British energy companies. The costs of keeping American soliders in Iraq will be paid for by tax-payers (both American and Iraqi, eventually), and perhaps eventually by proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil (to American and British energy companies, in turn to American and British consumers).

Who profits most from this type of arrangement? Tax-payers? Iraqi people? The French? American soldiers? Halliburton and similar companies (lead by Bushites)?

It's about the oil, America's President is blatantly trading the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds upon hundreds of Americans for Oil, for profits, for money in his pocket.

Kwyndig · Post by **Kwyndig** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:59 pm

I've never understood that myself either, 32. I mean, didn't we get the UN to bar the Iraqis from selling their oil for a few years before we invaded them again?

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:59 pm

The assumption that Gulf II was all about Iraqi oil is infantile and ignores the real strategic implications of our presence in the Mid East. Repeat after me: "American troops aren't in Iraq for oil. They are there projecting American military power into a region known for it's antipathy to American interests."

And we give a shit about that antipathy because? Oh yes - because they have the money and power to do act on it, the major source of which is the oil. If the middle east's major export was kamquats, we wouldn't care nearly as much about what went on there. We want people who like us, or at least don't detest us, in control of all of that.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:05 pm

Kwyndig wrote:I've never understood that myself either, 32. I mean, didn't we get the UN to bar the Iraqis from selling their oil for a few years before we invaded them again?

When those bans were put into effect France and Russia were close to completing negotiation with Iraq for administration of it's oil fields, unfortunately for them America now decides who can do it. Oh, and don't forget how some contracts are being awarded to American companies without any bidding going on, no one else gets to even try for these contracts, they go straight to whomever the current American Adminstration says so.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:19 pm

Angel wrote:One possiblity...

The American government (it's President) sends the United States of America military to remove Iraq's government, spending... let's say... 200 billion dollars, of tax-payer's money. The American government then decides that it will take bids for reconstructing Iraq, but only from countries participating in the invasion (most, Biritsh and Americna firms). These services will be paid for by the American tax-payer, with the money going to large companies, such as... Halliburton. (http://www.militaryconnections.com/news ... newsid=695).

An American company employing Americans and sub-contracting to (presumably) Americans. Owned in part through their stock by Americans. (You see where I'm going with this?)

Angel wrote: The national resources of Iraq (Oil) will be controlled by the American military, but adminstered by American and British energy companies. The costs of keeping American soliders in Iraq will be paid for by tax-payers (both American and Iraqi, eventually), and perhaps eventually by proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil (to American and British energy companies, in turn to American and British consumers).

Who profits most from this type of arrangement? Tax-payers? Iraqi people? The French? American soldiers? Halliburton and similar companies (lead by Bushites)?

It's about the oil, America's President is blatantly trading the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds upon hundreds of Americans for Oil, for profits, for money in his pocket.

So what you're suggesting is that if this weren't about the oil we'd just roll over Saddam's army and then *poof* disapear the next day to save our taxpayers the cost of fixing Iraq? That would some how be easier for us to justfy to you? Do you really think that funnelling a few billion (and where's this 200$ coming from? Last I heard we'd only appropirated 87$ billion to reconstruction, as far as US budget number go that's not even real money yet) into the American economy is the sole and primary reason the Bush administration invaded Iraq? Are you really that blind to the strategic nature of having 125,000 soldiers parked in the middle of one of the least defensible parts of the world?

TheScamp wrote: And we give a shit about that antipathy because? Oh yes - because they have the money and power to do act on it, the major source of which is the oil. If the middle east's major export was kamquats, we wouldn't care nearly as much about what went on there. We want people who like us, or at least don't detest us, in control of all of that.

Oh, I don't know. Could it possibly be because those people have shown a marked tendancy to fly airplanes into skyscrapers with the intention of killing as many people as possible? How come we didn't invade the ME back in the 70s when OPEC was actually feeling trigger happy? Personally, I don't think oil is the big selling point it used to be. There are a multitude of alternative fuel sources in R&D, at least two that have actually gotten out of R&D and are in the marker (Biodiesel being one of them, and the oil from organic waste being the other) and there's the lurking promise of fuel cells and gas-elecric hybrids. This isn't to say that oil isn't important to the US economy, nor that it will cease to be important tomorrow or next year. But I still don't see a convincing argument that the only reason we invaded Iraq was for their oil.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:24 pm

The generalisations made in this thread, across the board, are shocking, but this takes the fucking cake:

Ratlaw wrote:Could it possibly be because those people have shown a marked tendancy to fly airplanes into skyscrapers with the intention of killing as many people as possible?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:36 pm

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:39 pm

Why what?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:40 pm

DV8 wrote:The generalisations made in this thread, across the board, are shocking, but this takes the fucking cake:

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:07 pm

TheScamp wrote:And we give a shit about that antipathy because? Oh yes - because they have the money and power to do act on it, the major source of which is the oil.

By which you are implying that terrorist organizations are funded majorily by oil money which comes from either OPEC nations as a whole or a few member states exsculsively?

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Deev, I just wanted to know why that was anymore far fetched than anything else bandied about in here. So far I have seen several really extreme points of view, from a few people, but nothing has really stood out in my mind yet.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:34 pm

Let's just be happy that we destroyed an oppressive, genocidal regime, and vote Bush out in 2004, hmm?

I can live with that...

DarkMage · Post by **DarkMage** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:35 pm

ratlaw wrote:
This administration is about using the American military predominance to enforce American national interests. Oil is completely tertiary, if it's even a consideration.

If you want to object to American military action in Iraq, then do so on the grounds of whether or not it's right or useful for us to be enforcing our interests with troops and quit arguing the "blood for oil" strawman.

That is total bullshit oil is one of American's national interest. If it wasn't we wouldn't have the consent raiseing of oil and gas prices. If Amerca had enough oil to substatine itself then you'd be correct...but since it doesn't it makes it a nation interest.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:39 pm

Salvation122 wrote:<Blog Stuff>

Wow, that's great! I'm posting this in my blog. Tee hee!

No, seriously, I think it's good to poke fun at the hypocrisy in the system. I don't think the author would want us to go to war with China, they just want to know why Iraq is evil and China is somehow good; how attacking Iraq, for the reasons given, even makes sense. Now that we have your attention, though... if you know that everything Bush has done is a big lie (and evidently you do), why defend him? Some people certainly seem willing to say, "Yeah, Bush is a big liar. Wasting Iraq was a good thing, the reason is inconsequential." Others most definitely are not willing to take that stance and defend the reasons to the end, in the face of rather stark evidence to the contrary. Seems almost like... a leap of faith. I didn't know Bush was worth one of those. Personally I reserve them for divine beings.

Ratlaw wrote:How come we didn't invade the ME back in the 70s when OPEC was actually feeling trigger happy?

Evidently because OPEC backed down in time. (link from lorg's thread)

Serious Paul wrote:
DV8 wrote:The generalisations made in this thread, across the board, are shocking, but this takes the fucking cake:
Why?

Probably because that's happened a grand total of once, to my knowledge. Hardly makes it a disturbing trend, or a marked tendancy. Unless you want to say that Americans have a marked tendancy to go on mass-murdering rampages and rape children... or to bring it closer to home for you, shove stange objects in their penises.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:49 pm

It does well mathmatically as well.

Number of people who have flown "airplanes into skyscrapers" with murderous intent: 19.

Number of "those people" in the mideast: 270,000,000.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:24 am

if you know that everything Bush has done is a big lie (and evidently you do), why defend him?

Do you have a solution that's any better? Cause I'll clue you in on something, politicians lie. Clinton lied, Bush Sr. lied, Reagon lied, Carter lied, etc etc. They all lie. They are all controlled by special interests.

Do you know what happens to the ones who don't lie, and don't pander to specials interests? Guess what.... they don't get reelected.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:24 am

Angel wrote:It's about the oil, America's President is blatantly trading the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds upon hundreds of Americans for Oil, for profits, for money in his pocket.

So you're saying that Bush personally started this war as a way to make money for himself and his friends. Is that what you're saying? That this is a scheme by the people we elected to get themselves rich?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:29 am

That this is a scheme by the people we elected to get themselves rich?

Yes. It's ok though. Chances are I can ride their coat tails to a bit of profit myself.

Ln(e) · Post by **Ln(e)** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:47 am

Angel wrote: The national resources of Iraq (Oil) will be controlled by the American military, but adminstered by American and British energy companies.

Evidence? I haven't heard anything about Exxon-Moble or BP running the show over there yet.

The costs of keeping American soliders in Iraq will be paid for by tax-payers (both American and Iraqi, eventually),

When has it been said that Iraqi taxpayers are going to be funding the US in Iraq? This is completely out of left field to me.

and perhaps eventually by proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil (to American and British energy companies, in turn to American and British consumers).

You really have no clue how oil is bought and sold on the international market, don't you? Besides, until I see British and American energy firms having a monopoly on Iraqi production, I am going to call bullshit. It can possibly happen, but please refrain from acting like it is for sure. I am getting sick and tired of people who have no clue how the industry works acting like they know what its all about.

Odds are, the Iraqi government is going to decide who has the contracts. If they decide to honour the deals Saddam signed, thats up to them. But I can tell you that if I where an Iraqi, I would look at who took out the guy who was killing my relatives, and making my life shitty, and who was helping that guy out, or at least opposing his removal by force, in a speedy fashion. So I wouldn't be surprised if Total was shut out of Iraq (and quite likely why the French government opposed ther war - who was screwing who over because of oil?). I think they see it too, as they are looking at moving in on the action in Alberta (Canada), someplace I have never seen a French company (even though a large chunk of Northern Alberta is Francophone).

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:15 am

Anguirel wrote:Probably because that's happened a grand total of once, to my knowledge. Hardly makes it a disturbing trend, or a marked tendancy. Unless you want to say that Americans have a marked tendancy to go on mass-murdering rampages and rape children... or to bring it closer to home for you, shove stange objects in their penises.

Except, the idea I think ratlaw was really going with, in much the same way I think Angel was/is using her Bush conspiracy silliness, is that there is a problem in this region with people, and groups who use terrorism as a political tool way too often, and there isn't a concern about the wanton destruction that they cause. (For me a kid blowing a disco tech up in Israel is bad, just like crashing two jets into the world trade center, and another jet intot he pentagon, and attempting to crash a fourth. So that makes four, unless me make this one incident. Which it really kind of is. SO far anyways)

Show me another part of the world that has per capita this many problems with terrorists on this scale. Indonesia has problems for sure, but you don't read about Indonesian terrorists in america, you read about Arab terrorists. So for Average American it is Arab terrorists they worry about. And to be frank I can't blame them.

Now is it any more reasonable to say all arabs are terrorists? Not any more than saying Bush is smart enough to head a far flung conspiracy to get rich off of oil from Iraq.

I think Ratlaw had one thing right-this is an attempt to project American forces into a region where we have had a lot of problems, and traditionally had difficulties in getting a foothold diplomatically and economically. Sure its not fair-but since when did fair matter? Maybe its not even just, but where are you people when the "just" rulers of any number of nations kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Sitting behind our keybaords and saying what should be or shouldn't is real great-but right or wrong the Bush administration is doing something. And yes I realize that people are going to say "criticism allows us to refine policy and thought" and the rest of that, but in the end what I am a person who was taught you make decisions. Right or wrong you make them.

I certainly don't claim that everything in Iraq was done with the best intentions of everyone in mind, or even the best way, but it was done. No one is going to be pulling us out anytime soon. It isn't going to happen. We are there, and will be for the duration.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:58 am

One other possible explanation the opponents of Gulf III use is that of a 2nd "Swing Producer" under American control. More on this after a good night's sleep.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:00 am

Serious Paul wrote: Show me another part of the world that has per capita this many problems with terrorists on this scale. Indonesia has problems for sure, but you don't read about Indonesian terrorists in america, you read about Arab terrorists. So for Average American it is Arab terrorists they worry about. And to be frank I can't blame them.

The group responsible for the most suicide bombings in the world is [drum roll] the Tamil Tigers (aka LTTE) of Sri Lanka. I suspect that the various drug producing nations of south america would also be in the running for being as terrorist infested as the mideast. Places like Kashmire in India and Pakistan also score high. Then you get into sub saharan africa, but maybe once there are 1000 of you in one place you don't count as terrorists anymore.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:03 am

Serious Paul wrote: there is a problem in this region with people, and groups who use terrorism as a political tool way too often, and there isn't a concern about the wanton destruction that they cause.

You know a lot of people in the world would say the same thing about the United States and war.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:23 am

You know a lot of people in the world would say the same thing about the United States and war.

Yes but they don't have as many guns as we do, so their opinion is irrelevent.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:24 am

32: While I can't *prove* it's about the oil, I can show that it's the most likely of the reasons, and it was definitely at the top of a lot of people's minds.

Let's go down the list of given reasons, shall we?

1.) Saddam was a bad, bad, man.

> True enough, and bad enough to perhaps warrant being deposed. However, there are much worse men out there. Mushareff is also a mass-murdering military dictator, who publically brags about how he had his predecessor tortured to death. Kim Jong-Il is actively hostile to us, is within striking distance of several of our major trading partners (one of which is totally defenseless without our assistance) and has known nuclear capacity. Castro has been a thorn in our side for decades, and is right on our doorstep.
Alongside this argument is the ability to hurt us our our interests. Saddam has been bottled up for twelve years, and wasn't likely to break through anytime soon.
So, we see that simply deposing Saddam because he's a bad man doesn't hold up; there are much worse men out there, with greater ability to harm us and our friends.

2.) The Middle East is full of terrorists.

> True to an extent; Islamic fundamentalists are frequently from that area. But how many of them are actually from Iraq? I don't think a single 9/11 hijacker was from there. In fact, Saddam was violently opposed to Al Qaeda and fundamental Islam; he actively oppressed the Shi'a sect, which is the sect most linked to Islamic terrorists.
So, we see that terrorism cannot be the primary reason.

3.) Saddam had WMD.

> Oh, bloody hell, no. After all this time, we haven't found any of the cyclosarin or VX that he supposedly had, and no trace of biological weapons.

4.) Oil. Lots of oil.

> Well, Iraq does have some of the largest oilfields in the world, and with the gulf nearby it's not a big issue to have it shipped out. Since we're oil dependant, going after the oilfields is also "protecting American interests"; by securing the oilfields we're securing an important section of our economy. In this case, "protecting american Interests" is synonomous with: "We're there for the oil"; although there are a few other "interests" as well.

Now, I'll grant that the actual motivation could be a combination of any of the above. However, the liklihood of 1 through 3 alone is very slim, as the logic behind them is flimsy at best.

The fact is, oil was paramount in our plans. The oilfields were one of our primary goals, and were secured and had work started before we even got an occupation administrator over there. It may not be the big conspiracy Angel's proposing, (although Elf once posted an intriguing theory that we need the oil to prevent OPEC from adopting the Euro as a standard currency); but there's no denying that oil was a big reason, if not *the* reason, why we invaded.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:30 am

So here's a serious question for a change.

Why can't the scenario go something like this..... "That Saddam is bad man. If we deposed him, we could end his tyranny /and/ secure a government in the area that is friendly towards us."

Why does everyone get upset that we went and did something good because there was something in it for us? Do you say that your doctor is a bad man because he got paid for his services? Are the police bad because they wouldn't do their jobs if they didn't get paid?

I'm really curious why we can't be motivated by both greed and benevolence.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:45 am

I beleive the main problem with that is that it remains to be seen if we have done anything good.

What if the US looses the war eventually, or wins but helps another ruthless thug to take over the country, or wins and leaves and some awful government quickly appears?

What we have, to make another sweeping generalization, is two groups of people. One of them thinks that the US is defined most by some of what happened after WWII: a visionary benevolent reconstruction of our pathetic defeated enemies. Another thinks the US is defined most by some of what happened during the cold war: a series of shortsighted heartless maneuvers sacrificing other people ostensibly for our benefit.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:27 am

But how can I have any confidence when my taxes are paying for this.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:14 am

MooCow wrote:I'm really curious why we can't be motivated by both greed and benevolence.

We can.

To cheesily quote:

"The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:06 am

Wall Street

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:52 am

MooCow wrote:So here's a serious question for a change.

Why can't the scenario go something like this..... "That Saddam is bad man. If we deposed him, we could end his tyranny /and/ secure a government in the area that is friendly towards us."

We already have two governments in the area that are friendly towards us-- Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Kuwait still loves us for kicking Saddam's butt in the first Gulf war. There's also a lot worse men than Saddam, who pose a much bigger threat.

Why does everyone get upset that we went and did something good because there was something in it for us?

Because the ends don't always justify the means. If we just deposed a bad man, that's one thing. If we depose a bad man, occupy his country, take over his oil fields, and tell the world that "this is what happens when you mess with the USA"; you make a whole lot of people very upset.

I'm really curious why we can't be motivated by both greed and benevolence.

Because there was very little benevolence, and a lot of greed. Yippee, we captured one bad man. The world is full of them.

If you had a choice-- give up all your civil liberties, your income for the next ten years, and all your real property, in exchange for catching *one* criminal, would you say it's worth it? And would you say that anyone who demanded that was acting out of benelovence, or greed?

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:03 am

Cain wrote:Because there was very little benevolence, and a lot of greed. Yippee, we captured one bad man. The world is full of them.

It sure is, but such a statement makes it sound like that's the only reason the defense is giving for us being over there and it's not. It also is completely ignorant of all of the justifications that have been given for our actions.

Cain wrote:If you had a choice-- give up all your civil liberties, your income for the next ten years, and all your real property, in exchange for catching *one* criminal, would you say it's worth it?

That's a one-sided question, Cain. It conviently ignores the other benefits to which such sacrifices would bring, makes this "one criminal" sound like an Average Joe who just robbed a convience store, makes unproven assumptions about what sacrifices will be had and makes it sound like they will be even and equal across the board. It is a biased question that cannot be answered and be relevant to the situation you are trying to apply it to.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:11 am

It sure is, but such a statement makes it sound like that's the only reason the defense is giving for us being over there and it's not. It also is completely ignorant of all of the justifications that have been given for our actions.

As I demonstrated earlier, if that's the best reason we have for being over there, it's a pretty damn flimsy reason. None of the other justifications make much sense, except for oil. I was just replying to Moo's assertion that we went over there to "rid the world of a tyrant"; that argument makes no sense at all.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:14 am

Rat wrote:Could it possibly be because those people have shown a marked tendancy to fly airplanes into skyscrapers with the intention of killing as many people as possible?

Could it be that there was never any conclusive evidence that suggested who was really behind those attacks, and in the end the government just, you know, made shit up?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:57 am

What a bunch of irrational tripe. I fold.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:05 am

Ln(e) wrote:You really have no clue how oil is bought and sold on the international market, don't you?

Actually, sicne I am living just down the street from the United Nations AND the International Atomic Energy Agency, and working two blocks from the world headquarters for OPEC, in the past four years I have met and talked to many people involved Iraq, and the oil market. The ony thing the "international market" does for oil is that it allows other countries (non-OPEC nations) to effect (arginally) the price per barrel, it does NOT sell or buy the actual product, that is done on a much more personal level, between companies (some state owned), via contracts or agreements.

Or perhaps you have a better understanding of the international oil market, if so, please be so kind and educate me.