Nadar and the War
- Thread starter Diezel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iraq war ralph nader
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War
>My understanding is that most people think that the war is to
>make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil
>resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich.
I'm sure some people view it in simpler terms than that. Nobody would accuse the peace movement of being staffed by intellectual giants. You've got dumb hawks, you've got dumb doves. Do I think bush's oil contacts stand to gain wealth? Sure they do. Once Saddam is gone bush can easily open up Iraq to foreign investment. American oil comapanies will move in and provide the necessary infrustructure for a cut of the profits.
>My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush
>would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal
>with Saddam.
I don't think it's too easy for Bush to move into Iraq and make deals. There's a political fallout from their stance. They've villified Iraq so much at this point it would be quite something to turn around and say, well yeah we hate saddam, he's a monster, but we're going to be doing a few pipeline contracts anyway.
>The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his
>friends is completely specious.
Well... as I said I expect the US oil industry stands to gain greatly if in a post war Iraq they're in a position to provide infrustructure and take a cut of the profits, so like everything else I expect that this is a motivating factor.
>On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long
>term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very
>real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the
>reason for the war.
This is perhaps the main driving force behind US foreign policy in the middle east, but you have to realize that long term secure energy and big us corporations making money are entwined. You can't really separate one from the other entirely.
>"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more
>accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security,
>economic stability and a secure energy policy"
Sure. But let's face it the President has his own share of sound bytes. Now for the 2nd statement you have to decide if the US going to war with Iraq is the best approach to take. There are a lot of people who understand this and believe, quite reasonably, that it is not the best approach.
>My understanding is that most people think that the war is to
>make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil
>resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich.
I'm sure some people view it in simpler terms than that. Nobody would accuse the peace movement of being staffed by intellectual giants. You've got dumb hawks, you've got dumb doves. Do I think bush's oil contacts stand to gain wealth? Sure they do. Once Saddam is gone bush can easily open up Iraq to foreign investment. American oil comapanies will move in and provide the necessary infrustructure for a cut of the profits.
>My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush
>would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal
>with Saddam.
I don't think it's too easy for Bush to move into Iraq and make deals. There's a political fallout from their stance. They've villified Iraq so much at this point it would be quite something to turn around and say, well yeah we hate saddam, he's a monster, but we're going to be doing a few pipeline contracts anyway.
>The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his
>friends is completely specious.
Well... as I said I expect the US oil industry stands to gain greatly if in a post war Iraq they're in a position to provide infrustructure and take a cut of the profits, so like everything else I expect that this is a motivating factor.
>On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long
>term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very
>real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the
>reason for the war.
This is perhaps the main driving force behind US foreign policy in the middle east, but you have to realize that long term secure energy and big us corporations making money are entwined. You can't really separate one from the other entirely.
>"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more
>accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security,
>economic stability and a secure energy policy"
Sure. But let's face it the President has his own share of sound bytes. Now for the 2nd statement you have to decide if the US going to war with Iraq is the best approach to take. There are a lot of people who understand this and believe, quite reasonably, that it is not the best approach.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Re: Re: Nadar and the War
For that matter, our government could get rid of the Federal gasoline tax and prices would automatically drop 19.5¢/gal. Guess what the chances of that happening are? [/B][/QUOTE]
that would only encourage the use of more oil and even greater dependence on it.
For that matter, our government could get rid of the Federal gasoline tax and prices would automatically drop 19.5¢/gal. Guess what the chances of that happening are? [/B][/QUOTE]
that would only encourage the use of more oil and even greater dependence on it.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War
My understanding is that most people think that the war is to
>make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil
>resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich.
>>I'm sure some people view it in simpler terms than that.
>>Nobody would accuse the peace movement of being staffed by
>>intellectual giants. You've got dumb hawks, you've got dumb >>doves.
Agreed.
>>Do I think bush's oil contacts stand to gain wealth? Sure they
>>do. Once Saddam is gone bush can easily open up Iraq to
>>foreign investment. American oil comapanies will move in and
>>provide the necessary infrustructure for a cut of the profits.
Yes, the stand to profit at least as much with a war as without (see below)
>My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush
>would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal
>with Saddam.
>>I don't think it's too easy for Bush to move into Iraq and make
>>deals. There's a political fallout from their stance. They've
>>villified Iraq so much at this point it would be quite something
>>to turn around and say, well yeah we hate saddam, he's a
>>monster, but we're going to be doing a few pipeline contracts
>>anyway.
This is where we disagree. I have little doubt that Bush could manuever to a different position. I can think of a number of scenarios. First, keep in mindwhat it is that Saddam wants and that is to Survive, keep face and power. Bush could announce that Saddam had quitely contacted Bush and offered a deal. But Bush told Saddam that only Saddams complete cooperation would work. Bush could then say that inteligent reports indicated a dramatic change in Iraq. The UN is very anxious to get this all over. If America said Saddam was cooperating then that would be it.
>The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his
>friends is completely specious.
Well... as I said I expect the US oil industry stands to gain greatly if in a post war Iraq they're in a position to provide infrustructure and take a cut of the profits, so like everything else I expect that this is a motivating factor.
Again, the outcome as to personal wealth is the same with or without a war. Bush holds all the cards. If he made a deal with Saddam he could call the shots.
>On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long
>term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very
>real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the
>reason for the war.
>>This is perhaps the main driving force behind US foreign policy
>>in the middle east, but you have to realize that long term
>>secure energy and big us corporations making money are
>>entwined. You can't really separate one from the other entirely.
I concede the point.
>"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more
>accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security,
>economic stability and a secure energy policy"
>>Sure. But let's face it the President has his own share of sound
>>bytes. Now for the 2nd statement you have to decide if the US
>>going to war with Iraq is the best approach to take. There are
>>a lot of people who understand this and believe, quite
>>reasonably, that it is not the best approach.
Absolutely, and to be intelectually honest my alternative slogan should be "no oil for [what Bush percieves will be the outcome of the war which is] long term security, economic stability and a secure energy policy
The truth is that we don't know if Bush's plan will work or is the best one. I honestly have a lot of concerns. There have been some very good arguments why we should not go to war. The effort by Wayne and Danish and others is not lost on me.
My point is that Bush is not doing this simply for cynical reasons.
Excelent post. I really look forward to your responses. Thank you.
My understanding is that most people think that the war is to
>make Bush and his friends rich. Bush will control the oil
>resources of Iraq and he and his buddies will get rich.
>>I'm sure some people view it in simpler terms than that.
>>Nobody would accuse the peace movement of being staffed by
>>intellectual giants. You've got dumb hawks, you've got dumb >>doves.
Agreed.
>>Do I think bush's oil contacts stand to gain wealth? Sure they
>>do. Once Saddam is gone bush can easily open up Iraq to
>>foreign investment. American oil comapanies will move in and
>>provide the necessary infrustructure for a cut of the profits.
Yes, the stand to profit at least as much with a war as without (see below)
>My argument is only valid if you accept the following. Bush
>would have about as much control of Iraqi oil if he made a deal
>with Saddam.
>>I don't think it's too easy for Bush to move into Iraq and make
>>deals. There's a political fallout from their stance. They've
>>villified Iraq so much at this point it would be quite something
>>to turn around and say, well yeah we hate saddam, he's a
>>monster, but we're going to be doing a few pipeline contracts
>>anyway.
This is where we disagree. I have little doubt that Bush could manuever to a different position. I can think of a number of scenarios. First, keep in mindwhat it is that Saddam wants and that is to Survive, keep face and power. Bush could announce that Saddam had quitely contacted Bush and offered a deal. But Bush told Saddam that only Saddams complete cooperation would work. Bush could then say that inteligent reports indicated a dramatic change in Iraq. The UN is very anxious to get this all over. If America said Saddam was cooperating then that would be it.
>The argument that Bush is starting a war to enrich him and his
>friends is completely specious.
Well... as I said I expect the US oil industry stands to gain greatly if in a post war Iraq they're in a position to provide infrustructure and take a cut of the profits, so like everything else I expect that this is a motivating factor.
Again, the outcome as to personal wealth is the same with or without a war. Bush holds all the cards. If he made a deal with Saddam he could call the shots.
>On the other hand, the fact that Bush is interested in our long
>term energy needs coupled with a real desire to solve the very
>real problem that Saddam presents and other factors are the
>reason for the war.
>>This is perhaps the main driving force behind US foreign policy
>>in the middle east, but you have to realize that long term
>>secure energy and big us corporations making money are
>>entwined. You can't really separate one from the other entirely.
I concede the point.
>"No war for oil" is simply misguided propaganda. A more
>accurate slogan would be "no war for long term security,
>economic stability and a secure energy policy"
>>Sure. But let's face it the President has his own share of sound
>>bytes. Now for the 2nd statement you have to decide if the US
>>going to war with Iraq is the best approach to take. There are
>>a lot of people who understand this and believe, quite
>>reasonably, that it is not the best approach.
Absolutely, and to be intelectually honest my alternative slogan should be "no oil for [what Bush percieves will be the outcome of the war which is] long term security, economic stability and a secure energy policy
The truth is that we don't know if Bush's plan will work or is the best one. I honestly have a lot of concerns. There have been some very good arguments why we should not go to war. The effort by Wayne and Danish and others is not lost on me.
My point is that Bush is not doing this simply for cynical reasons.
Excelent post. I really look forward to your responses. Thank you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nadar and the War
>This is where we disagree. I have little doubt that Bush could
>manuever to a different position.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure, that even if they managed to pull this off they wouldn't see it as being as good a position. They'd still be dealing with Saddam. It would still be a thorn in their side for years to come. Some changes could occur and Saddam could find himself in a better bargaining position, and then they'd be back at square one. So I don't think it's strictly equivalent.
>My point is that Bush is not doing this simply for cynical reasons.
I don't know. I guess I'm a softie at heart, and I'd like to believe that the people in the white house are merely misdirected, but there's so much badness elsewhere in drug policies, reduced freedom of US citizens, religious fanaticism etc... that I really have to wonder if that's the case. I suppose it's a minor point but when Rumsfeld covers up the breast of a statue, I start to think all kinds of cynical thoughts about the rationality of whitehouse staff. Maybe if we're lucky it's just an act to scare the bajeezus out of bin laden. It certainly has me terrified.
>This is where we disagree. I have little doubt that Bush could
>manuever to a different position.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure, that even if they managed to pull this off they wouldn't see it as being as good a position. They'd still be dealing with Saddam. It would still be a thorn in their side for years to come. Some changes could occur and Saddam could find himself in a better bargaining position, and then they'd be back at square one. So I don't think it's strictly equivalent.
>My point is that Bush is not doing this simply for cynical reasons.
I don't know. I guess I'm a softie at heart, and I'd like to believe that the people in the white house are merely misdirected, but there's so much badness elsewhere in drug policies, reduced freedom of US citizens, religious fanaticism etc... that I really have to wonder if that's the case. I suppose it's a minor point but when Rumsfeld covers up the breast of a statue, I start to think all kinds of cynical thoughts about the rationality of whitehouse staff. Maybe if we're lucky it's just an act to scare the bajeezus out of bin laden. It certainly has me terrified.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Oh I agree, I think that there are real reasons why we actually have to go to war. I think Saddam is a real problem that only removal from power will solve. The argument only stands if Bush is doing this for cynical reasons. Not going to war works as well for that purpose as going to war.svero said:
Well, I think that you are making two different points. And I'm not certain where you come down on. I never thought much of the shot gun method of arguing and I'm not talking about your cyinical views.
We have shrewed and stupid. Ciritcs of Ronald Regan always painted him in both these lights. I remember skits of Regan on SNL where he was shown as an idiot at one point and then as a calculating but pretending to be stupid when he planned armed for hostages. I thought they were damn funny but seemed to be inconsistent to me.
The drug policies have been around for awhile and Clinton did nothing to stop them so I question the relevence of the point.
Loss of civil rights is typical after an event like 911. I'm not defending the actions of the White House but I doubt very much that things would have been too much different if Al Gore had been in that position. The citizens of the United States demanded security. Our freedoms make us vulnerable. How easy is it to suspend some civil rights of "those" people?
Covering up breasts on statues is just silly and does cause won to wonder about the objectivity of the person that does so. Have you heard Aschroft sing "where the eagle soars"?