The reasons that we went war...

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://dodgeglobe.com/login.shtml?orq:http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/101904/opinions_101904033.shtml"]click here[/url]

[quote]Cline: Reasons for Iraq war stand the six-pillar test


By Andrew Cline

In the wake of U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer's report concluding that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a re-examination of the case for war made by President Bush is in order.

In the first presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said, "The reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein." Yet before the war, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair consistently stated that Saddam had to be removed from power and that his holding WMD stockpiles was only one reason this must be done.

[b]Bush and his prime ally in the war, Blair, frequently cited intelligence -from the CIA and foreign agencies, including French, German and Russian intelligence services and the United Nations - that indicated Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. How entrenched was the belief that he had WMD? Duelfer notes that three days before the invasion of Iraq - which was three months after Saddam informed his lieutenants that he had no WMD - the United States received word from foreign intelligence sources that Saddam planned to use WMD against coalition troops.[/b]

Nearly everyone believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles. But neither Bush nor Blair rested the case for war entirely on this belief. They based the case for attacking Saddam on six pillars:

[b]o Saddam possessed WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report).

o He had ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).

o He had never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire (confirmed by the United Nations).

o He was engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix).

o He intended to develop additional WMD programs (confirmed by Duelfer).

o Saddam's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. [/b]

In his 2003 State of the Union address, [b]Bush made clear that he believed war was justified even if Saddam was not an immediate threat to the United States: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations will come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."[/b]

This is the essence of the Bush Doctrine, which holds that the United States reserves the right to use military force pre-emptively. That is, the United States can and must act against perceived threats before those threats turn into wounds.

In the first presidential debate, Kerry said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."

Kerry appears to confuse pre-emption with unilateral action. There is a tremendous difference. American presidents always have reserved the right to the unilateral use of force. But the Bush Doctrine represents a new step in that it reserves to this country the right to eliminate a threat that is not, to use Bush's word, "fully" developed.

With respect to Iraq, Bush clearly and repeatedly stated that Saddam must be removed from power [b]before[/b] his regime posed an "imminent" threat to this country and the rest of the world - meaning that action was justified even if he was not directly imperiling the United States with WMD as, say, Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev did in 1962. Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen agreed, as did about 30 other nations that joined the war effort.

Notably, Kerry does not directly dispute the Bush Doctrine itself. In the first debate, he even conceded that America has a right to act pre-emptively (though it is unclear whether he understood what he was saying). Yet he simultaneously says that the absence of WMD in Iraq proves the war was unjustified. One cannot hold both of those positions and remain intellectually consistent.

Under the conditions Bush and Blair laid out before the war, Saddam's pursuit of WMD and his connections to terrorist networks (not to mention his 12-year violation of the gulf war cease-fire) were sufficient grounds for his removal from power - regardless of whether active WMD stockpiles were buried beneath the Iraqi sand.

Remove the WMD pillar that partially upheld the rationale for war, and under the Bush Doctrine the rationale still stands on the remaining five pillars.



Cline is editorial page editor of The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News in Manchester, N.H.[/quote]

i know this is old, but its damn hard to find the transcripts of colon powell to the un... these are the reasons i remember though:

[b]o Saddam possessed WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report).

o He had ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).

o He had never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire (confirmed by the United Nations).

o He was engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix).

o He intended to develop additional WMD programs (confirmed by Duelfer).

o Saddam's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. [/b]

besides the top reason, which was he possessed wmd's, all these others are true... also see the fact that a couple of days before, our intellegence said saddam was going to use chemical weapons on our soldiers...

lets not forget ALL the reasons for war...

[Guest Claptonrocks]

all of your report may or may not be true... just because someone confirms somehting doesnt mean its true....
He's been captured and is going to pay for his crimes.
Its time we got out of Iraq...Too costly...too many lives lost...

[Ben]

[quote name='Claptonrocks' date='May 13 2005, 02:24 PM']all of your report may or may not be true... just because someone confirms somehting doesnt mean its true....
He's been captured and is going to pay for his crimes.
Its time we got out of Iraq...Too costly...too many lives lost...
[right][post="92022"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I call bullshit on reasons we went to war. But, no way we can leave now. Ever hear the phrase, "You break it, you buy it"? US Soldiers are the only thing keeping peace there right now. US troops pull out and the war lords will start a battle royale for control.

[Guest bengalrick]

it would be much more costly (in the long run) if we leave now... but i feel that we will have limited soldiers in iraq, in the near future... we have to get the iraqi police up and running, then i agree... lets come home...

one question, b/c and i have no idea your political stance, but how come we can all agree that there aren't wmd's (which was confirmed by the dalfur report/ 9/11 report) but we can't take confirmations fo things being true? that makes no sense to me...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' date='May 13 2005, 02:28 PM']I call bullshit on reasons we went to war. But, no way we can leave now.  Ever hear the phrase, "You break it, you buy it"?  US Soldiers are the only thing keeping peace there right now.  US troops pull out and the war lords will start a battle royale for control.
[right][post="92023"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

you don't remember these reasons being presented before the war?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Claptonrocks' date='May 13 2005, 03:24 PM']all of your report may or may not be true... just because someone confirms somehting doesnt mean its true....
He's been captured and is going to pay for his crimes.
[b]Its time we got out of Iraq...Too costly...too many lives lost...[/b]
[right][post="92022"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I cant believe people are so short sighted .... we have to finish this, getting out now would give the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, not just Iraq just cause to hate us and just cause to rally against us in the future. Doing the good work that is going on there that isnt getting reported is whats going to help us have better relations with these countries in the future. It helped us with Germany post WW2, it helped us with Japan post WW2.

I for one dont want to have a country that goes to war on any pretence and then doesnt stay to help clean it up.

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 13 2005, 02:29 PM']you don't remember these reasons being presented before the war?
[right][post="92025"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

no... I'm not saying reasons were not given. I'm just saying that the truth was bent a little(sometimes a lot) here and there to make a case. The reasons being stated now(freedom, democracy, free funnel cakes) are not what was presented to us. But I will give the pres the benefit of the doubt and just assume it was bad intelligence.

[Ben]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 13 2005, 02:31 PM']I cant believe people are so short sighted .... we have to finish this, getting out now would give the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, not just Iraq just cause to hate us and just cause to rally against us in the future.

I for one dont want to have a country that goes to war on any pretence and then doesnt stay to help clean it up.
[right][post="92026"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I have to agree w/ you on this. America is not looked at the most postive light by that regioin. And after we abonded the kurds in the first golf war, doing it again would just reinforce their beliefs.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' date='May 13 2005, 02:33 PM']no... I'm not saying reasons were not given.  I'm just saying that the truth was bent a little(sometimes a lot) here and there to make a case.  The reasons being stated now(freedom, democracy, free funnel cakes) are not what was presented to us.  But I will give the pres the benefit of the doubt and just assume it was bad intelligence.
[right][post="92027"][/post][/right][/quote]

free funnel cakes... those sound pretty good...

i don't know if facts were bent to make a case... reguardless, i think it was the right decision, and am glad we went... i hope we can get out soon, but only after the job is done...

[Guest #22]

[quote]The reasons that we went war..., all of the reasons..[/quote]
[img]http://www.arb.ca.gov/training/images/OilProduction.jpg[/img]
I don't think it gets any simpler than that

[Ben]

You know i'm pretty liberal in a lot of my thinking (except money....i get taxed way to much). But i dont buy into the Oil thing. I'm sure it was definately high on the list, but we dont get that high of a percentage from iraq. Most of the gas prices are manipulated by the refineries in the US anyway. BTW, i thought the oil was suppose to pay for the reconstruction efforts? wtf happened?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='#22' date='May 13 2005, 03:37 PM'][img]http://www.arb.ca.gov/training/images/OilProduction.jpg[/img]
I don't think it gets any simpler than that
[right][post="92032"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


*Sigh*


[url="http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-iraqoil01.html"]http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-iraqoil01.html[/url]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='#22' date='May 13 2005, 02:37 PM'][img]http://www.arb.ca.gov/training/images/OilProduction.jpg[/img]
I don't think it gets any simpler than that
[right][post="92032"][/post][/right][/quote]

i guess we fucked up then:
[img]http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/Gas-2-28-04Marin.JPG[/img]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 13 2005, 03:41 PM']*Sigh*
[url="http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-iraqoil01.html"]http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-iraqoil01.html[/url]
[right][post="92034"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


For those that dont want to click the link....

[quote]If the looming war was all about oil, Iraq would be invaded by the European Union, or Japan - whose dependence on Middle Eastern oil is far greater than the United States'. The USA would have, probably, taken over Venezuela, a much larger and proximate supplier with its own emerging tyrant to boot.

At any rate, the USA refrained from occupying Iraq when it easily could have, in 1991. Why the current American determination to conquer the desert country and subject it to direct rule, at least initially?

There is another explanation, insist keen-eyed analysts.

September 11 shredded the American sense of invulnerability. That the hijackers were all citizens of ostensible allies - such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia - exposed the tenuous and ephemeral status of US forces in the Gulf. So, is the war about transporting American military presence from increasingly hostile Saudis to soon-to-be subjugated Iraqis?

But this is a tautology. If America's reliance on Middle Eastern oil is non-existent - why would it want to risk lives and squander resources in the region at all? Why would it drive up the price of oil it consumes with its belligerent talk and coalition-building? Why would it fritter away the unprecedented upswell of goodwill that followed the atrocities in September 2001?

Back to oil. According to British Petroleum's Statistical Review of World Energy 2002, the United States voraciously - and wastefully - consumes one of every four barrels extracted worldwide. It imports about three fifths of its needs. In less than eleven years' time, its reserves depleted, it will be forced to import all of its soaring requirements.

Middle Eastern oil accounts for one quarter of America's imports. Iraqi crude for less than one tenth. A back of the envelope calculation reveals that Iraq quenches less than 6 percent of America's Black Gold cravings. Compared to Canada (15 percent of American oil imports), or Mexico (12 percent) - Iraq is a negligible supplier. Furthermore, the current oil production of the USA is merely 23 percent of its 1985 peak - about 2.4 million barrels per day, a 50-years nadir.

During the first eleven months of 2002, the United States imported an average of 449,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) from Iraq. In January 2003, with Venezuela in disarray, approximately 1.2 million bbl/d of Iraqi oil went to the Americas (up from 910,000 bbl/d in December 2002 and 515,000 bbl/d in November).

It would seem that $200 billion - the costs of war and postbellum reconstruction - would be better spent on America's domestic oil industry. Securing the flow of Iraqi crude is simply too insignificant to warrant such an exertion.

Much is made of Iraq's known oil reserves, pegged by the Department of Energy at 112 billion barrels, or five times the United States' - not to mention its 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Even at 3 million barrels per day - said to be the realistically immediate target of the occupying forces and almost 50 percent above the current level - this subterranean stash stands to last for more than a century.

Add to that the proven reserves of its neighbors - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates - and there is no question that the oil industry of these countries will far outlive their competitors'. Couldn't this be what the rapacious Americans are after? - wonder genteel French and Russian oilmen. After all, British and American companies controlled three quarters of Iraq's mineral wealth until 1972 when nationalization denuded them.

Alas, this "explanation" equally deflates upon closer inspection. Known - or imagined - reserves require investments in exploration, development and drilling. Nine tenths of Iraq's soil are unexplored, including up to 100 billion barrels of deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert. Of the 73 fields discovered - only 15 have been developed. Iraq's Oil Minister, Amir Rashid, admitted in early 2002 that only 24 Iraqi oil fields were producing.

The country has almost no deep wells, preponderant in Iran, for instance. Though the cost of production is around $1-1.5 per barrel, one tenth the cost elsewhere - while Texas boasts 1,000,000 drilled wells, Iraq barely sports 2000. The Department of Energy's report about Iraq concludes:

"Iraq generally has not had access to the latest, state-of-the-art oil industry technology (i.e., 3D seismic), sufficient spare parts, and investment in general throughout most of the 1990s, but has instead reportedly been utilizing questionable engineering techniques (i.e., overpumping, water injection/"flooding") and old technology to maintain production."

The quality of Iraqi oil deteriorated considerably in the recent decade. Its average API gravity declined by more than 10 percent, its water cut (intrusion of water into oil reservoirs) increased and its sulfur content shot up by one third. The fields date back to the 1920s and 1930s and were subjected to abusive methods of extraction. Thus, if torched during a Gotterdammerung - they may well be abandoned altogether.

According to a report published by the United Nations two years ago, Iraqi oil production is poised to fall off a cliff unless billions are invested in addressing technical and infrastructural problems. Even destitute Iraq forks out $1.2 billion annually on repairing oil facilities.

The Council of Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute estimated, in December last year, that the "costs of repairing existing oil export installations alone would be around $5 billion, while restoring Iraqi oil production to pre-1990 levels would cost an additional $5 billion, plus $3 billion per year in annual operating costs".

Not to mention the legal quagmire created by the plethora of agreements signed by the soon to be deposed regime with European, Indian, Turkish and Chinese oil behemoths. It would be years before Iraqi crude in meaningful quantities hits the markets and then only after tens of billions of dollars have been literally sunk into the ground. Not a very convincing business plan.

Conspiracy theorists dismiss such contravening facts impatiently. While the costs, they expound wearily, will accrue to the American taxpayer, the benefits will be reaped by the oil giants, the true sponsors of president Bush, his father, his vice-president and his secretary of defense. In short, the battle in Iraq has been spun by a cabal of sinister white males out to attain self-enrichment through the spoils of war.

The case for the prosecution is that, cornered by plummeting prices, the oil industry in America had spent the last ten years defensively merging and acquiring in a frantic pace. America's twenty-two major energy companies reported overall net income of a mere $7 billion on revenues of $141 billion during the second quarter of last year. Only forty five percent of their profits resulted from domestic upstream oil and natural gas production operations.

Tellingly, foreign upstream oil and natural gas production operations yielded two fifths of net income and worldwide downstream natural gas and power operations made up the rest. Stagnant domestic refining capacity forces US firms to joint venture with outsiders to refine and market products.

Moreover, according to the energy consultancy, John S. Herold, replacement costs - of finding new reserves - have soared in 2001 to above $5 per barrel. Except in the Gulf where oil is sometimes just 600 meters deep and swathes of land are immersed in it. In short: American oil majors are looking abroad for their long-term survival. Iraq always featured high on their list.

This stratagem was subverted by the affaire between Saddam Hussein and non-American oil companies. American players shudder at the thought of being excluded from Iraq by Saddam and his semipternal dynasty and thus rendered second-tier participants.

According to the conspiracy minded, they coaxed the White House first to apply sanctions to the country in order to freeze its growing amity with foreign competitors - and, now, to retake by force that which was confiscated from them by law. Development and production contracts with Russian and French companies, signed by Saddam Hussein's regime, are likely to be "reviewed" - i.e., scrapped altogether - by whomever rules over Baghdad next.

An added bonus: the demise of OPEC. A USA in control of the Iraqi spigot can break the back of any oil cartel and hold sway over impertinent and obdurate polities such as France. How would the ensuing plunge in prices help the alleged instigators of the war - the oil mafia - remains unclear. Still, James Paul propounded the following exercise in the Global Policy Forum this past December:

"(Assuming) the level of Iraqi reserves at 250 billion barrels and recovery rates at 50% (both very conservative estimates). Under those conditions, recoverable Iraqi oil would be worth altogether about $3.125 trillion. Assuming production costs of $1.50 a barrel (a high-end figure), total costs would be $188 billion, leaving a balance of $2.937 trillion as the difference between costs and sales revenues. Assuming a 50/50 split with the government and further assuming a production period of 50 years, the company profits per year would run to $29 billion. That huge sum is two-thirds of the $44 billion total profits earned by the world’s five major oil companies combined in 2001. If higher assumptions are used, annual profits might soar to as much as $50 billion per year."

The energy behemoths on both sides of the pond are not oblivious to this bonanza. The Financial Times reported a flurry of meetings in recent days between British Petroleum and Shell and Downing Street and Whitehall functionaries. Senior figures in the ramshackle exile Iraqi National Congress opposition have been openly consorting with American oil leviathans and expressly promising to hand postwar production exclusively to them.

But the question is: even if true, so what? What war in human history was not partly motivated by a desire for plunder? What occupier did not seek to commercially leverage its temporary monopoly on power? When were moral causes utterly divorced from realpolitik?

Granted, there is a thin line separating investment from exploitation, order from tyranny, vision from fantasy. The United States should - having disposed of the murderous Saddam Hussein and his coterie - establish a level playing field and refrain from giving Iraq a raw deal.

It should use this tormented country's natural endowments to reconstruct it and make it flourish. It should encourage good governance, including transparent procurement and international tendering and invite the United Nations to oversee Iraq's reconstruction. It should induce other countries of the world to view Iraq as a preferred destination of foreign direct investment and trade.

If, in the process, reasonable profits accrue to business - all for the better. Only the global private sector can guarantee the long-term prosperity of Iraq. Many judge the future conduct of the USA on the basis of speculative scenarios and fears that it is on the verge of attaining global dominance by way of ruthlessly applying its military might. This may well be so. But to judge it on this flimsy basis alone is to render verdict both prematurely and unjustly.[/quote]

[Guest LoyalFanInGA]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 13 2005, 03:18 PM'][url="http://dodgeglobe.com/login.shtml?orq:http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/101904/opinions_101904033.shtml"]click here[/url]
i know this is old, but its damn hard to find the transcripts of colon powell to the un... these are the reasons i remember though:

[b]o Saddam possessed WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report).

o He had ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).

o He had never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire (confirmed by the United Nations).

o He was engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix).

o He intended to develop additional WMD programs (confirmed by Duelfer).

o Saddam's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. [/b]

besides the top reason, which was he possessed wmd's, all these others are true... also see the fact that a couple of days before, our intellegence said saddam was going to use chemical weapons on our soldiers...

lets not forget ALL the reasons for war...
[right][post="92017"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
1) possessed WMD, debatable depending upon your sources or own personal opinion

2)ties to terrorists, agreed, but dig deep enough and what Middle Eastern leader doesn't?

3)never abided by cease-fire agreement, agreed

4)pattern of deception, agreed

5)additional WMD programs planned, debatable depending upon sources cited

6)initiate democracy in the Middle East, Oh boy...this one is a quagmire, agreed, it would initiate the process but the level of corruption (based solely upon my interactions with the Iraqi people and through their own opinions) it will take 1, 2, or maybe even 3 generations for it to take seed and hopefully flourish in Iraq; secondly, while I believe democracy is the best form of government, I wouldn't wish to live under any other form, and I have done my part to protect and preserve it as a way of life...it isn't for every culture (you guys are going to rake me over the coals on this one)...the people have to want it...time will tell when we aren't there looking over their shoulders...I am guardedly optimistic

So that's four pillars...enough to hold up a table...or an argument if you wish. But the impression I got was WMD, WMD, and more WMD. But I was sitting on their border listening to a BBC news report every 3 hours and receiving military intelligence briefings, warning orders, operation orders, and preparing for an invasion. Not exactly what I would categorize as an unbiased source of information.

[Guest BadassBengal]

iraqi freedom or whatever the war was called = dumb

[Storm]

Without a doubt, Oil is the biggest reason we had to remove Saddam, one thing people fail to realize is that a madman was in control of the oil and the [b]profits[/b] from it, if Saddam could have obtained and used a nuclear weapon against us with the profits from that oil then he would have! The world is a safer place without a rich oil tycoon who also has a hatred for the US

[Guest bengaljet]

What I remember was:
1. WMD's,WMD'S,WMD'S that Saddam had
2. No WMD'S found ,atrocities by Saddam(atrocities everywhere-starvation,murder all over the world)
3. by-product of going to war-Iraqis vote(far from WMD's)
4. last 1 heard was to protect Israel(let Israel go and they'll protect themselves)

Richard Clark testified(in front of the Senate or House) that this administration wanted Saddam as soon as it took over. Clark was attacked,but has written a book about his time in the administration and don't think they proved him to be a liar. In fact I remember seeing a report that stated that he was credible and did NOT lie at the hearings.

Hitler in the bunker in Berlin.Allied forces should have got to the outskirts of Berlin and went after another leader of the Axis Powers. Bin Laden still roams and Saddam had what to do with 9/11? Bin Laden still roams....

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Storm' date='May 13 2005, 06:23 PM']Without a doubt, Oil is the biggest reason we had to remove Saddam, one thing people fail to realize is that a madman was in control of the oil and the [b]profits[/b] from it, if Saddam could have obtained and used a nuclear weapon against us with the profits from that oil then he would have!  The world is a safer place without a rich oil tycoon who also has a hatred for the US
[right][post="92086"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Wow did you not even read through the 1st paragraph?!?

[quote]If the looming war was all about oil, Iraq would be invaded by the European Union, or Japan - whose dependence on Middle Eastern oil is far greater than the United States'. [b]The USA would have, probably, taken over Venezuela, a much larger and proximate supplier with its own emerging tyrant to boot.[/b][/quote]

If its about oil tyrants, why didnt we go into Venezuela??


Because A... its not about oil, ....B...its not about oil...and C...its not about oil

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 13 2005, 06:59 PM']Wow did you not even read through the 1st paragraph?!?
If its about oil tyrants, why didnt we go into Venezuela??
Because A... its not about oil, ....B...its not about oil...and C...its not about oil

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]
[right][post="92109"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I'm glad it's not about the oil cause if it were we might be paying $2.00+/gal. Oil is the only industry that has flourished under w. 1970's gas lines are tied to Jimmy Carter,when gas prices went up under Clinton-he caught all kinds of hell from the right.But......now we pay $2.00+ and nobody blames anyone-it's just the way it is. Oilmen are making a killing and it only costs you $2.00+/gal.
A friend of mine had an oil rig and worked it all his life.He knows the oil business(a Bush backer)and says they could be making good money @ $30.00/barrel-last I knew it's about $50/barrel. Record profits for US oil Companies. Coincidence -I doubt it,but you believe what you hear.Don't look at recent history or the numbers-Math is HARD WORK.

[TheBZ]

Just because there hasn't been an assault on Venezuela doesn't mean that it's NOT about oil.

The difference is...The American public could be cajoled into supporting an attack on Iraq; while it's not such an easy task to portray Venezuela as a dangerous country.

As for the emerging tyrant there...It's pretty standard procedure to label a 'tyrant' when you're trying to manipulate public opinion and garner support.

BTW...Did I mention that Venezuela is the other country that is toying with taking Euros for Oil, instead of American Dollars? I wonder why U.S. policy would be starting to take aim at them?

Anyways...I would like to rephrase a bit, because saying it's about oil is over-simplifying. To me, it appears to be more about currency values and keeping control of regions that fulfill resource needs. All things necessary to keep an Empire afloat.

In the end, Iraq was an easy mark...They didn't have the weapons to put up a great fight, and there was so much dirty work done there over the last 30 years that everyone could be portrayed as a bad guy.

I don't see the United States showing the same 'zeal' now that Iran and North Korea are rearing there ugly heads...But the fact is that Iran would be 5 X more difficult to deal with than Iraq. North Korea even more difficult than that.

It's a big chess game out there, and these other players (including the EU) are using the Iraq occupation to position themselves and draw the U.S. into making bad deals.

Eventually, one of this OIL for EUROS deals are going to go through, and the balance of power will drastically change. The only hope is the continued marriage with Saudi Arabia.

I wonder what would happen if Canada started to take Euros for Oil and Natural Gas? I'm sure we would be labeled a socialist 'Regime' in no time flat.

BZ

[TheBZ]

As to why gas prices haven't been lowered by the control of Iraq...That is more a matter of supply and demand. We are simply going through more oil than can be reasonably produced.

However...It should be noted that for some time the U.S. was able to have a voice/vote with OPEC through their control of Iraq's resources, and I'm sure the money made through the control of those oil-fields went right back into the pockets of the American people.

Or did it go to the huge companies that are cleaning up over there?

To me, it seems like your own government is selling you gas, and taxing you twice.

Hmmmm....

BZ

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='TheBZ' date='May 13 2005, 09:33 PM']Just because there hasn't been an assault on Venezuela doesn't mean that it's NOT about oil.

The difference is...The American public could be cajoled into supporting an attack on Iraq; while it's not such an easy task to portray Venezuela as a dangerous country.

As for the emerging tyrant there...It's pretty standard procedure to label a 'tyrant' when you're trying to manipulate public opinion and garner support.

BTW...Did I mention that Venezuela is the other country that is toying with taking Euros for Oil, instead of American Dollars? I wonder why U.S. policy would be starting to take aim at them?

Anyways...I would like to rephrase a bit, because saying it's about oil is over-symplifying. To me, it appears to be more about currency values and keeping control of regions that fulfill resource needs. All things necessary to keep an Empire afloat.

In the end, Iraq was an easy mark...They didn't have the weapons to put up a great fight, and there was so much dirty work done there over the last 30 years that everyone could be portrayed as a bad guy.

I don't see the United States showing the same 'zeal' now that Iran and North Korea are rearing there ugly heads...But the fact is that Iran would be 5 X more difficult to deal with than Iraq. North Korea even more difficult than that.

It's a big chess game out there, and these other players (including the EU) are using the Iraq occupation to position themselves and draw the U.S. into making bad deals.

Eventually, one of this OIL for EUROS deals are going to go through, and the balance of power will drastically change. The only hope is the continued marriage with Saudi Arabia.

I wonder what would happen if Canada started to take Euros for Oil and Natural Gas? I'm sure we would be labeled a socialist 'Regime' in no time flat.

BZ
[right][post="92159"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
A. You ALREADY are socialist! (to a degree, and minus the regime part)
B. We are showing equal zeal towards Iran and N Korea...shit, we've had troops across the DMZ in Korea since the 1950's!! Didn't we give Saddam the diplomatic benefit of the doubt for a considerable amount of time before we acted, even against UN "Security Council" (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) wishes? 9-11 only accelerated the timetable. Saddam had his chances but kept openly thumbing his nose at the UN (while simultaneously fattening his treasury during the so-called sanctions that showed a HUGE corruption scandal within the UN, all the way to Annan, and while he murdered opposing races/religions/dissenters by the tens of thousands, shot at our planes enforcing the "no fly zone" that HE agreed to after the FIRST fucking war...and NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE UN (that would be the "United NAtions", as in, a multi-nation group that has agreed on something) DEMANDS that he "show what he's got"?)
All Saddam did was engage in what he thought was a clever cat-and-mouse game, banking on his UN connections, a toothless set of sanctions/orders for compliance, and his perceived USA weakness. Boy, did he bet on the wrong horse!
C. Iran is tough. Recall that a simliar situation existed in the 1970's, and Israel bombed Iran's developing reactors into rubble. We can't/don't control Israel and when they perceive a threat, they ACT, because they die by the hundreds due to religious differences with EVERY one of their neighbors EVERY DAY. I expect a similar response from Israel this time around, unless Iran can prove TO THE WORLD that it's nuclear aspirations are for electricity ONLY...

It must be nice to sit up there in relatively unspoiled, unpopulated Canada knowing the USA would rush to your aid whenever it was required...because you're our friend to the North...but Canadians apparently think it's vogue to take potshots at the USA. But let's be real here...you guys up there have a great country and you're our friend, but you're basically militarily defenseless...what if the terrorists had their sights set on YOU? How would your limited military/national security resources deal with it? Would you ask for our help? Do you think we'd provide it? Of course we would, because you're our friends. We would do the same for just about any nation friendly to us.

I want the USA and the world to focus their collectively vast global resources on ENFORCING UN AGREEMENTS with regards to humanitarian aid, terrorism and protecting the rights of people across the globe, cultural differences notwithstanding.

I agree with the many that say Iran and N Korea are threats, alarmingly so. However, every situation is different and should be dealt with accordingly. And it is being dealt with. We are in diplomatic stages with both countries right now. Failing diplomacy, action will be taken.

OK, I rambled quite a bit in my English Pale Ale way, but I hope I'm understood...

[Guest BadassBengal]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='May 13 2005, 11:38 PM']It must be nice to sit up there in relatively unspoiled, unpopulated Canada knowing the USA would rush to your aid whenever it was required...because you're our friend to the North...but Canadians apparently think it's vogue to take potshots at the USA.  But let's be real here...you guys up there have a great country and you're our friend, but you're basically militarily defenseless...what if the terrorists had their sights set on YOU?  How would your limited military/national security resources deal with it?  Would you ask for our help?  Do you think we'd provide it?  Of course we would, because you're our friends.  We would do the same for just about any nation friendly to us.


[right][post="92178"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I can't think of a reason why anyone would try to take over/attack Canada... except for free hockey tickets possibly, and beavers.... but since the NHL went down and all, even that won't work...but the beavers will still be up there...

[Jamie_B]

Well said Bung.