posted
Riddle me this. Why are gas prices are so high, and expected to go higher, if we are now in control of and useing the Iraqi oil reserve? This being an election year, wouldn't Bush look great if gas prices were back around, say $.98 a gallon? So if the real reason to invade Iraq was oil, as you and others have exhaustingly claimed forever, and Bush has control of the oil, and he will clearly do or say anything to get elected, why not use it to better his image?
posted
Poor planning and execution of the war plan. That and he is actually receiving opposition that he wasn't expecting. I mean, they didn't greet us a liberators. What with that? Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because a lot of the infrastructure was (and still is) damaged, and because Iraq's production, while large, is still small compared with the total production of OPEC and pals.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. It's not like Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton for 8 years, then stepped right into the Vice Presidency, then invaded an oil rich country, and then handed over a trillion dollar contract to Halliburton.
No. This Invasion is all about freedom.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note, I'm not saying this is necessarily going to happen, but just that the current price of oil has very little to do with us having or not having nefarious plans for Iraq's oil.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current price of oil has more to do with Bush not agreeing to supplement the US oil supply with the NSPL and with these mysterious motivations behind the OPEC cuts during a time which they usually RAISE production. One can easily speculate they are cutting to punish us for our percieved imperialistic middle eastern actions.
posted
Ok, I thought that naming a military operation that involves the conquest and military control of Iraq as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was taking hyperbole to its ironic limits, your O.I.L. is even sillier.
PS--Yes, we are working on Iraqi Freedom. That is what the post-war is all about. However, calling the invasion, "Freedom" is like calling a law that sells virgin timber lands a "Save Our Forest Initiative", or a plan that takes money from poor performing schools and gives it to wealthier, good performing schools the "No Child Left Behind" initiative.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Though my post may have appeared to be a shot at Dagonee, that is not necessarily the case.
I think both sides of this issue have become mindless party politics. I mean, there are very valid and verifiable reasons to be critical of this war.
But so much of the anti-war stuff comes across like mindless conspiracy theory, and so much of the pro-war stuff just sounds like republicans raising their shields.
I see a few people raising and discussing the real issues sometimes, but those intelligent conversations get drowned out in the static of "Bush is running a secret cabal of oil companies!" followed by "You can't prove anything! Saddam was a bad man! The war is a righteous one!"
I am firmly on the "this war is a mistake" side, but I don't believe for a second it was a war over oil. Though, clearly, the oil of the region makes the region a hotspot and draws a lot of attention to it.
I think it far more likely that this is a war of cultures, and that Bush is playing the part of texas lawman saying, "Alright, radical islamics, this town ain't big enough for the two of us." I also think he truly believes this is the right thing to do, and his many referrals to god make me think he believes he is in a crusade of sorts.
I believe that this is unfortunate, because it will have the opposite of the intended effect, producing more extremists who want to kill Americans. I believe that the while the war was well planned and well executed, the plan for the country following the war has been a disaster. That is an area that deserves criticism from both sides of the aisle. "Ok, Bush, you won your war. Now what are you going to do?"
Finally, I think nation building is a bad idea from the get go. The resurgence of problems in Afghanistan and the ongoing battles with muslim extremists in Iraq just go to show that this country doesn't have a clue how muslim society works, or how to bring them to democracy without stepping all over their religious toes.
"When politics and religion ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows." - Frank Herbert
Bush is a politician who thinks god is on his side. The Islamics build politics around their religious beliefs. Disaster in the making.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, high crude prices are great for whoever winds up with the rights to Iraq's reserves. We'll see who that ultimately is.
Edit: What I'd like to see is the development and export of crude become a major source of income for the Iraqi government – i.e. I want to see it federalized, not privatized, and certainly not in the hands of international (American, European, or other) interests. I'd also like to see Iraq keep its oil transactions standardized to the Euro, as they are now.
posted
If you're responding to me, Dagonee, I've never pushed this theory, so I don't know what "still" you're talking about.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Riddle me this. Why are gas prices are so high, and expected to go higher, if we are now in control of and useing the Iraqi oil reserve? This being an election year, wouldn't Bush look great if gas prices were back around, say $.98 a gallon? So if the real reason to invade Iraq was oil, as you and others have exhaustingly claimed forever, and Bush has control of the oil, and he will clearly do or say anything to get elected, why not use it to better his image?
Bravo, I don't see how some people can actually try to make the case that this was was about oil, it just shows that their only real argument is that they hate Bush and will say anything they have to to make him look bad or hurt him. A pretty much perfect case in point being the Kerry on the 9/11 investigation committee, all he has done is fawn over Clarke and attack Condi.
Just my thought, and PaladinVirtue's copied and pasted ones.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rhaegar, do your eyes just glaze over when you read the arguments that have a reasonable basis?
I listed several things above that are totally legitimate critiques of Bush's handling of this war.
No, oil is not the only thing that people who are against the war look at. Also, there are a great many reasons to be critical of the war and the administration's handling of it that go beyond "I hate Bush".
If you insist on believing that, you weaken and invalidate your defense of him. Blind party politics is a silly game.
[ April 15, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slash, I don't think RaegerTF's comments adressed any of the legitimate critiques (which do exist) about Bush. As I read it he was echoing my frustration with the "it was all for oil" line that I can't beleive people still cling to.
If it isn't obvious, I support the war and Bush. But I also whole heartedly agree that there are many valid critques of the handling of this war and reconstruction. I really wish that we could move past some of these lesser agruements and address the valid critiques sometimes, and yet, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to which are valid... so here we are.
Afterhtought: And yes I do think it is possible to support a President (and a war) and yet be critical at the same time. Why must it be either, "I blindly support Bush" or "I hate his guts"?
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
But as you seem to agree, very often that's all it is. It seems so mindless to me. Like picking a side and then shutting down your brain.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I blame the media. In an effort to provide more infotainment for the public, our "news" sources always highlight conflicts instead of compromises. People who shout the loudest are not necessarily right, but apparently they get all the ratings.
And we buy it, stupid us. We watch the news and think, wow it really IS "us vs them." Every debate becomes a ideological/culture war (see OSC articles).
I personally support the war, although I thought it was poorly executed. Not thrilled about the way Bush got us into the war, but also not convinced that a Democratic president would've done any better in preventing 9/11.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's almost like we have to root for our team (party) and ignore facts and logic....<sigh> I have to admit that I catch myself getting caught up in it sometimes too though
edit: Y'all have a good weekend, I am off for the next 4 days!
posted
>> Why are gas prices are so high, and expected to go higher, if we are now in control of and useing the Iraqi oil reserve? <<
Because, strangely enough, even if this war was utterly and completely about oil, it would not have affected gas prices by now.
The strongest "it was all about oil" argument is that America wants to put American companies in control of Iraq's oil reserves – which, let me say again, would not necessarily have an impact on the price you pay for gas at the pump.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I am childish and naive, but if I we are decent people, who would never invade a country for such a material reason as oil, is it silly to hope that there are decent people running the country, who perhaps have decently moral arguments?
Besides, I've used this argument before, but once again the oil returns and it becomes applicable again. If this whole thing was about oil, and everybody is now watching closely, it makes it near impossible for anybody to pilfer masses of oil without people finding out and the people behind it being evicted from whatever position of power they hold.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> If this whole thing was about oil, and everybody is now watching closely, it makes it near impossible for anybody to pilfer masses of oil without people finding out and the people behind it being evicted from whatever position of power they hold. <<
Let's say that Halliburton is awarded exclusive rights to a drill and operate sites covering a large portion of Iraq's crude reserves. A lot of people (myself included) will promptly cry "FOUL!" ...but nobody will actually be able to stop Halliburton from drilling and selling the crude. And promptly making an absolute killing.
Oh, and Slash gets 500 points for using a Frank Herbert quote in a contextually and meaningful manner.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My biggest problem with mindless party politics is that they tend to polarize debate rather than fostering it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I opposed the war, because I thought at the time that the justification given for it was invalid, and that Iraq did not pose a threat to America. So I was very pleased with my government's decision not to send troops to Iraq, but to do a lot of work in Afghanistan. However, given that the war has already happened, I don't think America should just pack up and go home, even as I resent the "create a presence on the ground and then we'll have support" strategy.
There certainly wasn't a single reason for this war, but I tend to take a "wait and see" approach when it comes to settling on what I think the Administration's real reasons were, and how they were weighted in terms of importance. I'm hoping for "new sh#@ to come to light," as The Dude would say.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why must it be either, "I blindly support Bush" or "I hate his guts"?
Because, Paladin, that's what Bush SAID: "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
Would it kill Bush to have a coherent foreign policy? We were fighting to stop 9/11, then we were fighting for the Iraqi people, and now we're fighting for...um, the al-Sadr militiamen? The ayatollah? Bush keeps changing his story. It shouldn't be a shock that some begin ascribing impure motives to him. In addition, it seems quite strange that such a wide variety of people, who all have worked for both Democratic and Republican presidents, are coming out against the War in Iraq. I find it difficult to believe that they all simply hate Bush, and that, if this is the case, their hatred is unfounded. You know, conspiracies do happen in the government. The U.S. government is insanely powerful, and there is plenty of potential for people to abuse their powers. Conspiracy is a possibility, and it is perfectly logical to take that possibility into consideration.
And yes, debate has become polarized. While I will not totally blame Bush for this, I can say for certainty that he is not helping.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is its all going to go to snot because no one wants to just finish it all up. No its become unpopular now so the people in the middle will go against it, in my mind its really honestly that simple. The thing is we don't even have anything that comes across as an opposition. Sorry we aren't getting smacked around like the Russians do every time they do a bit of.. ::laughs:: peace keeping.
Anyhow to be honest most people can take an unbiased look on the whole situation, its hard enough for myself being involved. The way I see it is this: It was time for us to simply say go on about your business and we don't care anymore Iraq and basically become a push over nation of sorts, not to mention just say who gives a to a number of things in the world. We went to war with them once and since them have been bombing them every couple of months, I Figure you can only do that so long.
Will America become like most other nations in the past and attempt to make some sort of impact on the world. The thing is so few people have ever tried to manage people who don't want to do something together when they don't like each other. Should we simply sit by and have no impact on the world, should we let things lie as they are and eventually explode out at us, for they simply love and hate the way we live. They honestly do. So many people I met over there wanted to live this life, to have all the little and big things that we had. Something like that breeds a great deal of hate with liking.
The thing is America took the good things, we didn't just produce them. Through the few centuries we have been around we have fought hard enough and been lucky enough not to lose any conflicts and once achieving an industrial base we haven't had it destroyed by some army or another.
Anyhow its honestly coming close to being pointless to making people understand my view point, or heck any other. You simply continously bicker on and on, and then change your views on what the news puts into your face. Though there are many things the news never reports, not that you'll ever judge your decision on those things.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Dag, I was just reacting because I wanted to make sure nobody thought I had been advocating this idea.
If Halliburton or similar (heck, any US company) does get such a deal, I will raise bloody heck though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
