Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, America has made mistakes. Terrible ones and we have suffered the consequences of those mistakes.

And, taken advantages from those mistakes

Sadly other people have suffered from those consequences also. However they were not all completely without reason or purpose and we have also had our successes including some in his video. You wouldn't know it because the video is simply propaganda.

Maybe, it had the declared intention to show just some, interesting aspects, of the U.S. policy around the world

Oliver won't tell you about those. Nor will he tell you about the deaths caused by other governments.

Two bads do not make one good

He doesn't care about that. He says he is here for "understanding" and "discussion" but he spends as much time as possible trashing America.

Not trashing America.
Show to Americans some part of what their Government is doing that they do not see or do not want to see..

Hey, America should be criticized for our misdeeds. I hope we learn from them. I also expect that most people who come to JREF are reasonable and don't see the world in the stilted perspective that Oliver does.

But, if Oilver did not post those videos, many people would not even know about those bad things, uh?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Osama Bin Laden used his expert CIA training to pull off 9/11, huh?

Now that one belongs in the CT forum.

What about all the other facts exposed?

So Oliver, what do you think the outcomes of the various conflicts would have been if the US had simply done nothing? Fewer deaths, more deaths? Better, worse? It's a difficult issue, and while the body counts may be factually accurate, presenting them in a way that is designed to give viewers the impression that things would have been better without US intervention is perhaps a litte dishonest.

The point, is, who has given the U.S. the authority to go into another country, stage a coup, and overthrow a democracy?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Where do you get, all those videos?

 

[Oliver]

Not trashing America.
Show to Americans some part of what their Government is doing that they do not see or do not want to see..

Thank you, Matteo - that's exactly my point.

It's time to wake up for the parts of America that live in the wrong, propagated impression that everything is fine and/or they have a real impact with their votes.

 

[Oliver]

Osama Bin Laden used his expert CIA training to pull off 9/11, huh?

Now that one belongs in the CT forum.

Uhm, nope. The CIA trained the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Of course they [Al Qaida] profited from this knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Afghanistan

Where do you get, all those videos?

Most of them are available at GoogleVideo or YouTube.
And most of the time I find them by accident.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Without oil, the U.S. economy would be 100% dead.

Without oil, the economy of Japan would be dead. Without oil, the economy of Germany would be dead. Without oil, the economy of Great Britain would be dead. Without oil, the economies of all the industrialized nations would be dead.

What's your point?

The point, is, who has given the U.S. the authority to go into another country, stage a coup, and overthrow a democracy?

Which democracy would that be?

 

[jsiv]

Uhm, nope. The CIA trained the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Of course they [Al Qaida] profited from this knowledge.

That's not what the video says. The video says that Bin Laden used his "expert CIA training." Neither Bin Laden nor his fighters had any relationship with the CIA, so how could there have been any "expert CIA training?"

Yes, the CIA did train the afghan mujahideen, but that's hardly relevant to this particular argument.

 

[RandFan]

So, the U.S. alone consumes 1/4 of the oil produced in the whole world.
The U.S. are, by far, oil importers.
Without oil, the U.S. economy would be 100% dead.
The Middle East has, by far, the biggest oil reserves in the world.
Mmmm..
Nicely built " conspiracy theory ", I would say..

Why would you say so?

Look, you haven't made a valid argument. You are making assumptions to get from point A to point B. I've been debating this issue for years and I understand all of the issues. I could make an argument for your side but it wouldn't be very compelling. I want you to make it. Don't just assume that the answer is obvious.

Concessions:

• Yes, America is a huge oil importer (conceded)
• Any significant reduction in the amount of oil would seriously hurt the economy.
• You are correct about the Middle East and their reserves.

Some questions:

1. We did NOT invade the Middle East. We evaded Iraq, right?
2. So what if we consume so much oil? This fact prompted OPEC to create a false oil shortage to drive up profits. It HURT them very badly. American's changed their consumption so much that it took more than a decade for OPEC to recover.
3. How do your premises take you to your conclusion.

It seems obvious??

Yes, intuitively it does. However when you look at the issue critically it falls apart.

Iraq ( Saddam ), and Iran ( Ahmadinejad ), are sitting on an ocean of oil.
5 of the first 16 of the biggest world corporations are oil companies.
The make billions out of buying and selling oil ( and refining it ).
Iran and Iraq both want a biigest slice of the pie.
Saddam got punished for this.
Ahmadinejad will not, if he can get some nukes soon.
Again, so many coincidences, uh?

I confess I'm not sure what argument you are making or how your premises fit together. I don't see a cogent argument I see CT type premises and assertions.

• America has no need to go into Iran if the Iranians just sell oil.
• Iran can only get the market price for oil.
• If they seize US oil companies there will be advantages and disadvantages to such actions. When the advantages exceed the disadvantages they will likely do it.
• Chavez seized US oil companies for that very reason. No one is doing anything about it.
• You have no evidence that Saddam got punished for wanting a bigger slice of the pie. You just assert it and it is silly. Without basis. Do you have any news articles in support of such a theory?

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!

Not argument.

Without oil, we are all dead, you know?
And, Iraq, has the 3rd worl biggest reserves.
Another coincidence..
Rwanda did not have oil..
Why the U.S. did not help Rwanda?

• Why do you assume that if we hadn't invaded Iraq we wouldn't have oil?
• Why didn't the U.S. invade Venezuela?

Matteo, there are actually other reasons besides oil for invading Iraq.

As you, like most Americans, are so bought into the ideology that America is the source of freedom of the world ( which, to some extent, is true ), that you do not want to see the argument.

Not true. I've changed my mind on many things on this forum. I came here fairly conservative and because sound arguments were made I changed my mind. You have not however made a sound argument. I could do much better.

Unfortunately, I am afraid, that is a compelling argument..

Why would you say that? It is antithetical to everything that the JREF stands for.

 

[RandFan]

And, taken advantages from those mistakes

I concede this. I'm not sure of the point.

Maybe, it had the declared intention to show just some, interesting aspects, of the U.S. policy around the world

Clearly it paints a once sided warped view.

Two bads do not make one good

No one says otherwise but please note, Oliver is ONLY concerned with American wrongs.

Not trashing America.
Show to Americans some part of what their Government is doing that they do not see or do not want to see..

If it were objective I wouldn't mind. If there were context I wouldn't mind. As it is it is pure propaganda.

But, if Oilver did not post those videos, many people would not even know about those bad things, uh?

Such a sacred duty he has. I guess too sacred for objectivity, no?

 

[RandFan]

It's time to wake up for the parts of America that live in the wrong, propagated impression that everything is fine and/or they have a real impact with their votes.

Who the hell says everything is fine? You are quite adept with the strawmen Oliver.

Oliver, I wouldn't mind if you would research these incidents and provide context and dicuss them in an objective fashion.

You don't do that.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Thank you, Matteo - that's exactly my point.

It's time to wake up for the parts of America that live in the wrong, propagated impression that everything is fine and/or they have a real impact with their votes.

Yes.
But, I have to stress the point that, being U.S. foreign policy, in some extent, very bad, does not mean, at all that Iran` s or Venezuela` s or Africa` s are good/exempt of problems..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Why would you say so?

Look, you haven't made a valid argument. You are making assumptions to get from point A to point B. I've been debating this issue for years and I understand all of the issues. I could make an argument for your side but it wouldn't be very compelling. I want you to make it. Don't just assume that the answer is obvious.

Concessions:

• Yes, America is a huge oil importer (conceded)
• Any significant reduction in the amount of oil would seriously hurt the economy.
• You are correct about the Middle East and their reserves.

Some questions:
[*]We did NOT invade the Middle East. We evaded Iraq, right?

And, helped out Kuwait.
And are maybe planning to invade/strike Iran.
Considering that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and can easily be dealt with, my point stands..

[*]So what if we consume so much oil? This fact prompted OPEC to create a false oil shortage to drive up profits. It HURT them very badly. American's changed their consumption so much that it took more than a decade for OPEC to recover.

Mr. RandFan of the John Hopkin` s School of International POlitics has made his point (?).
They can build a cartel, if they want, and put America on their knees ( along with Japan, Europe, .. )

[*]How do your premises take you to your conclusion. Yes, intuitively it does. However when you look at the issue critically it falls apart.

No.
You are looking at the tree, I am pointing at the forest

I confess I'm not sure what argument you are making or how your premises fit together. I don't see a cogent argument I see CT type premises and assertions.
[*]America has no need to go into Iran if the Iranians just sell oil.

America can have a better value, if they are incontrol of the region

[*]Iran can only get the market price for oil.

Do you really believe in free market, for oil?

[*]If they seize US oil companies there will be advantages and disadvantages to such actions. When the advantages exceed the disadvantages they will likely do it.

Nope, if they are under threat of American weapons..

[*]Chavez seized US oil companies for that very reason. No one is doing anything about it.

Chavez is not 1/4 as important as the Middle East.
And, Pat Rob has suggested to kill him..

[*]You have no evidence that Saddam got punished for wanting a bigger slice of the pie. You just assert it and it is silly. Without basis. Do you have any news articles in support of such a theory?Not argument.

Yes.
No evidence.

[*]Why do you assume that if we hadn't invaded Iraq we wouldn't have oil?

You would have oil, at worse conditions?

[*]Why didn't the U.S. invade Venezuela?

Invading Venezuela is not the only way to control taht nation.
A staged coup is another way..

Not true. I've changed my mind on many things on this forum. I came here fairly conservative and because sound arguments were made I changed my mind. You have not however made a sound argument. I could do much better.

It is difficult to make a sound argument in international politics.
A guy in this forum, a very well educated guy, was making the point, that Hitler may have had his justifications, for invading Poland.

Why would you say that? It is antithetical to everything that the JREF stands for.

Just my opinion

 

[Elizabeth I]

And, Pat Rob has suggested to kill him..

ROFL! You are NOT suggesting, are you, that Pat Robertson sets U.S. policy? Any number of idiots make any number of stupid remarks every day of the year, but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone imply that one of those statements is somehow responsible for the course of international relations.

Please remember that Pat Robertson also said one of these guys was gay. (A little odd maybe, but who knows about sexual orientation?)

 

[Matteo Martini]

ROFL! You are NOT suggesting, are you, that Pat Robertson sets U.S. policy? Any number of idiots make any number of stupid remarks every day of the year, but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone imply that one of those statements is somehow responsible for the course of internation relations.

Pat Rob run for President, and got quite some attention.
He is very influential
George W. and Cheney did not strongly attacked Robertson` s remarks.
Cheney just said " we do not do such things "..

 

[WildCat]

Pat Rob run for President, and got quite some attention.
He is very influential.

No, he's not. He's a laughingstock. His TV Show is called the "700 Club" because that's how many viewes he has.

 

[Walk The Line]

Chavez is not 1/4 as important as the Middle East.

You're right. He's more like 66% as important as the Middle East (As in 2005 America imported 1,537,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela and about 2,334,000 from the Middle East).

Almost everyone over-estimates the importance of Middle Eastern oil for the American economy. For example, did you know that in 2005, the top 5 countries that America imported oil from are as follows:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudia Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Niger

Yes, you read that right. Only one middle eastern country is in the top five of American importers. If we extend it out to the top 10, we see the following:

6. Iraq
7. Angola
8. Ecuador
9. Algeria
10. Kuwait

So, out of America's top ten importers, only three come from the Middle East.

Other facts:

- The oil America imports from Canada and Mexico is roughly 1/3 more than we oil receive from ALL of the Middle East.

- Of the oil we import, only 20% comes from the Middle East/Persian Gulf.

- America produces 40% of its own oil.

So, if my math is correct (and given that it's late and math is not my strong suit, it may not be), that means that approximately 12% of all American oil comes from the Middle East. While that is important, it's hardly as significant as it is commonly portrayed.



* These statistics come from the Energy Information Administration

 

[Oliver]

You're right. He's more like 66% as important as the Middle East (As in 2005 America imported 1,537,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela and about 2,334,000 from the Middle East).

Almost everyone over-estimates the importance of Middle Eastern oil for the American economy. For example, did you know that in 2005, the top 5 countries that America imported oil from are as follows:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudia Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Niger

Yes, you read that right. Only one middle eastern country is in the top five of American importers. If we extend it out to the top 10, we see the following:

6. Iraq
7. Angola
8. Ecuador
9. Algeria
10. Kuwait

So, out of America's top ten importers, only three come from the Middle East.

Other facts:

- The oil America imports from Canada and Mexico is roughly 1/3 more than we oil receive from ALL of the Middle East.

- Of the oil we import, only 20% comes from the Middle East/Persian Gulf.

- America produces 40% of its own oil.

So, if my math is correct (and given that it's late and math is not my strong suit, it may not be), that means that approximately 12% of all American oil comes from the Middle East. While that is important, it's hardly as significant as it is commonly portrayed.



* These statistics come from the Energy Information Administration

Just a side-question: Does this include personal benefits in terms of Middle-Eastern Oil???

U.S. officials who have worked for the oil industry

• James Baker[5]
• Joe Barton
• Michael Boskin
• George H.W. Bush
• George W. Bush
• Robert Card[6]
• James Connaughton[7]
• Richard Cheney
• Philip Cooney
• Donald Evans[8][9]
• Alberto Gonzales[10]
• Wendy Lee Gramm
• J. Steven Griles[11]
• Robert Jordan (lawyer)
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• Henry Kissinger[12][13]
• Robert B. Oakley[14]
• James C. Oberwetter (ambassador to Saudi Arabia)
• Joseph Lieberman[15]
• Condoleezza Rice
• Gale Norton[16][17]
• James Schlesinger[18] (first Secretary of Energy)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...fficials_who_have_worked_for_the_oil_industry

 

[BeAChooser]

Saddam H. did not have any WMD was known before, and not after the invasion,

This is both factually and logically inaccurate.

see the video where Rice and Cheney say, in 2000, that Saddam had no WMD

This is false.

First, it wasn't 2000.

Second, Condoleezza Rice never said any such thing or anything that could be construed that way. And she was told Iraq had WMD by the intelligence services.

And third, it was Powell, not Cheney who said in February 2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." This is the statement that is always claimed to say Iraq had no WMD. It does not say that. It's talking about militarily significant quantities. But we weren't worried about militarily significant quantities ... what would be needed to project "conventional power against his neighbors." We were worried about terrorists acquiring small quantities which they believed Iraq still possessed.

Furthermore, in May 2001 Powell said "There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control".

Cheney said in August 2002 that "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

The NIE in October 2002 stated that "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Iraq did not have militarily significant quantities of chemical or biological weapons.

Even in 2004, Duelfer could only state "I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq."

That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED in Iraq after the invasion proves that Iraq still had the material we feared terrorists might acquire from them. There is a reason that Iraq's regime sanitized its files, computers and facilities that were thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. Something was in the truck conveys that went to Syria before the war. And various sources, including on that the ISG deemed credible, said the contents were WMD related.

Why would any JREFers persist in this "no WMD" woo? As far as I'm concerned, it's worse than the bombs in the WTC and no Flight 77 conspiracy nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

And, helped out Kuwait.
And are maybe planning to invade/strike Iran.
Considering that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and can easily be dealt with, my point stands.

I can't imagine how. So what if we "helped out Kuwait"? Maybe invading Iran and the fact that Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy doesn't equate to America controlling the Mid-East.

They can build a cartel, if they want, and put America on their knees ( along with Japan, Europe, .. )

Like I said, OPEC tried that. History is not on your side on this.

You are looking at the tree, I am pointing at the forest

How? This is just rhetoric.

America can have a better value, if they are incontrol of the region

Ok, I'm willing to accept this (I conceded this point 4 years ago when I outlined why there was an invasion). It makes sense that having some influence on the oil in the region was a factor in the decision to invade. That isn't the same as invading Iraq for oil.

Do you really believe in free market, for oil?

I have no choice. When OPEC tried to control the market in 1973 it caused them very serious problems that took more than a decade to recover from. The market scares the hell out of OPEC. OPEC knows that if they cut supplies to sharply that Americans could cut back like they did before and drown OPEC in a sea of surplus oil and price would fall through the floor like it did before.

Nope, if they are under threat of American weapons.

Chavez has already done it.

Chavez is not 1/4 as important as the Middle East.

Neither is Iraq. Misses the point BTW.

And, Pat Rob has suggested to kill him.

Robertson is an idiot. What does this have to do with the question at hand?

You would have oil, at worse conditions?

Of course, again, look at history. OPEC is not one country. If these nations don't sell their oil they don't make money. Let me clue into something. They want money. That is why they learned their lesson from the 1973 Embargo. As long as oil producers want money there will be oil for America. Period. End of story.

Invading Venezuela is not the only way to control taht nation.
A staged coup is another way.

You let me know when that happens. Until then it's just speculation and my point stands.

It is difficult to make a sound argument in international politics.

Not really, no. Just stick to evidence and sound logic.

A guy in this forum, a very well educated guy, was making the point, that Hitler may have had his justifications, for invading Poland.

He may have. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though.

 

[RandFan]

Just a side-question: Does this include personal benefits in terms of Middle-Eastern Oil???

U.S. officials who have worked for the oil industry

Let me ask you a question. Did a single one of those individuals rely on the Iraq invasion to get their job?