News Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning-This time it's OIL

  • Thread starter faust9
  • Start date
691
1
Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning---This time it's OIL

Here we go. The kooks and nuts of America who thought this war was about oil from the beginning---I say this because many Bush apologists have minimized those who espoused this reasoning as the real reason as said crazies---have been vindicated.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/

I'm feeling verklempt now. Talk amongst yourselves---here, I'll give you a topic "The war in Iraq is for oil not democracy, not WMD, not the WOT, but for oil."
 
60
0
So it turns out they admit that the war protestors were right from the beginning.

Not terribly surprising. When you talk to the most ardent war supporters they'll eventually admit with a snide remark that it's really about the oil.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
faust9 said:
go. The kooks and nuts of America who thought this war was about oil from the beginning---I say this because many Bush apologists have minimized those who espoused this reasoning as the real reason as said crazies---have been vindicated.
I think you misread the article - Bush is saying that we can't leave now because terrorists will get ahold of the oil wells. That has nothing to do with why we went there in the first place.
 
24
0
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."
Good to know that there is a place for the so-called crazy people, who weren't that crazy afterall. Like I said before, intelligence is attracted to truth as iron filings to a magnet.

The question is, how does this affect his future course of action? Strategically, this is a statement that will help his future endeavours in the middle east. His point is to say that recovery of the oil fields is a necessary strategy to win this war on terrorism. I realize that this may be true, however it still stenches of deception.

Is there no other options or alternatives to war?
What ever happened to just capturing Osama and leaving the Iraqis and other Middle Eastern countries alone? Where is the bounty on his head? How about offering to leave the middle east in exchange for Osama Bin Laden? Is Osama Bin Laden still alive? How the heck do we know whoever they catch is the actual Osama Bin Laden? How do we know they don't already have him in captivity and are just holding out until the war is over?

A partial truth revealed is the tip of the iceberg that lurks below.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
Whatever happened to caring about preventing Iraq from erupting into anarchy?

Is it that you don't consider the consequences of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, or is it that you don't care?
 
60
0
Hurkyl said:
Whatever happened to caring about preventing Iraq from erupting into anarchy?

Is it that you don't consider the consequences of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, or is it that you don't care?
Preventing?
 
24
0
russ_watters said:
I think you misread the article - Bush is saying that we can't leave now because terrorists will get ahold of the oil wells. That has nothing to do with why we went there in the first place.
If I were a rightwinger, this would be the same argument I would stand with. Perhaps you are a bit naive to recognize that subtle lies and justifications are a means of making a wrong look right (or at least not so wrong).

Let's take children for example. When a child has done something wrong, they try to cover up the disaster. They sweep it under the rug, glue it back together, clean it, paint it, whatever and come up with a good story and get a witness (conspirator).

The problem we have is that there is no authority figure to reprimand this child.

Russ, this is not a personal attack... I'm just pointing out that accepting your kids word for it takes on a blind "not my kid" approach which allows for more lies. Allowing deception, encourages deception. A child will respect an adult that will not accept lies. I believe a government will respect a public that will not accept lies.

No more lies from those who are supposed to be responsible. No more false intelligence... no more public relations speaches... lives are being lost on both sides and it is a struggle for oil. The oil prices have not come down in my city and I don't think that is a longterm goal of this administration. Electric and Hybrid vehicles have begun to penetrate the market and so why are they going after the oil? What don't we know? You know what would drive oil prices down? How about clean energy for everyone? Instead of spending on war, why not subsidize electric / hybrid vehicles?

I'm just a guy on a couch with a laptop and a tv... why can't those who are being paid to solve problems come up with something like this? Quell the need and demand and there will be a glut in supply somewhere along the way. The war is sucking up oil like crazy. Bush and the Admin are not morons... they are just greedy Fuggers...

Don't tow the rope.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
24
0
Hurkyl said:
Whatever happened to caring about preventing Iraq from erupting into anarchy?

Is it that you don't consider the consequences of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, or is it that you don't care?
Hurkyl,
You sound like my wife... Problems without solutions or suggestions... :rolleyes: oh bruther
Rather than fearmonger the old excuses presented by the Admin... please tell us about your solution?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
outsider said:
If I were a rightwinger, this would be the same argument I would stand with. Perhaps you are a bit naive to recognize that subtle lies and justifications are a means of making a wrong look right (or at least not so wrong).
How about forgetting which way you lean and just reading the quote?

Ok, fine, you think he's lying -- if you think he's lying, then there wouldn't be any point in you posting in this thread. Faust, on the other hand, probably just misread the quote.
 

Skyhunter

russ_watters said:
I think you misread the article - Bush is saying that we can't leave now because terrorists will get ahold of the oil wells. That has nothing to do with why we went there in the first place.
I agree, that too much is being made of this statement. It is not an admission, it is simply war propaganda. It was afterall a rah rah rah speech because support for his adventure is dwindling.

The reference to the oil was because oil is in the public consciousness right now due to the price of gasoline. With Autumn fast upon us soon the price of heating oil and natural gas will be an issue. It is also an opportunity to say that the Iraqi oil is important without admitting that it was the main reason for the invasion.

I missed his speech today. :yuck: (Think I'll read it.)

Did he talk about oil again?
 
691
1
russ_watters said:
I think you misread the article - Bush is saying that we can't leave now because terrorists will get ahold of the oil wells. That has nothing to do with why we went there in the first place.
No, I didn't misread the article. Terrorist would not be able to take control of the oil fields had we not invaded. The need to stay and protect the now endangered oil fields is a consequence of our own actions which Bush has finally acknowledged. This is just another example of the revolving door of reasons to invade in the first place or to stay in the second place.

What was last weeks excuse---we can't leave because soldiers have already died. That reasoning will make little difference to soldiers who will give their lives in the future. The pre-invasion reasons have already been dispelled time and again so the current MO is roll with the punches and throw out a new reason each and every week. Last week, the soldiers. This week the admin is riding the back of a horrible national tragedy to off yet another reason to stay and fight.

And, least we forget the the infamous pre-war oil field survey map: http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf [Broken]

Remember that map from the Cheney task force? So, what we have is an admission that oil is a justification for furthered combat in conjunction with pre-war planning of oil field surveys used in conjunction with Bush administration energy task force planning.... Hmmm looks like a war for oil to me. We're staying for Oil. We went in for Oil.

Oh, have you seen anything about the draft constitution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
24
0
russ_watters said:
How about forgetting which way you lean and just reading the quote?

Ok, fine, you think he's lying -- if you think he's lying, then there wouldn't be any point in you posting in this thread. Faust, on the other hand, probably just misread the quote.
ok... this is what i read:
russ_watters said:
I think you misread the article - Bush is saying that we can't leave now because terrorists will get ahold of the oil wells. That has nothing to do with why we went there in the first place.
go ahead and explain why...
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
You sound like my wife... Problems without solutions or suggestions...
It sounds like you make a habit of acting without thinking, then! :wink:

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away...
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
You mean like preventing hundreds of deaths due to a "suicide bomber" or the threat of one during a pilgrimage?
What does that have to do with anything?
 
691
1
Skyhunter said:
I agree, that too much is being made of this statement. It is not an admission, it is simply war propaganda. It was afterall a rah rah rah speech because support for his adventure is dwindling.

The reference to the oil was because oil is in the public consciousness right now due to the price of gasoline. With Autumn fast upon us soon the price of heating oil and natural gas will be an issue. It is also an opportunity to say that the Iraqi oil is important without admitting that it was the main reason for the invasion.

I missed his speech today. :yuck: (Think I'll read it.)

Did he talk about oil again?
Yes and linking the need to stay in Iraq as another justification to the tragedy down south is monsterous.
 
24
0
Hurkyl said:
Whatever happened to caring about preventing Iraq from erupting into anarchy?

Is it that you don't consider the consequences of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, or is it that you don't care?
valid point Hurkyl... what do you propose we do to solve this?
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
what do you propose we do to solve this?
By "this" I suppose you mean the problem of Iraq erupting into anarchy? It seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to protect and assist the fledgling government until it is sufficiently well-developed to take care of itself.
 
691
1
Here, let me refresh your memory:

Hurkyl said:
Whatever happened to caring about preventing Iraq from erupting into anarchy?

Is it that you don't consider the consequences of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, or is it that you don't care?
Sounds a lot like anarchy when 1000(or so) die in a stampede. These people are in constante fear of being blown up. That's a lot like anarchy.

[edit] have you been following the constitution process? The current draft codifies the Koran as the highest law. Two of the three---the oil rich two factions BTW---factions have been working to shape the country with little or no regard for the third faction. I wonder how that will turn out...
 
Last edited:

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
Sounds a lot like anarchy when 1000(or so) die in a stampede.
That sounds like anarchy like the stuff in a pencil sounds like metal with atomic symbol Pb. Same word, entirely different thing.
 
691
1
Hurkyl said:
That sounds like anarchy like the stuff in a pencil sounds like metal with atomic symbol Pb. Same word, entirely different thing.
The lack of our ability to prevent these kinds of events is the epitome of anarchy. Their government is faltering. Their representatives are assassinated on a monthly basis. Their military is no where the size or capability Rumsfeld said it was.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:anarchy
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
The lack of our ability to prevent these kinds of events is the epitome of anarchy.
Being unable to prevent all such events is not proof of inability to prevent some, or even most such events.


Their government is faltering.
Abandoning Iraq will guarantee its collapse, né? Whereas it has a chance with outside assistance.
 
24
0
Hurkyl said:
By "this" I suppose you mean the problem of Iraq erupting into anarchy? It seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to protect and assist the fledgling government until it is sufficiently well-developed to take care of itself.
you brought it up... so I would hope that you have done some thinking on the topic...

1) Why do you think Iraq would erupt with anarchy?
2) How would you "protect and assist the fledgling government"?
3) How do we know if this is what they want?
 

solutions in a box

russ_watters said:
How about forgetting which way you lean and just reading the quote?

Ok, fine, you think he's lying -- if you think he's lying, then there wouldn't be any point in you posting in this thread. Faust, on the other hand, probably just misread the quote.

If he in't lying now ,then which of other three revolving door reasons were lies? At least Bush is closer to the truth now than he was when he said WMD.

This most recent reason for being in Iraq is as connived as the former ones. It comes just after a hurricane wiped out a good portion of our oil supply. (how convenient). Americans have been facing ever higher gas prices. And now with what will evidently bring on greatly increased prices, and possibly shortages, The American public is primed for the change in reason.

Tis Rove's season to change the reason.

Had there been no hurricane, the reason for being in Iraq would still be: "We are fighting a global war on terrorism". Which is what it was just last week.

Sure, it is true that we can't pull out of Iraq now, or even next year or the year after that. But the admnistration should at least have the decency to level with the American people.
 

Related Threads for: Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning-This time it's OIL

Replies
24
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
158
Views
10K
Replies
98
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top