I'm disgusted

[Cranky]

*sigh*

Spoozy,

You are going to enter into the twilight zone with a personal attack and counter attack. I already asked not to make it personal between posters but just bring up the facts and pictures. It's more difficult and needs a little more work but if you believe you are right, it's a small price to pay.

This is going to lead to closing the thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is this an American youngter or Kurdish youngster?

Saddam needs to know as soon as possible because he has some candy in his right pocket and some poison in his left.

[spozzy]

I'm sorry HabsAddict.

It's just that...this is really bugging me. I fear a continuation of Hab fans booing the American national anthem could kill my strong loyalities to the Canadiens and Montreal, my birthplace.

Then join me and do it the way I am doing it without targeting individual posters. It's not like you are going to run out of anti-Saddam arguments within one or two lifetimes worth of posting.

[MC Habber]

Alright you guys, I'm really not comfortable entering into a political debate on what is supposed to be a habs board, so I will refrain from saying much (believe me I could go on for hours if I had the time), but I would like to ask all the pro-war people to please read or at least skim through this article (it's quite long):

www.worldwatch.org/alerts/20021126.html

Allow me to quote a little of it here:

Though not selling weapons directly to Iraq, Reagan administration officials allowed private U.S. arms dealers to sell Soviet-made weapons purchased in Eastern Europe to Iraq. U.S. leaders permitted Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan to transfer U.S.-made weapons to Baghdad. And they abandoned earlier opposition to the delivery of French fighter jets and Exocet missiles (which were subsequently used against tankers transporting Iranian oil).
....
Washingtonís immediate objective was to prevent an Iranian victory. In a larger sense, though, U.S. policymakers were intent on keeping both Iraq and Iran bogged down in war, no matter how horrendous the human cost on both sidesóhundreds of thousands were killed. (The Reagan administration secretly allowed Israel to ship several billion dollars worth of U.S. arms and spare parts to Iran.) Preoccupied with fighting one another, Baghdad and Teheran would be unable to challenge U.S. domination of the Gulf region. Reflecting administration sentiments, Henry Kissinger said in 1984 that ìthe ultimate American interest in the war [is] that both should lose.î <br>....
But the stakes in all this maneuvering involve much more than just the future of Iraq. The Bush energy policy is predicated on growing consumption of oil, preferably cheap oil. But U.S. oil deposits are increasingly depleted and many other non-OPEC oil fields are beginning to run dry as well. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region.
...

Both in the Middle East and in other regions, securing access to oil goes increasingly hand in hand with a fast-expanding U.S. military presence. From Pakistan to Central Asia to the Caucasus, and from the eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa, a dense network of U.S. military facilities has emergedówith many bases established in the name of the ìwar on terror.î <br>...
Only in the most direct sense is the Bush administrationís Iraq policy directed against Saddam Hussein. In a broader sense, it aims to reinforce the world economyís reliance on oilóand on an energy system whose guarantor is the United States, by dint not only of its close relationships with key oil exporters but also its control of the sea lanes through which much of the worldís oil is shipped.
Cheap oil undermines efforts to develop renewable energy sources, boost energy efficiency, and control greenhouse gas emissionsóat a time when wind power is becoming increasingly competitive with traditional sources of energy. The Bush administration, well-known for the oil industry affiliations of its top officials, has made no secret of its visceral dislike of alternative energy sources. The same administration that decided to slash already paltry spending for energy efficiency and renewables R&D to less than $1 billion per year has no problem with preparing for a war that could cost as much as $200 billion.
By rejecting U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol early in his tenure, George W. Bush sought to throw a wrench into the international machinery set up to address the threat of climate change. By securing the massive flow of cheap oil, he may hope to kill Kyoto. In a perverse sense, a war on Iraq reinforces the assault against the earthís climate

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with it 100% but I thought it was interesting and I think it covers some issues that those who support the war have been ignoring (somebody on this board accused the anti-war people of ignoring certain 'facts').

I think this issue is really important but people should have some knowledge of the 'facts' before taking sides. I don't mean to suggest that people are ignorant but it's easy to be influenced by the media and by propaganda. If you're going to debate this you should really try to read as much about it as you can and try to see both sides of the issue.

[The New Guy]

To those who think that this war is a lunge for oil by GWB:

Do the math! Consider, for a moment, the cost of buying every last drop of oil in the Iraqi oil fields. That's a pretty hefty some on the order of billions of dollars no doubt. But compare that sum to the cost of waging this war. Just as a base of reference, one of those nice little Tomahawk missiles that the US fires off with reckless abandon cost 2 million each. Ignoring the cost of transporting the missiles there, fueling them, paying people to fire them, feeding the people you pay to fire them etc. the first night alone (which consisted of protracted strikes) cost 80 million dollars (they fired 40 missiles).

It would be cheaper to buy the oil then to win it, and people would protest less. And while GWB may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, I'm sure he has one advisior who can count.

Cheers

[MPLABBE]

The thing that bugs me...

americans now think the people are booing them. Their country. Their flag. When in reality they are booing US Politics, not the people.............

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

To those who think that this war is a lunge for oil by GWB:

Do the math! Consider, for a moment, the cost of buying every last drop of oil in the Iraqi oil fields. That's a pretty hefty some on the order of billions of dollars no doubt. But compare that sum to the cost of waging this war. Just as a base of reference, one of those nice little Tomahawk missiles that the US fires off with reckless abandon cost 2 million each. Ignoring the cost of transporting the missiles there, fueling them, paying people to fire them, feeding the people you pay to fire them etc. the first night alone (which consisted of protracted strikes) cost 80 million dollars (they fired 40 missiles).

It would be cheaper to buy the oil then to win it, and people would protest less. And while GWB may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, I'm sure he has one advisior who can count.

Cheers

Iraqi oil reserves (proven ones): sa.onenation.net.au/LH020403a.htm
112.5 billion barrels

Price of oil, per barrel: in the 25 US $ range

25 * 112.5 billon = 2815 billion, or 2,815 trillion US smackers.

So even if the war costs 112 billion or even 300 billion, the US still gets a massive return on investment - and those are just the proven reserves.

Anyhow, it's a more complicated issue - a big part of what the US wants is secure, reliable oil from a stable source, so that the economy doesn't have a potential source of instability.

[spozzy]

France, Germany, Russia, China, virtually no country in the world has even suggested that the Iraq war could have anything to do with oil. Why? Because they would be COMPLETE laughing stocks!

There simply is no logic behind the statement that the US is going to war for oil. Such critics of the war are misguided by their blinding anti-American bias. Just look at this train of thought:

A. Iraqi oil reserves (proven ones): 112.5 billion barrels

and

B. Price of oil, per barrel: in the 25 US $ range

which translates to

C. 25 * 112.5 billon = 2815 billion, or 2,815 trillion US smackers.

equals

D. "So even if the war costs 112 billion or even 300 billion, the US still gets a massive return on investment - and those are just the proven reserves."

How the hell do you get to D? You have to make the insane assumption that the US is going to OWN Iraqi oil reserves after liberating Iraqis from Saddam.

[BCHab]

PTH said:

Iraqi oil reserves (proven ones): sa.onenation.net.au/LH020403a.htm
112.5 billion barrels

Price of oil, per barrel: in the 25 US $ range

25 * 112.5 billon = 2815 billion, or 2,815 trillion US smackers.

So even if the war costs 112 billion or even 300 billion, the US still gets a massive return on investment - and those are just the proven reserves.

Anyhow, it's a more complicated issue - a big part of what the US wants is secure, reliable oil from a stable source, so that the economy doesn't have a potential source of instability.

With respect, I beg to differ. Nowhere is there any mention of the U.S. taking over Iraq' oil supply beyond using it for reconstruction. It doesn't even make sense for them to do it since it would foster even more anti-Americanism in the region and create more destabilization. They already have all the oil they need from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other suppliers such as Venezuela and us. That's who they are doing this for really. They are making sure no one with matches messes with the gas station. Basically, the Monroe doctrine expanded globally

By the way, I know an "oppressed" Kuwaiti. He had a completely free university education, has a guaranteed job and just picked up a very healthy six figure cheque from his government as "getting started" money. Something apparently all Kuwaiti citizens are entitled to get. I'd love to be oppressed that way. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq feature tribal societies so applying western values here is irrelevant. They are not Egyptians or Lebanese.

This type of action by the U.S in not unprecedented. They are an imperialist country yet they have strong isolationist tendencies, much like Republican Rome pre-Sulla. They have always been that way. They do not act or think like their European ancestors as the French and Germans are finding out, again. Think "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead" or "Stillwell and the American Experience in China".

Back to hockey

[MC Habber]

BCHab said:

It doesn't even make sense for them to do it since it would foster even more anti-Americanism in the region and create more destabilization.

Does any part of this war make sense?

They already have all the oil they need from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other suppliers such as Venezuela and us.

They do not have all the oil they need and never will, because the earth's supply is limited and the rate of American consumption is continuing to grow. By most estimates, all the earth's suppy will be used up within a few decades. It is frankly quite silly to make statements like that which are easliy proven false. OF COURSE the US needs Iraqi oil.

"The only interest the United States has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability, not [Iraqís] ability to generate oil,î contended the presidentís spokesman, Ari Fleischer. Given U.S. addiction to oil and Washingtonís long history of intervention in the region, this is a disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, statement."

"Saudi Arabia, with 262 billion barrels, has a quarter of the worldís total reserves and is the single largest producer. But Iraq, despite its pariah status for the past 12 years, remains a key prize. At 112 billion barrels, its known reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. (See Table 1.) And, given that substantial portions of Iraqi territory have never been fully explored, there is a good chance that actual reserves are far larger. "

from www.worldwatch.org/alerts/20021126.html

[MC Habber]

It's not just a question of "taking over" the oil, the point of the war is to instill a new regime that will sell or trade its oil cheaply to the US. Either this will be a new dictatorship put in place by the US, or it will be an elected government that is under enourmous American pressure because it will depend on American money, trade and "protection".

Nobody outside of Iraq is going to complain when this happens because the media will go silent as it always does, and people will forget. How much do we hear about what is happening now in Bosnia, Serbia, or any of the other parts of the world where there has been foreign involvement in conflicts from the media? Virtually nothing. Even Afghanistan we hear very little about. For all Joe Average Citizen of the World knows, US soldiers are stealing oil, weapons, opium, and who know what else from these countries. Why would Iraq be any different?

[BCHab]

MC said:

Does any part of this war make sense?
They do not have all the oil they need and never will, because the earth's supply is limited and the rate of American consumption is continuing to grow. By most estimates, all the earth's suppy will be used up within a few decades. It is frankly quite silly to make statements like that which are easliy proven false. OF COURSE the US needs Iraqi oil.

"The only interest the United States has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability, not [Iraqís] ability to generate oil,î contended the presidentís spokesman, Ari Fleischer. Given U.S. addiction to oil and Washingtonís long history of intervention in the region, this is a disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, statement."

"Saudi Arabia, with 262 billion barrels, has a quarter of the worldís total reserves and is the single largest producer. But Iraq, despite its pariah status for the past 12 years, remains a key prize. At 112 billion barrels, its known reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. (See Table 1.) And, given that substantial portions of Iraqi territory have never been fully explored, there is a good chance that actual reserves are far larger. "

from www.worldwatch.org/alerts/20021126.html

Let's agree to disagree. IMO, they still don't need to conquer Iraq to get its oil. It will not result in a cheaper, unlimited and better supply. As a member of OPEC, Iraq's oil is subject to a mutually agreed price with the other members of the cartel. Oil production is also controlled by OPEC (oligopoly). So the oil will not be cheaper or more available, long term, unless the U.S. intends to break OPEC's control of the oil supply, after the dust settles, by forcing the withdrawal of one of its largest producers. Not a good idea with Arab nationalism in full swing and the Saudis controlling OPEC to a certain extent. Remember October 1973? The U.S does and so does Britain...especially

The exception was during the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam and the Iranians undercut the price to increase exports to pay for weapons, much to the fury of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, since they had to increase production and match the price, thus flooding the market with cheap oil. It's why gas was so cheap in the late '80s, if you discount government taxation.

The U.S. could have unlimited access to Iraq's future supply just by lifting sanctions and without going to war. Money talks.

Cheers

[PTH]

spozzy said:

D. "So even if the war costs 112 billion or even 300 billion, the US still gets a massive return on investment - and those are just the proven reserves."

How the hell do you get to D? You have to make the insane assumption that the US is going to OWN Iraqi oil reserves after liberating Iraqis from Saddam.

My numbers were just to show that the cost of war is minute compared to the value of all that oil. Saying we could just buy it all more cheaply than putting a highly subsidised (and CIA backed) figurehead leader is just not true.

So the US won't need to own the oil fields, just control them. They have the Saoudis nicely tamed, and will do the same to Iraq (though part of the problem is that the Saoudis are getting restless, see 9/11, so the US wants a backup source). They've got us with the free-trade treaty, so they have full access to our ressources too.

And money talks over time, but when non-US suppliers can increase or decrease the quantity being exported, they can have fun makign prices fly up and down - which can cause havoc on our oil-based economies. How many oil refining projects do you think would be shut down if Iraq pumped out more and more oil and lowered prices ? Then they could jack them up again when they were in a better situation.

Oh, and BTW, plenty of foreign sources mention oil as the root of the whole problem.

[PTH]

Oh - and OPEC has lost quite a bit of importance as other oil producing countries enter the fray - Canada and Russia for example, produce plenty of oil but aren't members of OPEC and won't give in to pressure to follow the others in raising or lowering prices.

[PTH]

BCHab said:

By the way, I know an "oppressed" Kuwaiti. He had a completely free university education, has a guaranteed job and just picked up a very healthy six figure cheque from his government as "getting started" money. Something apparently all Kuwaiti citizens are entitled to get. I'd love to be oppressed that way. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq feature tribal societies so applying western values here is irrelevant. They are not Egyptians or Lebanese.

When you see anyone who's made it to our side of the world, odds are it's not your run of the mill guy. I knew a few guys from Tunisia, and they were filthy rich.... it's only the filthy rich guys we tend to see around here.

As to tribal societies and western values, I'm weary of letting things go for "cultural" reasons. If they want to choose to live one way it's one thing, but if they have no choice because that's the only way it's done, well, that's something else.

[PTH]

spozzy said:

The only statement a person makes by booing a national anthem at a sports event is that he or she has no class. Further, booing the American anthem gives the impression the person is a fool.

A fool ? The US is launching an invasion despite no international approval in any way, shape or form, and yet not being for it is being a fool ?

Yes, the rest of the world should be ashamed of themselves.

The rest of the world may be too passive, but when a bully like the US tends to come and stomp through to get his oily little presents, it's hard to put in the time and effort to do things the right way.

Please tell me you are smoking something. Is this the same reason the US liberated most of Europe? To somehow enslave it?

The US liberated part of Europe, but mostly just gave the Russians weapons to do it with their own blood.

Typical. Way to completely avoid the facts.

Facts ? Like the fact that the US sponsors dictators just like Saddam when it suits them ?

Two completely different and and thus incomparable situations. Something should be done to bring peace to that region, but it's not so easy as a simple inaction solely on the part of the Israelis.

Nevertheless, the issues are closely linked. In the same area of the world, but Israel and Iraq are doing recognized crimes, yet ones gets stomped on, the other barely gets a harsh word...

Could you explain and expand on this please? Another oppressive government? Forbidden democracy? 10 years, another anti-US dictator? What are you basing your assumptions on? Certainly not fact or reason.

Example: Iran. The US and British got the Shah re-instated back in the 50's. A nice cooperative puppet. In 1979 or so - anti-American fundamentalist revolution.
Why wouldn't exactly the same thing happen in Iraq ?
Democracy ? Do you have any idea how the US is perceived out there ? Even in US allies the people hate the US, so if you invade twice in 12 years, don't expect Iraqis to like you.

There are no stable democracies in the area; as a general rule those countries aren't advanced enough for the people to participate in a long-term democratic process.... either you'll see a US-dominated and subsidised democracy, or another dictator... in both cases I'd expect to see a fundamentalist takeover within 10-20 years. But who cares, right ? By then Bush's friends (no need to specify oil friends - that's all he has) will have sucked out all the oil through lucrative exclusive drilling deal and we won't care anymore.
Then the new dictator can go and get whatever weapons he likes - just like North Korea is doing, and no one will care, again, like North Korea....

[MC Habber]

BCHab said:

So the oil will not be cheaper or more available, long term, unless the U.S. intends to break OPEC's control of the oil supply, after the dust settles, by forcing the withdrawal of one of its largest producers. Not a good idea with Arab nationalism in full swing and the Saudis controlling OPEC to a certain extent.

Many people think that attacking Iraq is "not a good idea." Many people also think that a nuclear first strike policy would not be a good idea. This hasn't stopped the US from doing the first and discussing the latter. My point is that to assume the US government is rational or thinking along normal lines of thought is a dangerous assumption, so simply saying they would be crazy to do what they are doing doesn't change the fact that they are doing it. None of us really knows George Bush's true motives, but, looking at the evidence, I simply can't be persuaded to believe that he is going to war for the reasons he claims he is.

FACT: The US economy depends absolutely on oil, as do almost all countries, and W's policies have been in the direction of increasing that dependance rather than developing alternative energy sources
FACT: The US gets a lot of its oil from Saudi Arabia, a country which is unstable and therefore an unreliable source of oil
FACT: Iraq has at least the second largest supply of oil reserves on the planet
FACT: The US has gone to war with Iraq with the stated intention of occupying the country and causing a regime change
FACT: If one country controlled most of the world's oil reserves as well as the sea lanes used to transport them, they would have ENOURMOUS power over every other country

Whatever the Bush says, can you really believe that he is not even a little bit interested in controlling Iraq's oils supplies? You can draw your own conclusions from the facts, but it seems pretty obvious to me that oil is playing a big part in this war.

Cheers

[PTH]

MC, you have a good point about assuming people know what they're doing. When you assume someone is competent, and then assume everything he does *must* be competent, then you wind up with absolutely no judgment on the situation.

Kinda like in hockey - anything AS did had to be good, it was AS he could do no wrong, right ?

If Bush does something that seems reckless and foolish, it has to be because he has more information than we do, right ?

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

MC, you have a good point about assuming people know what they're doing. When you assume someone is competent, and then assume everything he does *must* be competent, then you wind up with absolutely no judgment on the situation.

Kinda like in hockey - anything AS did had to be good, it was AS he could do no wrong, right ?

If Bush does something that seems reckless and foolish, it has to be because he has more information than we do, right ?

LMAO. PTH, we know how you feel about AS, but I think comparing him to George W. Bush is a little harsh . Seriously though, good analogy. A lot of the people who argue in favour of the war (though not all) seem to base most of their arguments on saying things like "he wouldn't do that" or "that would be crazy." In my experience, its often not a good idea to take people at their word, and that is infinitely more true of politicians.

[MC Habber]

Editorials from the Vancouver Sun:

www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/archives/story.asp?id=D93042BC-9E87-4942-A765-27299EC5AC15

Although France truly is motivated by oil and Germany by economics, they are certainly no more motivated by them than the U.S. is (Canada must stand and be counted, Editorial, March 11). One of the U.S.'s main industries is arms manufacturing and production. Between 1998 and 2000, arms companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and General Dynamics were among the top political campaign contributors.

Many faces in the Bush regime are former top oil executives, like the president himself.

Whoever controls Middle East oil will have world hegemony. The U.S. is certainly interested in that. If that isn't an economic interest, I don't know what is.

Although France and Germany are indeed interested in maintaining their economic interests in the area, they are also concerned about one super power having global domination. Many Canadians are also concerned about that.

Although Saddam Hussein has not been fully cooperating on disarming, international pressure is on. The weapons inspections process must be continued and strengthened. Heavy- handed diplomacy is a much better option than dropping bombs on innocent Iraqi children.

Thomas Mungo Shuley

New Westminster

www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/archives/story.asp?id=D11AABDA-D5C9-41F4-B0F0-6C686DB9143D

In making the case against Saddam Hussein, the anonymous editor for CanWest head office says that the United Nations' weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq some years ago (Canada must stand and be counted, Editorial, March 11). What actually happened was quite different.

The UN pulled out its 120 inspectors in a predawn evacuation order from its American supervisor to avoid being bombed by U.S. and British war planes. Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized the evacuation because it was made without seeking permission from the Security Council. The attacks, when they came, inflicted the most severe aerial bombardments on Iraq since the height of the first Gulf War. The entire episode was sufficient in scope to draw attention away from the daily Bill and Monica disclosures.

My point might seem minor, but it really is not. Nor is it in any way intended to paint halos around Saddam Hussein. It is to take aim at just one instance among many of reprehensible, irresponsible journalism -- the repetition of uninspected claims such as the above to buttress the case for George W. Bush's and Donald Rumsfeld's war. As if there are no life-and-death consequences other than to one dictator.

Do the potential lost lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and young fighting men of the U.S, the U.K. and Iraq not matter enough for media giant CanWest editors, as well as journalists, to take the utmost care to get the facts right? Isn't that what we insist on in our own system of jurisprudence when less than even a single life is at stake? Then why is it all right to be so sloppy with facts where the lives of many, many more might be at stake? Just because they are foreigners? Or soldiers?

Henry Dorst

Vancouver

[spozzy]

Many people think that attacking Iraq is "not a good idea." Many people also think that a nuclear first strike policy would not be a good idea.

Many people are idiots. Most protesters don't know or even care about facts.

My point is that to assume the US government is rational or thinking along normal lines of thought is a dangerous assumption, so simply saying they would be crazy to do what they are doing doesn't change the fact that they are doing it. None of us really knows George Bush's true motives, but, looking at the evidence, I simply can't be persuaded to believe that he is going to war for the reasons he claims he is.

Who are these people assuming the Iraq war is just just because the Americans "would be crazy to do what they are doing" otherwise? Who? Not one person posting here assumed that.

FACT: Virtually no country has even hinted at the absurd notion that this war has to do with oil.

FICTION: The US has gone to war with Iraq with the stated intention of occupying the country and causing a regime change

FACT: They have stated all along that they intend merely to disarm Iraq (by force if needed) and leave as soon as a stable government was installed.

USELESS THEORY: If one country controlled most of the world's oil reserves as well as the sea lanes used to transport them, they would have ENOURMOUS power over every other country

FACT: The US doesn't even control Kuwaiti, Saudi, or Canadian oil reserves.

You can draw your own conclusions from the facts, but it seems pretty obvious to me that oil is playing a big part in this war.

Alas, we come to the root of the problem. While protesters of the Iraq war are obscured by anti-American bias, ignorance, or sinister motives (this means you France, Germany, Russia), supporters are capable of seeing the world and facts how they really are.

[PTH]

spozzy said:

Alas, we come to the root of the problem. While protesters of the Iraq war are obscured by anti-American bias, ignorance, or sinister motives (this means you France, Germany, Russia), supporters are capable of seeing the world and facts how they really are.

Being biased is a problem, I think we all have to know we're biased in some way, shape or form.

Not recognizing being biased, and insisting that your view is the only one supported by facts, is far worse than any possible bias, and kills any possible debate.

"I'm right, and you're wrong. If you don't agree with me it's because you don't know the facts." Isn't condusive to much dialogue.

Then again, why bother talking ? It's not like the US tried, either....

[The New Guy]

FACT: The US economy depends absolutely on oil, as do almost all countries, and W's policies have been in the direction of increasing that dependance rather than developing alternative energy sources

Here-here! The environmental cause! Bush obviously only wants the oil so he can continue to pollute the environment. That logic is flawed friend. Once again, the US could buy the oil without half so much trouble. France, Germany and Russia all do.

Or perhaps this is a sideways stab at Bush for his pulling out of Kyoto. Which, I'll admit, may have been a mistake. But if we're talking about environmental nightmares, lets examine the wonderful policies of Saddam Hussien - who figures that burning the oil produced by the massive flows from his (and Kuwaits) wells is a good thing.

FACT: The US gets a lot of its oil from Saudi Arabia, a country which is unstable and therefore an unreliable source of oil

Right - so a recently conquered Iraq that will supposedly be crawling with terrorists that will hate America will be fantastically stable I suppose right?

FACT: Iraq has at least the second largest supply of oil reserves on the planet

According to reports it has the second largest known oil reserves in the world. This is a fact (as opposed to the theories and half-truths presented above).

FACT: The US has gone to war with Iraq with the stated intention of occupying the country and causing a regime change.

Lets be clear here. The US has gone to war with the stated intention of causing a regime change. This will nesscessitate the occupation of the country long enough to establish a secure regime change. So now the question arises - what is so wrong with a regime change in Iraq that, say, wasn't wrong in the Balkans with Milsovic? Saddam is equally as sadistic and evil. But no one was opposed to getting rid of him.

Maybe it's because France and Germany didn't do nearly so much business with Milosovic as they do with Saddam.

FACT: If one country controlled most of the world's oil reserves as well as the sea lanes used to transport them, they would have ENOURMOUS power over every other country

Not really. Even if Iraq contains half the worlds oil reserves (by definition, most means greater than 50%) (which it doesn't, because Saudi Arabia has more oil) the other countries which own the oil can still greatly affect prices. You can't build a monopoly simple by owning half the volume.

Now - let's look at some other facts:

FACT: The US has stated that any money made from the oil will be used to rebuild the country. In fact, the US has suggested if not said outright, that the oil and money gotten from it should be administrated by the UN.

FACT: France is Iraq's leading European trade partner, and stands to loose a great deal of money under a regime change.

FACT: Germany has been estimated to do 1 billion in trade per year with Iraq through third parties to circumvent the oil for food program (this trade is likely to include arms or arms producing equipment).

FACT: Saddam Hussien is an evil, ruthless man. He kills those who oppose him with a ruthlessness that is rivaled only by Hitler and Stalin in modern times. While in Kuwait his troops raped, tortured and killed much of the populace. He sponsors terrorism (if not in the US, then certainly in Israel). He has gassed members of his own populace. He divides many of his 'powers' among his sons - one of whom is a confirmed sociopath and cronic rapist who has gone further insane since the loss of much of the use of his legs in a late nineties assasination attempt. He is so crazy that even Saddam considers him to be a bit looney - but still for some reason places much power in him.

FACT: Thus far, the fighting has mostly consisted or Iraqi's surrendering en masse, small battles around oil wells, and surgical strikes against Baghdad etc. which have left most of the infrastructure intact.

Just some things to consider...

[spozzy]

PTH said:

Being biased is a problem, I think we all have to know we're biased in some way, shape or form.

Not recognizing being biased, and insisting that your view is the only one supported by facts, is far worse than any possible bias, and kills any possible debate.

"I'm right, and you're wrong. If you don't agree with me it's because you don't know the facts." Isn't condusive to much dialogue.

Absolutely true. I've already exposed some of your pseudo-facts. Meanwhile, I'm awaiting a serious challenge of mine.

Then again, why bother talking ? It's not like the US tried, either....

Surely you mean the US tried, but why bother talking when the French don't bother to listen? France and Germany are chiefly responsible for the failed diplomatic efforts. Saddam has demonstrated over and over to the point of it being a fact that he only complies when his back is completely against the wall. Even now, he has hope that he will prevail because world opinion seems on his side.

One of the most disgusting things about this is that France is most definitely (IMO) hoping for a prolonged war and thus American military failure.

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

Here-here! The environmental cause! Bush obviously only wants the oil so he can continue to pollute the environment. That logic is flawed friend. Once again, the US could buy the oil without half so much trouble. France, Germany and Russia all do.

"We could just buy it" - the US wants to have a safe, reliable oil source, not buy oil from a madman - especially when the current oil source is possibly going to turn against you (the Saoudis)
And you tried the whole "we could just buy it anyhow since it's not worth the cost of war" approach and I shot you down in 5 minutes research on the web.

Or perhaps this is a sideways stab at Bush for his pulling out of Kyoto. Which, I'll admit, may have been a mistake. But if we're talking about environmental nightmares, lets examine the wonderful policies of Saddam Hussien - who figures that burning the oil produced by the massive flows from his (and Kuwaits) wells is a good thing.

When you have to compare Bush to Saddam to make him look good....

Right - so a recently conquered Iraq that will supposedly be crawling with terrorists that will hate America will be fantastically stable I suppose right?

It will be stable. Bush will make it stable. If that means putting in a strong-arm right wing dictator, that can work...

According to reports it has the second largest known oil reserves in the world. This is a fact (as opposed to the theories and half-truths presented above).
..
Lets be clear here. The US has gone to war with the stated intention of causing a regime change. This will nesscessitate the occupation of the country long enough to establish a secure regime change. So now the question arises - what is so wrong with a regime change in Iraq that, say, wasn't wrong in the Balkans with Milsovic? Saddam is equally as sadistic and evil. But no one was opposed to getting rid of him.

There was a solid Nato consensus that the situation in Kosovo couldn't be let go­. US intervention was critical, but it was a common accord that something had to be done. Same for Milosevich.

Maybe it's because France and Germany didn't do nearly so much business with Milosovic as they do with Saddam.

Maybe there was a general consensus throughout NATO ?
A consensus doesn't mean everyone following the US lead, BTW.

Not really. Even if Iraq contains half the worlds oil reserves (by definition, most means greater than 50%) (which it doesn't, because Saudi Arabia has more oil) the other countries which own the oil can still greatly affect prices. You can't build a monopoly simple by owning half the volume.

In the case of oil, yes you can.
Worldwide oil consumption isn't very flexible. Heating oil, gas for cars, lube oil for machinery... these are all needed in pretty fixed amounts every year - every month, every day. So even if a country only controls a small percentage of the supply, it can still send prices skyrocketing or spiralling, depending on its mood.

FACT: The US has stated that any money made from the oil will be used to rebuild the country. In fact, the US has suggested if not said outright, that the oil and money gotten from it should be administrated by the UN.

Of course, they'll need money to put in a new puppet dictator.... hopefully one with a longer shelf life than Saddam though.

FACT: France is Iraq's leading European trade partner, and stands to loose a great deal of money under a regime change.

Fact: The US is being excluded from all this lucrative trade, and must want in.

FACT: Germany has been estimated to do 1 billion in trade per year with Iraq through third parties to circumvent the oil for food program (this trade is likely to include arms or arms producing equipment).

Even more trade the US is missing out on !

FACT: Saddam Hussien is an evil, ruthless man. He kills those who oppose him with a ruthlessness that is rivaled only by Hitler and Stalin in modern times. While in Kuwait his troops raped, tortured and killed much of the populace. He sponsors terrorism (if not in the US, then certainly in Israel). He has gassed members of his own populace. He divides many of his 'powers' among his sons - one of whom is a confirmed sociopath and cronic rapist who has gone further insane since the loss of much of the use of his legs in a late nineties assasination attempt. He is so crazy that even Saddam considers him to be a bit looney - but still for some reason places much power in him.

Ever hear anything nice about ther leaders of North Korea, Kuwait or even Saoudi Arabia ? They aren't prime citizens either.

FACT: Thus far, the fighting has mostly consisted or Iraqi's surrendering en masse, small battles around oil wells, and surgical strikes against Baghdad etc. which have left most of the infrastructure intact.

The US being able to dissect Iraq and take it over with few losses isn't an issue here.

Dub's army's had better be able to crash Saddam's after his daddy did the brunt of the work 12 years ago.

[Cranky]

So far, so good. No one has stabbed anyone.

Let's hope and pray that the biggest problem the US should have is where to put all the Republican Guard that keeps surrendering.

As for Saddam? I want him to coach the Hab's. Nothing like a few "tenderly" whipped players to get the others motivated. Breezy, your first buddy.

[PTH]

spozzy said:

Absolutely true. I've already exposed some of your pseudo-facts. Meanwhile, I'm awaiting a serious challenge of mine.

Your "facts" are American-centric drivel, very convincing, but also terribly oversimplified.

Surely you mean the US tried, but why bother talking when the French don't bother to listen?

Oh please. There was a complex multi-direction dialogue going on, and the key thing that lead to the break down was Dub's wanting to go to war *now*.

France and Germany are chiefly responsible for the failed diplomatic efforts.

Wrong. For starters, Russia was in there with them, even though many thought they'd crumble under pressure - I admire Putin for not letting himself be bought.

Saddam has demonstrated over and over to the point of it being a fact that he only complies when his back is completely against the wall.

Yup, which is why pressue on him was important. Without the US we might not have got the inspectors back in - but once they were in, we'd essentially won.

Even now, he has hope that he will prevail because world opinion seems on his side.

No one is pro-Saddam, but a lot of people are anti-going to war just for the he11 of it.

One of the most disgusting things about this is that France is most definitely (IMO) hoping for a prolonged war and thus American military failure.

Not true. I spent 20 minutes trying to find an article on this, but I know for a fact that everyone, including the French, wishes a quick clean end to the fighting.

[PTH]

PTH said:

Not true. I spent 20 minutes trying to find an article on this, but I know for a fact that everyone, including the French, wishes a quick clean end to the fighting.

""Mes chers compatriotes, Les opérations militaires viennent de commencer en Irak. La France regrette cette action engagée sans l'aval des Nations unies. Je souhaite que ces opérations soient les plus rapides et les moins meurtrières possible et qu'elles ne conduisent pas à une catastrophe humanitaire."

Verbatim from Chirac. Wants it all over ASAP and with as few casualties as possible.
www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3226--313618-,00.html

[MC Habber]

PTH, thankyou for your excellent replies to Spozzy and TNG. You saved me a lot of trouble .

This debate is going all over the place because people keep bringing up disconnected or irrelevant issues, and points that have already been made or refuted. Oh well....

[spozzy]

PTH said:

""Mes chers compatriotes, Les opérations militaires viennent de commencer en Irak. La France regrette cette action engagée sans l'aval des Nations unies. Je souhaite que ces opérations soient les plus rapides et les moins meurtrières possible et qu'elles ne conduisent pas à une catastrophe humanitaire."

Verbatim from Chirac. Wants it all over ASAP and with as few casualties as possible.
www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3214--313823-,00.html

LOL
But of course Chirac will say that publically!
I was refering to his probable (IMO) private wishes. If the US succeeds with a quick war, and (my assumption/hope) the majority of Iraqis cheer the US and express gratitude for liberating them, France and Germany are going to look *mighty* awful.

[MC Habber]

In the case of oil, yes you can.
Worldwide oil consumption isn't very flexible. Heating oil, gas for cars, lube oil for machinery... these are all needed in pretty fixed amounts every year - every month, every day. So even if a country only controls a small percentage of the supply, it can still send prices skyrocketing or spiralling, depending on its mood.

Yeah. I just want to add that the US currently has significant control over Saudi oil and I'm sure (since everyone else is expressing unsubstianted opinions) that they are hoping to take total control of it. This war could very well cause a revolt in Saudi Arabia and then just watch the US military swoop in to pick up the pieces and instill a "democracy."

But of course Chirac will say that publically!
I was refering to his probable (IMO) private wishes. If the US succeeds with a quick war, and (I disagreeumption/hope) the majority of Iraqis cheer the US and express gratitude for liberating them, France and Germany are going to look *mighty* awful.

Bush looks pretty awful right now because he has gone against the wishes of his own people and of most of the people of the world. France, Germany, and Russia have actually respected public opinion and that looks good from where I'm sitting. (I won't say anything about Chretien and public opinion...)