I read somewhere many moons ago that the war in Iraq cost more than all the oil in Iraq, so the "war for oil" excuse can be thrown out the window. I'm not sure if it was true or not but I'm sure buying oil from Iraq would've been cheaper then going to war with the country, trying to convert it to a democracy, and damage international relationships with half the world.
Research Neoconservatives a little bit and you'll probably be able to see where a lot of the motivation in the Bush administration is coming from. Wolfowitz and Rumsfield are two prominant neoconservatives.
Most of the first neocons, from my understanding, come from a liberal ivory tower education background and gravitated to the Republican party during the 70s reacting against big government. A lot of their platform is highly idealistic. They're really gungho about spreading democracy around the world.
One talking head i saw being interviewed put it this way (paraphrased): "America is the sole superpower in the world right now. America will not always be a sole superpower. We will decline, others will assume dominance (he talked about China and India for a while). So we should use our power while we have it to fix all of the problems in the world."
'Course, in my view, if you overextend yourself you only hasten your own defeat. Analogies can probably be drawn from NS (or Sun Tzu if anyone feels like painting in cliche). And over 500 billion dollars a year on military spending (plus 100 billion for the war) plus 1.4 trillion in tax cuts feels a little like over extension.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 25 2004, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 25 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-amarc+Jun 25 2004, 05:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (amarc @ Jun 25 2004, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It had nothing at all do to with oil, it's all about perpetuating democracy!
[/CNN] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm going to ask you what I ask everyone who says this was a war for oil.
Where is the oil? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's still in Iraq, under the ground. Did you forget that Saddam destroyed most of the oil wells before the U.S. invasion? Not to mention the many attacks on oil structures. Have you noticed that oil prices sharply dropped after the government hand over went smoothly today?
Oh, and also don't forget that the main source of information about these "WMDs" came from an Iraqi (and his "groupies") that for years had been seeking for vengence on Saddam (after Saddam put a hit on him) by trying to get the U.S. to invade. Not exactly a trustworthy source, now is it?
Actually, the sources include Iyad Allawi, the current Iraqi prime minister who made up the 45 minute magic number, which was supposed to be how long it would take Iraq to strike in the US with WMDs.
And Ahmed Chalabi. Former governing council member. Made up the mobile lab stories which Powell has openly admitted was complete rubbish. Removed from council after allegations of revealing secret information to Iran.
Make your own conclusions. I grow tired of trying to argue this side.
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+Jun 28 2004, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Jun 28 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Jun 28 2004, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Jun 28 2004, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess you can only see how stupid these excuses for going to war with Iraq are if you're not from America.
(Eg. The rest of the world is asking "Who the **** do you think you are?")
I'm trying to convince my parents back home to stop referring in his hate speech "Arrogant self-righteous American" but rather "arrogant self-righteous administration".
I don't feel like this is a war for oil at all. Nor do I think this is a war against terrorist.
It's an election gimmick, preparing Bush for the next term.
Wmds? Half the world have WMDs. Iraq just feel like an easy pick, a humanitarian PR to boost. I'm glad they liberate the people, but I'm sure as hell don't like how they get there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gimmick for election? What? If you lived here maybe you'd think otherwise, had Bush not gone to war with Iraq his reelection would have been assured. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's called backfire.
<!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Jun 26 2004, 01:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Jun 26 2004, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By even the most <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/' target='_blank'>leftist estimates</a> this war has killed far fewer people than Saddam would have in a given year. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I realise im leaving this a bit late, and am probably off topic, but what makes you see 'Iraq body count' as 'far left'?
and what exactly does 'the most leftist estimate' really mean in this case? Is it leftist because it does things in a manner you dissaprove of? or just because of what it does?
iirc every death logged in the site has been subject to a pretty tight cross referancing, so you can take the numbers as reasonably accurate regardless of which side of the political spectrum it might fall under.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Jun 28 2004, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Jun 28 2004, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I read somewhere many moons ago that the war in Iraq cost more than all the oil in Iraq, so the "war for oil" excuse can be thrown out the window. I'm not sure if it was true or not but I'm sure buying oil from Iraq would've been cheaper then going to war with the country, trying to convert it to a democracy, and damage international relationships with half the world.
War isnt cheap. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While, as I have already stated, that I do't buy the massive-right-wing-conspiracy theroys of the war being solely for oil I would take issue with your statement.
It cost the United States, and as such us taxpayers, more money than the totl worth fo the Iraq oil reserves. However the people who would be making a profit of the importation of this oil, presumably massive corporations, aren't paying the bill. In fact corporations already get all sorts of tax breaks and advantages, so it could be said that the total net strain of the war upon them is less than the average taxpayer. Beyond that, think of the number of companies that are now making a ton of money heling with the rebuilding effort, like Halliburton (remember how they were overcharging us for the gas the supplied our troops after winning the no-bid defense contract?)
Now figure in Cheney's conections to Halliburton, Bush's to the oil industry, and you start to see where this conflict of intersts may lie. Did they act more for the good fo their busness ties, or the good of the nation?
edit: this is a fun little related site...well <i>I</i> thought it was fun at any rate...Plus it has a far more in depth outline of the above mentioned busness ties: <a href='http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=90056' target='_blank'>http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=90056</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+Jun 29 2004, 02:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Jun 29 2004, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-killswitch1968+Jun 26 2004, 01:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (killswitch1968 @ Jun 26 2004, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By even the most <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/' target='_blank'>leftist estimates</a> this war has killed far fewer people than Saddam would have in a given year. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I realise im leaving this a bit late, and am probably off topic, but what makes you see 'Iraq body count' as 'far left'? and what exactly does 'the most leftist estimate' really mean in this case? Is it leftist because it does things in a manner you dissaprove of? or just because of what it does?
iirc every death logged in the site has been subject to a pretty tight cross referancing, so you can take the numbers as reasonably accurate regardless of which side of the political spectrum it might fall under. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The imagery on the site, the quotes they use, they are associated with www.humanshields.org, etc. I think it's clearly anti-war, particularly their links section. That is why it's leftist.
I linked that site because it is reliable and accurate. I added the prefix "leftist" to further demonstrate that even those with a bias to over-inflate the death toll have reported relatively low numbers.
Comments
War isnt cheap.
Most of the first neocons, from my understanding, come from a liberal ivory tower education background and gravitated to the Republican party during the 70s reacting against big government. A lot of their platform is highly idealistic. They're really gungho about spreading democracy around the world.
One talking head i saw being interviewed put it this way (paraphrased): "America is the sole superpower in the world right now. America will not always be a sole superpower. We will decline, others will assume dominance (he talked about China and India for a while). So we should use our power while we have it to fix all of the problems in the world."
'Course, in my view, if you overextend yourself you only hasten your own defeat. Analogies can probably be drawn from NS (or Sun Tzu if anyone feels like painting in cliche). And over 500 billion dollars a year on military spending (plus 100 billion for the war) plus 1.4 trillion in tax cuts feels a little like over extension.
[/CNN] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to ask you what I ask everyone who says this was a war for oil.
Where is the oil? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's still in Iraq, under the ground. Did you forget that Saddam destroyed most of the oil wells before the U.S. invasion? Not to mention the many attacks on oil structures. Have you noticed that oil prices sharply dropped after the government hand over went smoothly today?
Oh, and also don't forget that the main source of information about these "WMDs" came from an Iraqi (and his "groupies") that for years had been seeking for vengence on Saddam (after Saddam put a hit on him) by trying to get the U.S. to invade. Not exactly a trustworthy source, now is it?
And Ahmed Chalabi. Former governing council member. Made up the mobile lab stories which Powell has openly admitted was complete rubbish. Removed from council after allegations of revealing secret information to Iran.
Make your own conclusions. I grow tired of trying to argue this side.
(Eg. The rest of the world is asking "Who the **** do you think you are?")
I'm trying to convince my parents back home to stop referring in his hate speech "Arrogant self-righteous American" but rather "arrogant self-righteous administration".
I don't feel like this is a war for oil at all.
Nor do I think this is a war against terrorist.
It's an election gimmick, preparing Bush for the next term.
Wmds? Half the world have WMDs. Iraq just feel like an easy pick, a humanitarian PR to boost. I'm glad they liberate the people, but I'm sure as hell don't like how they get there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gimmick for election? What? If you lived here maybe you'd think otherwise, had Bush not gone to war with Iraq his reelection would have been assured. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's called backfire.
I realise im leaving this a bit late, and am probably off topic, but what makes you see 'Iraq body count' as 'far left'?
and what exactly does 'the most leftist estimate' really mean in this case?
Is it leftist because it does things in a manner you dissaprove of? or just because of what it does?
iirc every death logged in the site has been subject to a pretty tight cross referancing, so you can take the numbers as reasonably accurate regardless of which side of the political spectrum it might fall under.
War isnt cheap. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While, as I have already stated, that I do't buy the massive-right-wing-conspiracy theroys of the war being solely for oil I would take issue with your statement.
It cost the United States, and as such us taxpayers, more money than the totl worth fo the Iraq oil reserves. However the people who would be making a profit of the importation of this oil, presumably massive corporations, aren't paying the bill. In fact corporations already get all sorts of tax breaks and advantages, so it could be said that the total net strain of the war upon them is less than the average taxpayer. Beyond that, think of the number of companies that are now making a ton of money heling with the rebuilding effort, like Halliburton (remember how they were overcharging us for the gas the supplied our troops after winning the no-bid defense contract?)
Now figure in Cheney's conections to Halliburton, Bush's to the oil industry, and you start to see where this conflict of intersts may lie. Did they act more for the good fo their busness ties, or the good of the nation?
edit: this is a fun little related site...well <i>I</i> thought it was fun at any rate...Plus it has a far more in depth outline of the above mentioned busness ties:
<a href='http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=90056' target='_blank'>http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=90056</a>
I realise im leaving this a bit late, and am probably off topic, but what makes you see 'Iraq body count' as 'far left'?
and what exactly does 'the most leftist estimate' really mean in this case?
Is it leftist because it does things in a manner you dissaprove of? or just because of what it does?
iirc every death logged in the site has been subject to a pretty tight cross referancing, so you can take the numbers as reasonably accurate regardless of which side of the political spectrum it might fall under. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The imagery on the site, the quotes they use, they are associated with www.humanshields.org, etc. I think it's clearly anti-war, particularly their links section. That is why it's leftist.
I linked that site because it is reliable and accurate. I added the prefix "leftist" to further demonstrate that even those with a bias to over-inflate the death toll have reported relatively low numbers.