good iraq article

[august spies]

This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads Or Human Rights: It's About Oil

by Robert Fisk
The Independent
January 18, 2


I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan – the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan – sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said.

Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this – and this alone – explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production – the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates – compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?

Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 – just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents – didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s.

Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents – only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Centre dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity.

A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon – who had all along backed Saddam – and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 – concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad – gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights?

Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men – most involved in the oil business – created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf – and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power".

The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department – who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence, currently chairman of the defence science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan – where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory – and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for – you guessed it – Iraq.

The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal. Abrams it was who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre – to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war – the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (ie oil) in the Gulf – was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips.

In fact, I'm getting heartily sick of hearing the Second World War being dug up yet again to justify another killing field. It's not long ago that Bush was happy to be portrayed as Churchill standing up to the appeasement of the no-war-in Iraq brigade. In fact, Bush's whole strategy with the odious and Stalinist-style Korea regime – the "excellent" talks which US diplomats insist they are having with the Dear Leader's Korea which very definitely does have weapons of mass destruction – reeks of the worst kind of Chamberlain-like appeasement. Even though Saddam and Bush deserve each other, Saddam is not Hitler. And Bush is certainly no Churchill. But now we are told that the UN inspectors have found what might be the vital evidence to go to war: 11 empty chemical warheads that just may be 20 years old.

The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that.

 

[Texas_Tickle]

This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads Or Human Rights: It's About Oil

Correct. It's only about the oil. Think about it. Where did President Bush and his dear ol' dad make their family fortune?

The oil business of course. They need to protect their fellow oil tycoons, even at the expense of American soliders and civilains.

Would we have given a rat's ass what happened to Kuwait 10 years ago, if billions upon billions of galleons of Mid-East oil was on the line? No, of course not.

19 of the 20 hi-jackers came from Saudia Arabia. Why are they not on the "Axis of Evil"? Why is there no out-cry against them?

Simple. We are already recieving oil from them. As a matter of fact, 40% of our crude oil imports come from Saudi.

China has had gross persecutions of civilians and tortuers the "rebels" and does their best to squelch any opposition.

Why are they not on the "Axis of Evil"?

 

[ShiningIce]

Damn August where the hell have you been this forum needed you.

 

[kurchatovium]

Oh why do I get into these things ....sigh...

Let me answer a few things:

1) We don't go to war with the Saudis because the Sheikdom is among the more friendly states in the Arab world toward the US. Osama and some of his buddies are from Saudia Arabia but they basically are a splinter group who want to see the end of the Sheikdoms and the establishment of a muslim theocracy.

2) We don't got to war with China even though I agree they are a big human rights violator because China has lots of soldiers and lots of bombs and already some nuclear weapons. Can you say World War 3? Thats why we don't do it the battle would be far too bloody and the cost of lives too high.

3) One reason to protect Kuwait and Saudia Arabia was to kick Iraq out. These are both Sheikdoms and therefore are more ameniable to the US. If these places were theocracies or under Iraq's control then the money raised from oil sales would add to either Al quaeda or to Iraq's desire for weaponry.

4) To some extent since we are such a large energy consumer the Arabs need to sell oil to us to make money. It is not in their interest to shut us off. They want money. We want oil. I don't really get this arguement that this whole thing is over oil. They are selling us oil now, lots of it. If Iraq didn't sell us any would it matter. I doubt it. The real question is not oil. The real question is regional stability. Stability means Arab regimes that we can at least talk to like Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and such. If those areas that become unstable are from oil producing states then yes there is problem. Not so much from oil but from the money they would use to fund things against the US. I'm not worried about Exxon making another gazillion dollars. I am worried about Saddam getting his hands on a suitcase nuclear arm or making another 6000 gallons of anthrax.

 

[august spies]

u didnt seem to concerned when bush was giving him the anthrax,

hence it has nothing to do with anthrax or chemical weapons or al queda.

as somone pointed out al queadas main base of support comes from saudi arabia, a brutal monarchy with taliban like restrictions.

is it about oil? of course it is. Its a misconception that people sell us oil, almost all oil, except for that of iraq is under US control, the us needs to control iraqi oil. yes the us puppet regime in post war iraq would sell us oil, but the money goes to as u pointed out exxon, and the us puppet elite. not the iraqis (does saddam give oil money to iraqis now? no, so dont bring it up as a conter argument because i dont support him) it would be like whats going on in nigeria. lots of oil, lots of poverty, lots of rich exxonies, lots of rich corrupt us puppet government buerocrats.

this isnt the way to run a foreign policy.

the scariest thing for bush would be to have a democratic iraq where oil wealth was shared amoungs the people of the region and not his oil company.

 

[MadKalnod]

If Bush is so Evil-with-a-capital-E that you think he'd start a war over getting control of Middle Eastern oil, then why doesn't he simply ignore Saddam's misbehavior (as you never tire of pointing out that the U.S. did in the past) and buy it? The oil industry (Bush's supposed "secret masters" in your mastabatory Anti-American fantasies) has been pressuring the Bush administration to drop the sanctions and all this talk of hostility because threats of military action are driving the price of oil up, not down. If the bottom line is his only concern, then the smart businessman would simply buy the oil from Iraq, because a war would cost more money in materiel and rebuilding than they could hope to make.

In fact, if oil was all Bush wanted, and was bent on using the U.S. Military to get it, why bother with Iraq at all? The cheaper, easier solution is to take our troops already in Iraq and Kuwait (which, I should point out, are still there at the specific request of the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to prevent Iraq from invading them) and simply declare victory. The Saudi and Kuwaiti militaries are utterly useless, which is why they asked us to defend them, and we could march into Riyadh, plant the Stars and Stripes in Mecca, declare it the 51st state, and there isn't a thing the Saudi royal family could do to stop us. Heck, you're quick to point out that Saudi Arabia is the really evil nation, so aren't you supportive of military action towrd the House of Saud?

Make no mistake, I'm just some geek on an Internet Fetish board; but if I've thought that out then you can bet the people with the power to put such plans in action have figured it out. But we haven't done that, have we? I wonder why. Maybe this isn't some Goldfinger scheme to dominate the oil business after all. Maybe there is something to the argument that it's about draining the fever swamps where tyrants and terrorists breed.

But you haven't figured it out, have you Augie? Not when it's so much easier to keep imagining that you're some brave revolutionary for posting this stuff on a Tickling Fetish forum. (Really, I have to ask: Are you even a tickle fetishist? You've never posted anything but Anti-American rants as far as I've seen. Or do you also do this to football groups and knitting boards and any other random Internet community you come across?) Not when it feels so good to keep telling yourself that every one with more wealth or success than you is an evil, soul-drinking abomination. Not when it's so much more satisfying to fantasize about tearing down all those oppressive corporations and governments and authority figures like your parents and anybody else who expects you to get a haircut and a real job and stop spending all your time in the basement writing angry manifestoes while pleasuring yourself over Phil Donohue's interview with Michael Moore.

But go right ahead, Augie. Keep frothing away, as you're doing more to promote support for the coming war than anything I could say. As Neitzche wrote: "Sometimes one continues to support a cause for no other reason than that its opponents do not cease to be insipid." Or, as Dave Barry put it: "The main accomplishment of almost all organized protests is to annoy people who are not in them."

 

[Texas_Tickle]

If Bush is so Evil-with-a-capital-E that you think he'd start a war over getting control of Middle Eastern oil, then why doesn't he simply ignore Saddam's misbehavior (as you never tire of pointing out that the U.S. did in the past) and buy it? The oil industry (Bush's supposed "secret masters" in your mastabatory Anti-American fantasies) QUOTE]

That's another thing. It seems that anybody who disagrees with Bush on any topic, is an "un-American traitor".

Hitler himself engaged in the act of killing those who disagreed with him.

Just because one may disagree with Bush, does not automatically make him an "Un-American".

I am just as American as anybody else.....I am just not going to sit by and "tow the line", being afraid to speak my mind out of fear of being labeled "a traitor".

 

[ShiningIce]

But you haven't figured it out, have you Augie? Not when it's so much easier to keep imagining that you're some brave revolutionary for posting this stuff on a Tickling Fetish forum. (Really, I have to ask: Are you even a tickle fetishist? You've never posted anything but Anti-American rants as far as I've seen. Or do you also do this to football groups and knitting boards and any other random Internet community you come across?) Not when it feels so good to keep telling yourself that every one with more wealth or success than you is an evil, soul-drinking abomination. Not when it's so much more satisfying to fantasize about tearing down all those oppressive corporations and governments and authority figures like your parents and anybody else who expects you to get a haircut and a real job and stop spending all your time in the basement writing angry manifestoes while pleasuring yourself over Phil Donohue's interview with Michael Moore.

But go right ahead, Augie. Keep frothing away, as you're doing more to promote support for the coming war than anything I could say. As Neitzche wrote: "Sometimes one continues to support a cause for no other reason than that its opponents do not cease to be insipid." Or, as Dave Barry put it: "The main accomplishment of almost all organized protests is to annoy people who are not in them."

Now whos frothing? 🙄 Jesus Mad one do yourself a favor and stick to sci-fi posts.

 

[kurchatovium]

Here is in a nutshell the whole problem I have with the oil thing:

Twelve years ago people claimed that Bush's father was going to war for oil and greed. Funny how that plan didn't seem to work to their satisfaction. I wonder why? Is it because you can't make money when Iraq's oil has sanctions on it?

Well, since we know from desert Storm that Saddam would try and destroy his oil wells, dump oil in rivers, and ruin any other oil related infrastructure he has. The cost of going to war is and having to clean up the environmental mess and then rebuild the wells and other infrastructure is going to be considerable. Plus this does not include any other messes created by what WMD's that he might use during the war.

If Bush and his family and partners wanted to get rich off of Iraq's oil so bad then all that Bush would have to do is ignore the sanctions, or tell the public that Iraq is now off the bad guy list, and are now an ally, because they are in full compliance. (which would be easy to do since it is us who are enforcing the sanctions,), and just go ahead and conduct oil business with Saddam through new agreements and contracts. That would be the cleanest way to make a profit.

Another point is that Iraq is so stupid that all they had to do to sell oil so that they could make the country better with oil money is cooperate with us. We would have been glad to buy oil from them. This is just another indication of how dedicated Saddam is to get WMD's.

Another point would be if the Bush Family and partner's want to get rich off of Middle East oil by using the military, then just take over most of the Middle East, not just Iraq. There is literally no one who can stop us from doing it and we had all the reasons (excuses) for doing so. All the countries are over run with religious fanatics and they all are supported by oil money. After which there would be two options. Sell Middle east oil as their own or close off the Middle east oil completely from sales and sell American oil at a high price.

And another reason that the war for oil ideal is wrong is that right now Bush does not want to tank the economy. The last year oil prices have risen (Bush should have profited off that too!) just due to uncertainty of war. Higher oil prices will not help the economic situation and Bush could be unelected like his father was due to economic strains. What do you think Bush could get off of the war for oil scenario $100,000,000 to $500,000,000? How much bigger of a ranch could he get? Bush is already wealthy if he wanted to live on a larger ranch he could have already bought one. People would be willing to spend that kind of money to become President (Ross Perot).

Bush's friends are wealthy too. If Bush wanted to find ways for them to profit he could find easier less open methods to get them more money than by a war scenario. Besides, the Presidency is something that falls under the category of priceless, and I believe most Presidents want to do well in office from a historical viewpoint.

Some of these points may have been made by others as well on this forum but I thought a synopsis is nice.

 

[MadKalnod]

Now whos frothing? 🙄 Jesus Mad one do yourself a favor and stick to sci-fi posts.

I'm not frothing, I'm mocking. If Augie (or anyone else, for that matter) is so self-righteous that he can't take being laughed at, that's not only his problem but a clear sign that I'm hitting close to the bone.

As for Ticklemaster750's point, I never said that the act of disagreeing with Bush automatically makes you an Anti-American traitor. However, from reading many of Augie's posts, I get the impression that A: He condemns America as reflexively and involuntarily as breathing, and B: He does so because he believes that portraying America as the focus of all evil in the universe makes him far more intelligent, sophisticated, and moral than the rest of us imperialist lackeys who think so simplisticly that, all things considered, the American way of federalist representative democracy and capitalism is a damn sight better than the leading 500 alternatives. Augie is anti-American, and his claims that Bush is genetically incapable of having a motive beyond base greed is a symptom of that condition.

I disgree with Bush on a lot of things: I thought he compromised too quickly on the tax cut, that he made a serious error in passing the flawed campaign finance reform bill, and that making airport security personnel into federal employees was an empty PR move that would do more harm than good. If you disagree with the president on a legitimate issue, that's fine. If you disagree because you have a better idea, that's great. But, if you denounce the Prez across the board simply to improve your street cred with the Berkeley Workers' Liberation Front, or expect to be considered clever because you simply oppose him for opposition's sake, then I think you're a fool, and I'm going to call it like I see it.

As an American, you have the right to speak your opion freely. However, you do not have the right to be listened to, taken seriously, or go uncriticized if that opinion does not merit such treatment.

 

[ShiningIce]

Gee, I had no idea saying Bush is a moron and is only motivated by base greed and selfishness (Which is damn true) made you anti-American I would have sworn I was living in a police state.... Kalnod every post uve ever made is so damn right-wing its not even funny. How in the hell can you call yourself an openminded person, or maybe I just assumed that because You were into sci-fi and fantasy....Guess all us geeks arent sensible people. 🙄

 

[MadKalnod]

Kalnod every post uve ever made is so damn right-wing its not even funny. How in the hell can you call yourself an openminded person, or maybe I just assumed that because You were into sci-fi and fantasy....Guess all us geeks arent sensible people. 🙄

Ah.. In order to demonstrate the famous open-mindedness of the Left, you treat my opinions with such respect, as you claim yours deserve? Also, as a geek, I have to conform to your preconceived notions? How very open-minded of you. Check the readings on your irony detector, because I'm picking up some distinctly racist anti-kettle statements coming from the direction of the pot.

As for my open-mindedness, I actually was a Liberal in college. I got better, after I spent five years working in Atlantic City. When you get to be over 30, I'd like to think my opinions won't seem as unreasonable to you. I view your being into Sci-Fi and Fantasy as a hopeful sign that you're bright enough to come around one day.

Also, I'll say it one more time. He isn't anti-American because he hates Bush, he hates Bush as a side effect of being anti-American. Put another way, you don't have measles because you have red spots on your face, you have red spots on your face because you have the measles. All of JFK is dead, but not everything dead is JFK. Do you follow? I'm not demanding that Augie be herded into a re-education camp as an enemy of the state for daring to question Dubya's divine infallibity. I am saying that after viewing a great deal of Augie's posts, I can clearly discern a specific "America is always wrong" bias on his part, and therefore any statements he makes casting GWB as the villain of this current situation should be viewed accordingly, namely that he speaks from the position of a man with his head firmly ensconced within his colon.

Further, if you expect me to accept as "damn true" that "Bush is a moron and is only motivated by base greed and selfishness"; then you really ought to be prepared to entertain the possibility, even a little, that Augie and his fellow Anarchist Revolutionaries are motivated primarily from jealousy and envy of the success of others, a fear of social responsibilty and individual accountability, and displaced shame at their own personal failings and inadequacies. That would be the open-minded thing to do.

 

[OBleedingMe]

Sorry August, this I don't buy this slanted article. I refuse to believe that Bush would start a war and kill thousands to lower the gas prices twenty cents. Besides, the US has been in a position to take over the Middle East for the fifteen years. We are a hyper power - if we wanted their oil, we'd just crush their puny armies and take what we want. This article is only "good" if you agree with its biased view, and you know it, August.
This war in Iraq is NOT helping the economy, it's costing our country TONS of money, and it hasn't even started. It's giving the Democrats plenty of ammunition to fire at the Republicans. So, even if this war was being fought for financial gain, it wouldn't pay off after the cost of war/damage to the politcal party in power.
To Ice... you are a liberal. Start acting like one and show some tolerance for other political views (it's one of your party's core philosphies) - that includes the right-wing view, which also happens to be just as mainstream as left-wing. You tend to make blanket assumptions/insinuations about Republicans... such as they're not openminded and insensible. That's just as bad as calling all Democrats Socialists and Anarchists.
The comments you (and many others) sometimes make towards other parties, and vice versa, make me very happy I am an Independent and not blinded by ideology.

 

[ShiningIce]

As for my open-mindedness, I actually was a Liberal in college. I got better

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure you did 🙄

Start acting like one and show some tolerance for other political views (it's one of your party's core philosphies) - that includes the right-wing view, which also happens to be just as mainstream as left-wing. You tend to make blanket assumptions/insinuations about Republicans... such as they're not openminded and insensible. That's just as bad as calling all Democrats Socialists and Anarchists.

This coming from the man who though stars and bars was the US flag?? 🙄 How would you know what party I'm in??? Not blinded by ideology you say??? seem very right wing to me. But ok, I wont assume just because someones a Republican that they're the scum of the earth, however i notice you havent said a word towards any right wingers who are doing the same thing you claim to dislike so much curious....

 

[OBleedingMe]

I'm only 19, Ice. I never heard of the Stars & Bars term, therefore I asked. That's how people learn. I attend Hofstra U. and the Con. Flag has not come up yet in any of my political classes. To insult my intellect by capitalizing on a lack of trivial (save for our convo) knowledge is childish and immature. You, an established adult of society, should have more tact than that.
I am not right-winger. I am for stricter gun control (but not total outlawing), restricted euthenasia... nevermind, I really don't feel like I have to explain all of my political views to a screen name. I know what I am - an Independent. I don't like being associated with the crazies on either side.
And yes, most Republicans and Democrats DO get caught up in their passions and ideology and not what's logical or for the greater good -only what's better for their party or what will rile up the opposing team. It's a game for most of them. The problem is that politics is no longer a service, but a JOB. And people will lie, cheat, and steal to keep their jobs.
As for the more right conservatives on this board, some of their statements were so outright ridiculous (like areenactor's), that no one really NEEDED to say anything. They sort of hung themselves and their credibilty.
Concerning this artcle, I really think that my above post pretty much expresses my views on it - save for how MOST of the dissent from the Left is just speculation and put out there to defer the public away from the Republicans, who are currently perceived to be "winning" the political game. Notice I said most... they do have some good points which should be considered... just have to separate the facts from the propoganda. Same deal with the Republicans and the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair.
Hope I enlightened someone... have to get some sleep... college starts up again real soon.

 

[ShiningIce]

Tact is a matter of perspective, so's common sense...... Now just what makes you think Im a Democrate hmm?

 

[august spies]

to mal:

your posting have been the most rightest freedom hating posting i have since since the hitler like rants of some whom i wont mention.

you make no arguments and only insult, i guess because it makes you feel good. i worked in atlantic city of 5 years too, im not sure what your point was about that.

also your rants are full of false hoods, we have no troops already in iraq, and your point about taking over saudi arabia and kuwait is pointless because we already control kuwait and saudi arabia, in fact the us government has an older commitment to protect the brutal saudi monarchs than it does to israel.

Your point of bush ignoring saddams behavior is almost orwellian, unless you didnt read the article (at least say you didnt to protect your own intelligence) bush never ignored saddams evil behavior, he openly supported and endorsed it. than when saddam turned on bush and made an illegal oil grab bush turned and used that evil behavior repeatedly against him.

As for insulting the peace and justice movement by saying they are in it for their on jelous benifits is taking it to far, i know many people who were almost killed fighting for freedom from your dictators. but i guess they just wanted to be those dictators, they were jelous of their torture chambers huh,)

mal your arguments are basically non existent and your insult most of the time, i will save my breath and just debate people with an understanding of issues and politics and who respect different poitns of view. so dont waste your breath anymore with me


to kurch(again)

oil was not the one and only reason for war, the single most powerful driving force behind rightist politics is the military industrial complex, and it needs to justify its existence. the us spends 10 times what all "hostile" nations spend and thats not counting nato allies. it has just got done lying to congress about its purpose for the past 50 years (this is a fact, it said after the soviet union fell it had to keep going becaue the real threat wasnt the soviet union, which it had been saying all along)

Does war cost a lot of money? of couse but exxon doesnt pay for it, we do. if its up to them to spend 3 of your dollars to protect one of thiers its not even a question.

the gulf war was a great success for them arms exports aferwards quintupled and the military budget skyrocketed, they got to test all their new weapons killed 113,000 civilians, and even deliberatley(fact) left saddam in power for part 2.

your talk about ending the sanctions and just going in and doing buisness with saddam and ignoring his evils makes sense, remembers its exactly what they were doing for a decade, but that now is infesable and i shouldnt have to explain why. also it should be noted that 515,000 children have died from the sanctions.

the us is never glad to by oil from somone where as us corps are given the majority wealth of the resource (look at what happend in iran) i said once and ill say again most of the middle east is already under us control(exception of iran)

and kurch you should no better than its not just about benifiting bush directly, its his political philosophy thats how he thinks, its all connected almost(well everyone i think) in the executive branch has major ties with oil and defense, condeleza rice even has a tanker named after her, their goal is to make and much money and power possible for these companies and institutions, yes benifiting bush alone in one way or another, buts its much deeper than that.

to O;

i think i covered the point about the tax money spent on war above, the us cant just march through the puny armies of iraq and iran because the world would stand for it, but slowey and surley they will, bush could care less realy about how the average american is hurting economicly, hell he actually was all about enron and they even ripped off upper class people. if the economy tanks those at the top arnt gonna suffer like the rest of us.

and the article was good, it was written well by a prominent journalist in a mainstream newspaper it put forth great facts and information. it was good becasue of that

and please dont insult anarchists and socialist by comparing them to democrats. lol

wow long post

 

[OBleedingMe]

You haven't said otherwise, but I have. If my memory serves me, I have stated my political status two other times in my posts here on the TMF.
Tact is not a matter of perspective. It is what it is - good taste.
Why do I think you're a Democrat? Others on this board have called you a Liberal and you have never refuted it. I inferred from your silence on the topic that you were Leftist.
If you aren't, I'm really curious to know what party you are affiliated with. 🙂

 

[ShiningIce]

mal your arguments are basically non existent and your insult most of the time, i will save my breath and just debate people with an understanding of issues and politics and who respect different poitns of view. so dont waste your breath anymore with me

Amen true words of wisdom. 🙂



For the record I'm the most liberal independent you ever met.

 

[august spies]

here is some more detailed information about what i was talking about above(military industrial complex)

War Is Good Business
by Conn Hallinan

War, the expression goes, is a bad business. It's certainly not a good idea if you're a soldier or civilian caught in the middle of one, and it tends to raise havoc with things like domestic spending. But if you are Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, Admiral (ret.) William Crowe Jr., these are salad days.

For those who make its instruments, war is very good business indeed, and, while the rest of the economy may be tanking, things that go "bang" and kill people are on a roll.

Boeing, for instance, recently doubled its production of JDAM kits ($25,000 a pop), which make dumb bombs smart. Raytheon added a shift to produce its Paveway laser guided bombs ($55,600 apiece), while Alliant Techsystems is churning out 265 million rounds of small arms ammunition ( $92 million).

This is the era of high tech war, which is good news for General Atomics Aeronauticals Systems and its unmanned surveillance and attack craft, the Predator. The going rate is $25 million for four. So, too, for Northrop Grumman, with its $20 million Global Hawk, the Cadillac of robot aircraft. Northrop, which recently swallowed TRW for $7.8 billion, is projected to earn $26 billion in revenues this year.

To keep all these machines talking to their operators, Boeing is pitching its Wideband Gap satellite ($1.3 billion per unit) and Lockheed Martin, Hughes and TRW are pushing their EHF Advanced Wideband satellites for $2.7 billion a shot.

And if you're Admiral Crowe Jr., you are cashing in on a real smart investment. Back in 1998 the state of Michigan sold the vaccine company, Bioport, to a group of private investors. At the time, the company was under fire from the Federal Drug Administration for poor quality control of its smallpox vaccine. Crowe Jr. and company brought the place for a song and, shortly thereafter, landed a $60 million contract from the Department of Defense.

You don't have to kill people to make money. Take Kellogg Brown & Root, owned by Vice-President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton. The construction company has been building bases since World War II and had a virtual lock on military construction during the Vietnam War. It made $2.5 billion from the DOD during the '90s and is presently building bases in Afghanistan (the costs are classified).

Other bases are being constructed in Yemen, Pakistan, Turkey, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyregyszstan, India and the Philippines. No need to go to uncomfortable places to make money from all this, however. The Homeland Security budget is $37.7 billion, and the military industrial types are already thundering toward the trough.

Boeing wants to fit commercial airplanes with its missile-tracking device, the same one that keeps missing its targets in the Administration's billion- dollar missile defense boondoggle.

Lockheed Martin wants to sell its military simulators to train emergency fire and medical teams.

General Dynamics is pushing armored vehicles to local police (a bargain at $200,000 plus) and also wants the military to use its Gulfstream Executive jets as early warning radar systems. Smart move. With the economy a disaster, and the Iraq War likely to worsen things, Executive jets are a slow sell these days. Northrop Grumman, builder of the $2 billion B-2 Stealth Bomber, and co-contractor with Lockheed Martin on the $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is pushing its telecommunication systems as a way to fight bioterrorism.

All of this, of course, is done in the spirit of patriotism. "The attacks on Sept. 11 are a very personal things for us," says Boeing Vice-President John Stammreich. He did not, on the other hand, offer any of his company's whiz-bangs at cost.

If one adds up all the supplementary costs of war beyond the $355.5 billion military budget--Homeland Security, $30 billion in supplementary funds, $25.5 billion for foreign military assistance, $16 billion for nuclear weapons, etc--the U.S. spends in excess of $465 billion each year, or $1.2 billion a day.

A month of military spending would wipe out California's catastrophic budget deficit. Instead, Californians are going to cough up $10.1 billion in income taxes just to pay for the upcoming $100 billion plus Gulf War. U.S. military spending not only dwarfs the combined military budgets of the "Evil Axis" ($11.4 billion), all potential enemies ($116.4 billion), but every single nation in the world, from Russia to Luxembourg ($423 billion). War is a bad business? Not for everyone.

 

[OBleedingMe]

So what this basically comes down to, August, is an argument over the actual intentions of Pres. Bush. I personally just don't see Bush doing all this JUST to satisfy the wealthy. Bush is already waist-deep in money for his personal use (as most politicans are).
Besides, the scenario you are proposing would KILL his party in the eyes of the people - it would be political suicide for the Republicans, and the powers that be within Bush's party wouldn't allow that to happen. They'd veto him six ways to Sunday.
And the man DOES care about how average America is doing - it's in the best interests of his party to care. Economy crumbles and there goes the current lock the Conservatives have in play. That's why he's trying to revamp his economic team and proposing all these "stimulus" packages. Whether they work or not remains to be seen.
As for the article - sorry, my man. It's slanted. It's more of an editorial than anything else - you have to AGREE with his point of view to consider it "good". So it's neither good, nor bad. It's an opinion.
Concerning Anarachists and Socialists - are you insinuating that Anarchism and Socialism is somehow BETTER than Capitalism? Because if you are, you're wrong. Just look at which system is at the top of the heap, has championed human rights, etc. Definitely ain't the first two, August.
On a side note, I was not comparing them - I was just USING them as an example of stereotypes the Republicans try to label Democrats as. That's all.

 

[august spies]

to say bush cares about the average person is insane, he has done everything to show the opposite, the unbalanced tax cuts, the corporate welfare, the distribution of funds, the cutting of low income heating subsidies, the FTAA(which ships jobs overseas) ill stop there

as for anarchism and socialism being better than capitalism well thats a debate we had that u must have missed, but of course they are.

just because a system is "on top" it doesnt mean its good, it forced itself that way and is always at a constant struggle against socialistic and anarcho forces.

just in the past twenty years capitalism has left over a million corpses in latin america alone, to say thats human rights is insane. the only forces fighting for human rights are socialists and anarchists, you say anarchists dont campaing for human rights? thats also insane every anarchist group that i have expereinces with(which is many) are all followers of the UD. and no stalin and mao were not socialists

 

[kurchatovium]

Tax cuts balanced or unbalanced all I know is I got back a fair amount of money which is more than I ever got from any other president that I can remember. As far as I'm concerned thats put him ahead of a lot of other presidents.

Just because a system is on top doesn't mean its all bad either. Again maybe you don't like this system but its top notch in my book and being on top is a good indication to me its pretty darn good.

The point with the oil is there are many ways for Bush to make a ton of money off this thing with out going to war with Iraq. If Bush wanted to cut a underhanded deal right now with Saddam he could. You mean if he asked Saddam you give us exclusive rights to the oil and we won't blow you up. Saddam would not go along with it? Give me a break. Again is there that much money in Iraq? No he could take over countries with much larger oil reserves if he wanted to and make more money. Plus he is already wealthy and there are tons of ways for him to make money without having to do some elaborate twisted plan that would get him handful more money than he already has.

I don't buy this in its his nature argument if it there is no advantage to doing it then he would not do it. As I said before there are no big advantages to go to war with Iraq except to make sure they do not produce any weapons of mass production. I would love to spend more time on this but I have to go to work tomorrow and its late.

 

[omega]

august,

What exactly are you doing to be less dependent upon the oil of the oppressed middle easterners? I would assume that you do not own any petroleum burning vehicles. I would assume that you refuse to ride in any vehicles that use petroleum including buses, trains, airplanes. How big is the pasture for your horse? I don't know where you live, do you heat your home with an oil burning furnace? The electricity that runs your computer, is it solar or wind generated, or is it produced from the burning of petroleum? What about everything you use? Are you careful to make sure that everything you purchase or use did not involve any petroleum burning in production and shipment?