Republican Congressman: War is for the oil

[mofangongren]

@Tigerman

You seem uncomfortable with my question put to you earlier, i.e., do you believe that democratic reform in the mid-east is the best way to deal with the problems created by despotic autocratic governments that opress their peoples thus resulting in a rise in terrorists?

Did you ask me that question in this thread? Sorry, please show me where you posted such a question. Of course, your line of thinking is a bit off from that proposed by the honorable Republican congressman. Oil is only a three-letter word, but you seem to have a lot of discomfort with it.

@Tigerman

Your constant bitching and moaning about members of al Qaeda still being at large would almost be funny, if it were not so pathetic.

What’s “pathetic” is the inability of the Bush administration to focus its efforts on the terrorist groups. Instead, they went to a country that posed no danger to the United States. Looks like Bush is suffering from “ADA”, just like many small children do. The inability of Bush to focus on the issue at hand is “funny-strange” not “funny-ha-ha”. Perhaps that’s why it is now easy for Republican congressmen to admit that this Iraq invasion is a big load of garbage.

@Tigerman

Honestly, what do you think Clinton or Gore or Kerry would have done if they were President at 911? Lobbed a few cruise missiles? Initiated a study group to understand the cause of the terrorists’ anger at us? Met with the Europeans and or UN to discuss sanctions against the meanies?

What does fighting terror have to do with the invasion of Iraq? Please show us conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to Al Qaeda attacks on the United States. Oh, that’s right… you don’t have any. Despite Cheney’s best efforts, the Bush administration had to finally admit that there was no connection. Thanks for playing!

@Tigerman

Your denial of any success against the terrorists is sad. The fact is, since 911 there has been no terrorist act against the US (in the US) when everyone was expecting the same soon.

Do I deny any success? No. However, what has that got to do with Bush fighting a war for oil? Look at the thread title. Pretty sad that American lives would be spent on a war intended for the benefit of our oilyman-in-chief and his cronies.

@Tigerman

al Qaeda is on the run and they have been badly beaten… it is only a matter of time before OBL is caught.

Uh, what has this got to do with the invasion of Iraq? Are you (bizarrely) trying to argue that Osama bin Laden is currently living in Iraq? OBL appears to be making more videos these days than 50-cent.

@Tigerman

I guess you don’t follow the news.

Sure I do. Guess what? OBL still ain’t caught.

@Tigerman

So, reforming Iraq as a step in reforming the region so that the root causes of terrorism are removed is a bad plan?

How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq? I mean, if we’re going to “reform the region”, we’d probably want to reform the kind of country that could produce a bunch of extremist terrorists, wouldn’t we? Would the correct number of Iraqi hijackers on 9/11 happen to be 0? Thanks for playing…

@Tigerman

Can you read? Bush stated we want to PREVENT the threat from materializing. Iraq already sponsored terrorism against Israel.

Looks like the Republican congressman disagrees with you on this as a reason for us to invade. Looks like he sees it as being O-I-L.

@Tigerman

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“President Bush on 29 January 2002”]Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.[/quote]

@mofangongren

I thought Bush had stopped drinking. Must’ve gotten tanked on the fumes emanating from Jenna.

Iraq was in compliance with the UNSC cease fire agreement and all 17 UNSC resolutions? Iraq never shot at US/UK planes flying over Iraqi airspace? Iraq did not sponsor terrorism against Israel? Iraq did not plot to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade? What have you been smoking?[/quote]

Any WMDs found? Oh, right… none. Thanks for playing… Looks like the score is something like: Republican Congressman 9, Tigerman 0.

@Tigerman

You do not understand the concept of proportion?

Sure I do! It means that we’re perfectly capable of buying oil instead of invading countries to get it.

@Tigerman

And yet Hans Blix stated that still Iraq had not complied with the final UNSC resolution.

Of course, Hans Blix wasn’t given an opportunity to finish his inspections. Why? Because despite the Iraqis handing over a 10,000+ page document that still comprises the most accurate accounting of Iraq WMD programs, Bush was a bit too oil-hungry. Hey, but why rely on me? There’s a Republican congressman willing to own up to it.

@Tigerman

Nobody likes going to war. However, we at least now know with fair certainty the status of Iraq’s WMD and we know that Iraq will not seek or produce WMD and we know that Iraq is on the road to reform. None of this was possible while Saddam remained in power.

Of course, when you can invade a country with the 2nd greatest proven oil reserves, who needs actual facts or even basic due diligence. With the leak of the British memo, we now have a pretty window into the back-room planning of the Bush officials. Of course, with the Project for a New American Century, we also know that this war was all about oil.

@Tigerman

I don’t think we have missed any opportunity to attack the terrorists.

Really? How about the terrorists who attacked us? Haven’t gotten them yet. Look at how OBL mocks us, laughs at Bush, inspires the ones who attack our citizens and troops.

@Tigerman

Do you think the terrorists were going to stand toe to toe with our armed forces and duke it out? Only an idiot would think such a simple thought.

Why did you just now think of it?

@Tigerman

When you get down to it, the Bush administration is the only administration to actually put the terrorists on the run and to address the root causes of terrorism and seek to remedy the same.

They’re “on the run”? Yeah, right…

@Tigerman

You keep looking at “missed opportunities”. Well, think of this rather as an investment.

So does that Republican congressman. It’s about oil. O-I-L.

@Tigerman

Every investment in time and money entails a certain amount of opportunity foregone. Going to school to obtain a degree means spending mone to get the degree while giving up the opportunity to work and earn money. Yet, it would be foolish to say that such an investment was a “missed opportunity”. Ite return is not expected to be immediate.

That’s right. Once we get the Iraqi oil industry up to speed, Bush and his cronies will really cash in. Chaaaa-ching!

[Rascal]

Who cares? We may have been wrong. So what? We’ve already discussed this to death. Move the fuck on, will you?

I care. Besides, you asked for examples of dicrepancies and I gave one.
Maybe people like you don’t care but I wonder how far it has to go before you do?

So, show me the discrepancies.

I have. And why show more - so that you can reply that he “may” have been wrong and that you don’t care? So that you can say it was just a mistake? (More on that below)

Rascal… read this very carefully… I don’t give a shit. Bush was wrong… the intelligence was wrong. So what? Would you rather have Saddam put back in power and reverse the results of the election in Iraq and disband the current government there? What is your problem?

“My problem” is Bush; he should be held responsible for all those discrepancies, the actions based on them and for all those, how did you call it?, “mistakes”.

Pitiful. So, because Bush was wrong about the WMD, you also distrust his statements of desire to implement and follow a policy of encouraging democratic reform in the ME and world wherever possible?

Yep, I distrust him because I doubt this is his primary motive. That’s an IMO.

Who else leads a war to bring democracy to an area far from home and does so in a completely immaculate and flawless manner? Yes, there have been mistakes.

Isn’t there a contradiction between the question and the following statement?

I am surprised though to see that you consider thousand of dead civilians, widespread abuse, torture, denial of rights etc. merely as mistakes.

Rascal, do you disagree with Bush’s idea that the best way to remedy the problem of terrorism is to address and deal with the root causes of terrorism?

That’s not Bush’s idea, Bush’s idea is to forcefully implement it. And the root cause of terrorism is not Iraq nor in Iraq; as you just agreed reforming Iraq does not make much if any change that directly relates to terrorism (see e.g. Israel-Palestine conflict).
Yes, he does not pay the families of suicide bombers anymore (and that’s good) - but what difference does it make? The attacks didn’t stop (and yes, you never said they will) - so what was so important about Iraq that relates to terrorism anywhere else?

If yes, do you agree that encouraging and facilitating democratic reform and providing economic assistance is the best way to deal with the problem?

I don’t know if it’s the best way, but democratic reforms is certainly a possible, perhaps even a good, way. Though not when based on the means Bush used.

[Rascal]

BTW: no-fly zones were not part of any UN resolution nor was violating Iraqi airspace, so one could argue that shooting at US/UK planes was nothing but self-defense. What’s good for the goose …

In fact, using a familiar US argument, it could have been used as a valid reason to launch a pre-emptive strike against US/UK forces since they have shown hostile intentions by entering Iraqi airspace with military airplanes.

[fred_smith]

I am surprised though to see that you consider thousand of dead civilians, widespread abuse, torture, denial of rights etc. merely as mistakes.

Who’s doing the torture? killing? denial of rights?

I think that for such an interest in US abuses, we must re-examine those of Germany, what say we do? Read the latest Amnesty International report on Germany’s abuse and torture of those seeking amnesty? What a shame. How exactly does that differ from Abu Ghraib except German police are not stupid enough to take photos.

When the US gets even remotely close to the death toll racked up by Germany, then I will give you a call and we will have a nice discussion about morality and ethics. Until then, buy Gunther Grass’s Crab Walk and read it real good. Germans lecturing others on morality is a bit much for me to take. What next? Stalin on democracy? mao on free enterprise?

Finally, the no flight zones were established as a condition of the ceasefire agreement. Saddam did not like it. Well fine. Ceasefire over. That is what happened. All within international law. Of course, I don’t know as much about international law as perhaps Rascal does. Can you explain to me the legality again of the Rippentrop Molotov Treaty? I am still a bit confused.

[Tigerman]

Who cares? We may have been wrong. So what? We’ve already discussed this to death. Move the fuck on, will you?

@Rascal

I care.

Well, that’s real nice. I care more that we ended the brutal and illegal rule of a monster who is responsible for the deaths of a million or so people, including hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. To me, that is vastly more important than whether or not we were correct in our analysis of intelligence re Saddam’s WMD, which by law he was required to reveal 14 years ago so we would not have needed to make any analysis.

@Rascal

Maybe people like you don’t care but I wonder how far it has to go before you do?

Jaysus! I don’t think I’ll ever care that we were wrong about WMD. How the fuck long were people like you willing to let Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and to threaten the region and to destabilize the region? How far did Saddam’s ruthlesness have to go before people like you finally decided that the suffering and oppression were enough? How the fuck long were people like you willing to maintain the status quo in the region, where that status quo was/is responsible for the misery of millions of people and the mother of terror?

[Jack_Burton]

So if it’s a good thing for the world, led by the US, to stop brutal dictators guilty of genocide, torture, and other evils, I’m curious if it is your belief that the US should do this with every single country, whether in Africa, S.America, Europe, or Asia. And I won’t point at the past, since those were other presidents, other administrations. But let’s say there was a U.S. referendum to authorize Bush to take down all repressive governments and officials that torture and kill, you guys would say on in a blink of an eye?

Where would this campaign go?

Columbia?
certain countries in Africa?
Korea?
Egypt?
Syria?
Saudi Arabia?
China?
Azerbaijan (sp?)

I guess I have to say the oil connection still bothers me.

[Richardm]

According to the Human Rights Watch, the humanitarian justification doesn’t wash.

@Human Rights Watch

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.

hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

[jdsmith]

It was not approved by the Security Council

IMO the real question is why the hell wasn’t it??

[Tigerman]

@Jack Burton

So if it’s a good thing for the world, led by the US, to stop brutal dictators guilty of genocide, torture, and other evils, I’m curious if it is your belief that the US should do this with every single country, whether in Africa, S.America, Europe, or Asia.

Jaaaack… Pleeeease!

Of course it would be good if the world, led by the US had the resources to stop every brutal dictator…

But, those of you who point to the obvious fact that the ME has lots of oil which is vital to the world economy seem to miss the other obvious fact that the terrorism that threatens and in too many cases harms the US comes from the ME, and not from Africa (sub-Saharan), S. America, Europe and or Asia.

Yes… oil is important. Does anyone deny that?

The point is, the terrorism that harms and threatend the US comes from the ME. That is why we have to do something about the conditions there that breed terrorism.

Why doesn’t the UN do something about the brutal dictators committing crimes? Oh, that’s right… those dictators are in the UN sitting on various committees…

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Richardm”]According to the Human Rights Watch, the humanitarian justification doesn’t wash.

@Human Rights Watch

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.

hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm[/quote]

SO WHAT?

Do you believe that the best cure for the ills that affect the middle east is democratic reform? Yes or no, please.

If yes, then how can you possibly be opposed to ousting Saddam from Iraq and encouraging democratic reform there?

And of what possible significance is the fact (true or false) that the intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns? What difference does that make?

So, unless our reason for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam was 100% done without any thought of how doing so would serve our interests, the fact that removing Saddam wouldin fact benefit millions of people just “doesn’t wash”?

That’s a notion around which I have some difficulty wrapping my head.

[politbureau]

The answer, my friend, is glowing in the dark
The answer is glowing in the dark . . .

[Tigerman]

[quote=“spook”]
The answer, my friend, is glowing in the dark
The answer is glowing in the dark . . .[/quote]

So spook, what’s the question?

[Dog_s_Breakfast]

@fred smith

Yup. It’s all about oil. Funny though that the US gets only 16 percent of its oil from the entire Middle East. We buy far more from Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, UK and Canada, but don’t let this get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. 16 percent. 16 percent. 16 percent. Yup. 16 percent.

It’s not going to stay at 16% for long. Right now, the world does not have an oil shortage, but it’s coming soon. When we hit peak oil (possibly by next year) the price will skyrocket, and every country will be scrambling to ensure their supplies.

The USA imports almost 60% of its oil, and that percentage is set to increase sharply. Venezuela is our second most important source, and our good friend Chavez has threatened to cut us off. Then there’s Russia, which recently has decided that Japan and China (rather than the USA) will be their highest priority customers.

The USA could find itself in deep doodoo if there is no major oil producing country that is going to give preference to the US market.

Fred, you ought to join us at the peakoil.com forum. I’m sure everyone there will be interested to hear your theories about how there’s no shortage of oil in the forseeable future.

cheers,
DB

[Richardm]

@Tigerman

Do you believe that the best cure for the ills that affect the middle east is democratic reform? Yes or no, please.

It seems contradictory to impose democracy under pain of death.

[rousseau]

@Richardm

[quote=“Tigerman”]Do you believe that the best cure for the ills that affect the middle east is democratic reform? Yes or no, please.

It seems contradictory to impose democracy under pain of death.[/quote]
What does this statement mean? It looks like the sloppy thinking endemic to the partisan battles over US foreign and domestic policy in the post 9-11 world. There are very few examples of conversion to democracy without revolution or war. Taiwan and Korea come to mind, with Taiwan being an exceptional case for experiencing virtually no bloodshed. Canada, as well. Mexico, too, though one hedges one’s bets with Mexico for at least another decade. Any others?

As a supporter of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that the best case the “anti-war” crowd (a misnomer, as Iraq had been in a state of war since 1991, and the “anti-war” crew were insistent that it continue, but it’s a convenient epithet) had against going into Iraq, or, more properly, finishing the war that began in 1991, was that the Bush administration was simply not competent to pull it off. In 2003 the case against Bush was based mostly on the loathing the left had for him, but in 2005 the evidence, sadly, is overwhelming.

Bush did the right thing, but wrongly.

[fred_smith]

A lot of the high oil prices have to do with lack of refining capabilities. I am not losing any sleep that the world will run out of oil anytime soon.

[Tigerman]

@porcelainprincess

Bush did the right thing, but wrongly.

Which, IMO, is much better than doing the wrong thing rightly.

[Dog_s_Breakfast]

@fred smith

A lot of the high oil prices have to do with lack of refining capabilities. I am not losing any sleep that the world will run out of oil anytime soon.

Have you asked yourself why Exxon-Mobil and others are not building more refineries when demand is so high? We’ve had a lot of discussions about that on Peakoil.com. And the general consensus of opinion is…

…You wouldn’t invest in a new steel mill if you knew that the supply of iron ore was giving out, would you? And if you were an oil company, you wouldn’t be putting your money into new refineries if you knew that the supply will soon be diminishing. And Exxon-Mobil is, if anything, not stupid. They know that peak oil is rapidly approaching, and that conservation will be the only short-term option. They’d be foolish to invest in a lot of new refining capacity now.

I hope that two years from now we have a chance to continue this discussion and see who was right.

Have a good weekend Fred,
DB

[Shenme_Niao]

Its for the oil? Really? I though it was to un-drain their swamps for them…

[rousseau]

@Tigerman

[quote=“porcelainprincess”]Bush did the right thing, but wrongly.

Which, IMO, is much better than doing the wrong thing rightly. [/quote]
Perhaps. But the right thing done wrongly in Iraq has been disastrous. I truly, truly wish someone other than Bush had been in office for all of this.