| Author |
The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-24 17:21:39, amagab wrote:
Let's just face the clear facts without writing a novel:
Everyone acts in their own interest, whether it is Saddam invading Iraq, Iran, or Kurdistan or US invading Iraq instead of Korea or Chirac staying out of the war because of the large middle eastern vote.
War is horrible and the situation in Iraq is now better for some, worse for some others. Hopefully, it will be better for most of them soon.
To me, US is acting in the entire worlds interest. And the word has been mentioned hundreds of times: OIL
Iraq has the largest untouched oil reserve in the world and we need it dearly. I'm neither selfish nor a capitalist. However, I don't want to sit on my ass when the shit hits the fan and the industrialized world runs out of oil. Even if technology is rapidly moving ahead we still need and will need lots of oil for our industries, homes, vehicles, etc. Norway and Russia (who supplies Asia and Europe with oil) have already said that they haven't found any new oil reserves they can tap. Iraq oil is very important to future world generations.
Conclusion: Gulf War 1 was to protect Kuwaiti oil supplies. Gulf War 2 is to protect Iraqi oil reserves.
Question: How would/will the Middle East be without world oil dependency? Would/will it be better off or worse? Why?
|
|
Wow - well put.
Several here have written with open minds and respect for others but I have to say I appreciate your point of view too.
I have to agree with your conclusion. Not much to discuss there. Does anyone really disagree with this?
As for your questions ...
I'm thinking the Middle East would be worse off without world oil production for the simple reason that there isn't much else in the region that has much value at market. Without oil exports the countries of the Middle East would be rather poor, no? Maybe I'm wrong - I'd love to learn more.
Yet, because of the relative isolation of the Middle East from Western culture up until the advent of petrolium based engines (and the beginning of dependance on oil in the industrailzed nations) they have been thrust into the modern world without necessarily being able to adjust to it. Democracy and freedom of expression and religion seem to be completely foreign concepts. Social upheval seems to have resulted. Unfortunately, in this modern world (like it or not) we will need to learn to either get along (and that means both sides). Either that or the industralized nations will find a non-petrolium based way to fuel their economies and the Middle East can go back to doing whatever it did before it could sell oil to everyone.
Additionally I'd like to add - yes, this is all about natural resources. An answer to a question I read in this thread ... I believe that we would not be in Iraq if there was no oil there. Of course, if there was no oil there, then Iraq would never have been considered a real threat in the war on terror as they would not have been able to afford any WMD programs.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. | |
|
ADT0079
Joined: Oct 08, 2003
Posts: 100
PM |
@patrick you have to deal with axxr and his lies and hatred other than that it will be fine
:-D
:-D
:-D
This message was posted from a T610 |
kimcheeboi
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM |
and we have to deal with your personal attacks on other people--how exactly does that make you right or axxxr wrong?
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-18 15:21:42, scotsboyuk wrote:
@axxxr
I would agree with you that the U.S. almost certainly does have other motives for intervening in the Middle East, but I think we must be very careful in considering what those motives are. All nations will ultimately act in their own best interest, that isn’t something peculiar to the U.S.; Britain does the same, as does France, Germany, Japan, Iran, Egypt, and most other countries in the world.
U.S. involvement in the Middle East came about primarily because of the Cold War, since then we have had a fractionalisation of power on a global level with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. isn't so much trying to gain control over other nations in a policy of empire building, rather it is seeking to contain the dangerous political and military elements, which it no longer has a use for now that the Cold War is over.
I think that we must look at what we are criticising the U.S. for, if it is because of the atrocities committed against Iraqi prisoners then that is a valid criticism; if it is because of the way the Iraq war was handled then that is a valid criticism, if it is because they support Israel despite Israel being in contravention of numerous U.N. resolutions then that is a valid criticism. We must be very careful, however, not to criticise the U.S. just because it is seen as the 'in thing' or because we duty bound to oppose the U.S. on something just because it is the U.S. doing it.
Ironically it isn't criticism from abroad the U.S. needs, it is criticism from within. There seems to be an air of silence in the U.S. at the moment, if one is critical of Bush or the war, etc, then one is in danger of being labelled 'unpatriotic'. It isn't we who need to criticise America, rather it is Americans themselves.
|
|
In my humble opinion this is logical and well thought out. >applaud<
There is only one thing I cannot agree with ... and that is the notion that there is an air of silence in the US about the war or Bush. Right now, as we speak, the Democratic National Convention is going full blast in Boston. See MSNBC. See the DNC.org website.
All along there have been protests, meetings, publications, press releases ... well ... the sound of dissent has been rather loud actually. Americans, as usual, are not afraid to express their opinions - now more than ever. And contrary to popular belief - there is NO Bush Gulag snatching up people who have the temerity to disagree with the war in Iraq. If there were ... about 35 to 40 percent of California would have been "disappeared" within the first few months of the war.
For exaple:
See MoveOn.org
See Democracy Now
See Anti War.com
See Chicago's Anti-War Resolution
Many major cities passed Anti-War Resolutions.
Here's a little site advocating the impeachment of Bush
Hey, this is a little list. Without much time or effort I was able to pull these sites showing that there is dissent in the US. I hasten to point you to print news media like USA Today, or The New York Times, or The Los Angeles Times, or The Chicago Tribune, and so many others - that have run not only news articles that are critical of Bush but print daily opinion sections full of people who are against Bush and the War. This doesn't even count television news or channels like MTV. And if we throw in talk-radio, which is predominately pro-Bush but not totally, like Air America.
My point - there is no lack of anti-War opinion here in the US. It just so happens that I disagree with them, but they ARE there.
I'm not sure what the press over there is saying about the opinions of US Citizens but maybe it is similar to what the US press is saying about the reaction of the Musulim street when it comes to terrorists using the Islamic faith to justify their actions.
.
..
...
....
Exactly ... not much.
I have to go elsewhere to learn that many Muslims are not happy with the killing of innocent civilians in the name of Islam - even if they really dislike the United States and our secular form of government - not to mention our staunch support of Israel. Many US Muslim groups are starting to get some press as they scream that they are, and have been trying to, cooperate with law enforcement to help in preventing domestic terrorism. They claim that their voice hasn't been heard and that they keep getting questions like, "Why don't you condemn terrorism?" and such when they have been saying this all along. See U.S. Muslim Organizations React to Attacks on Afghanistan.
Phew ... *wipes sweat off brow
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-14 17:02:24, plasmadog wrote:
hi,
i think one should take moore's comments with a pinch of salt.
true, that he's bringing to light a lot of problems that plague the world today i.e bush/gulf war2/gun control etc.
but i don't know if he's the right one to dish out the advice.
he should be commended for the fact that if it weren't for him and his documentaries, a lot of truths would never have come up for the whole world to see.
but his first premise is to shock people, yeah? tell them how bad the president is.. but i don't know if he can tell people what they should do about it.
i mean americans on the whole are smart, and once u give them the facts, they can decide... and this is why democracy is so good.. that u can decide and kick the person who u don't want in office.
in a democracy and a free press, u know who's lying a lot and who's lying less ( i'm not naive enough to believe that there are no people out there not lying)har!
cos like in india, when they had elections, the guys who lied more got booted out.. and the next government comes in and starts lying until the same fate bites them in the ass.
as kennedy said "you can fool some of the people all of the time;
all of the people some of the time;
but never all the people all the time"
i guess democracy really helps... and i do agree with u guys that north korea and zimbabwe need to be dealt with the same way. but one more country that everyone seems to forget is myanmar.(burma).
there u have aung san syu ki (forgive me for spelling) who's really fighting for democracy. and we as outsiders need to help people who're fighting for democracy and for human rights and freedom.
u don't need to send them guns or troops. they need the support of the rest of the world behind them.
that's it.. support.
|
|
Awesome points. I agree with you all the way.
Oh, by the way, it was Abraham Lincoln who the "fooling the people" quote has been attributed to. Although that is now in question. Not to lessen the great presidency of Kennedy in any way.
>Bravo<
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
kimcheeboi
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM |
im trashed with a bad head cold plus still felling the effects of saturday night... 
i'll get back to ya on that later 
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
THE REAL REASON BUSH WENT TO WAR
WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar.
"There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club. I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war.
Saddam controlled a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a quarter of world oil production in 2003, and containing more than 60% of the world's known reserves. With 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and perhaps as much again in the 90% of the country not yet explored, Iraq has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, is the world's largest net importer of oil. Last year the US Department of Energy forecast that imports will cover 70% of domestic demand by 2025.
By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraqi oil fields, and persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait war. Production may rise to 3m barrels a day by year end, about double 2002 levels. More oil should bring down Opec-led prices, and if Iraqi oil production rose to 6m barrels a day, Bush could even attack the Opec oil-pricing cartel.
Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US, and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Overseeing Iraqi oil supplies, and maybe soon supplies from other Gulf countries, would enable the US to use oil as power. In 1990, the then oil man, Dick Cheney, wrote that: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well."
In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel.
Over the past 15 years, the overall US deficit with the rest of the world has risen to $2,700bn - an abuse of its privileged currency position. Although about 80% of foreign exchange and half of world trade is in dollars, the euro provides a realistic alternative. Euro countries also have a bigger share of world trade, and of trade with Opec countries, than the US.
In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq in the axis of evil. If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge. Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US markets and dramatic upheavals in the US.
Bush had many reasons to invade Iraq, but why did Blair join him? He might have squared his conscience by looking at UK oil prospects. In 1968, when North Sea oil was in its infancy, as private secretary to the minister of power I wrote a report on oil policy, advocating changes like the setting up of a British national oil company (as was done). My proposals found little favour with the BP/Shell-supporting officials, but Richard Marsh, the then minister, pressed them and the petroleum division was expanded into an operations division and a planning division.
Sadly, when I was promoted out of private office the free-trading petroleum officials conspired to block my posting to the planning division, where I would surely have advocated a prudent exploitation of North Sea resources to reduce our dependence on the likes of Iraq. UK North Sea oil output peaked in 1999, and has since fallen by one-sixth. Exports now barely cover imports, and we shall shortly be a net oil importer. Supporting Bush might have been justified on geo-strategic grounds.
Oil and the dollar were the real reasons for the attack on Iraq, with WMD as the public reason now exposed as woefully inadequate. Should we now look at Bush and Blair as brilliant strategists whose actions will improve the security of our oil supplies, or as international conmen? Should we support them if they sweep into Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, or should there be a regime change in the UK and US instead?
If the latter, we should follow that up by adopting the pious aims of UN oversight of world oil exploitation within a world energy plan, and the replacement of the dollar with a new reserve currency based on a basket of national currencies."
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Fascinating Opinion-Editorial piece from the Guardian there. Hey, what was the name of the Knighted, highly regarded, civil servant he said he spoke with? I thought I read it thoroughly but I seem to have missed it.
Oh, and as for the control of oil and use of US currency reasoning to go to war with Iraq - Sounds good to me. We (UK and USA) get solid control of oil supplies, reducing our dependence on OPEC and terrorist sponsoring states for oil, stabilizing the US Dollar, and getting rid of one of the worst human rights violators of our time. Wow! Good job BUSH!!! Thank you very much indeed Mr. Blair!!! Keep up the good work.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 19:35:00, KiMcHeEbOi wrote:
and we have to deal with your personal attacks on other people--how exactly does that make you right or axxxr wrong?
|
|
Good point KiMcHeEbOi ... I think those ad hominem attacks do nothing to prove or support any points in an argument. But you might want to double check with @axxxr about that because he was extremely quick to attack me personally when I first started posting and has used very ugly slurs against people. I'd be happy to quote some for you if you need the reference.
Also, I hope you recover from your Saturday Night activities quickly. I'm looking forward to continuing our discussions.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
ooooh, you'll get flamed for that last bit. I can see where you're coming from there, and at least you admit oil was a major factor in the invasion!
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Of course Oil was a major factor ... if not the primary reason. But it doesn't lessen the other reasons at all. You asked if Iraq's only export was bananas would we have invaded and taken over. The answer is no. But if Bananas were Iraq's main means of export income, they would not have been any threat at all. The illicit oil exports Saddam was engaged in, with kickbacks to Germany and Russia, financed his extremely lavish lifestyle (which I have no problem with except his responsibility to take care of his people first) and made it possible for him to develop and maintain WMD (as he apparently, mistakenly thought he was doing for a long time). And since he had been such a thorn in the side of the USA, he was one of the first targets on our post-9/11 radar. After the attacks the majority of Americans believed Saddam had WMD and would share them with terrorists if he could. And when our administration told him he had better open his doors and step aside unconditionally like he had agreed to do in the first place, so we could verify that he had no WMD, he continued to goof around.
And the oil - yes - now it is in US/Iraqi control. Go ahead, say the Iraq government is nothing but a puppet government. I doubt I could argue with you there. But soon there will be elections and the people will decide. They may tell the US to leave Iraq. And we have told everyone, if asked, we would leave. How do you get more independent? Hopefully we will be able to form a better relationship with Saddam out of the way. If so, we will not need to rely so heavily on Saudi Arabia for our oil. With that condition, the US can put pressure on the Saudi's to work more seriously to get terrorists out of their country, work toward a more democratic system of governance there, put pressure on them to reduce human rights violations, and break up the OPEC cartel. All positives if you ask me.
And now that the other countries in the region know that the US is deadly serious about dealing with anyone we even suspect is working with terrorists - we may be able to push for positive changes in the region without further war. But if it isn't enough - the world knows we are willing to act.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 19:32:59, ADT0079 wrote:
@patrick you have to deal with axxr and his lies and hatred other than that it will be fine |
|
Lies and hatred ehh ok!!...whenever you bush lovers don't like what you hear you call it lies and hatred...Why do you have to get patrick to fight for you? 
[addsig] |
kimcheeboi
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM |
@all- lets stop with the personal attacks--perhaps so we can hav e a more INTELLIGENT discussion?
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-28 21:46:00, KiMcHeEbOi wrote:
@all- lets stop with the personal attacks--perhaps so we can hav e a more INTELLIGENT discussion?
|
|
ADT speaks for Bush so obviously he will make personal attacks!!...
But honestly is this discussion really going anywhere?
[addsig] |
kimcheeboi
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM |
the reason why we're not getting anywhere is because of all the childish little spats in the threads. Good dialogue is always progressive.
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-07-27 19:02
