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

[faust9]

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."

 

[TRCSF]

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]

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.

 

[outsider]

''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]

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?

 

[TRCSF]

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?

 

[outsider]

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]

Preventing?

That's what I wrote.

 

[outsider]

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... oh bruther
Rather than fearmonger the old excuses presented by the Admin... please tell us about your solution?

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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?

 

[faust9]

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

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?

 

[outsider]

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:

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]

You sound like my wife... Problems without solutions or suggestions...

It sounds like you make a habit of acting without thinking, then!

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

 

[faust9]

That's what I wrote.

You mean like preventing hundreds of deaths due to a "suicide bomber" or the threat of one during a pilgrimage?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=iraq+stampede&btnG=Search+News

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[faust9]

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.

 

[outsider]

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]

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.

 

[faust9]

Here, let me refresh your memory:

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...

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[faust9]

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]

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.

 

[outsider]

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]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why do you think Iraq would erupt with anarchy?

With help from the outside, insurgents have not been mostly quashed. Removing outside assistance will only make the problem much worse.

How would you "protect and assist the fledgling government"?

Peacekeeping troops would seem the obvious thing for trying to maintain peace. It seems the experts think that drafting a constitution and trying to hold elections viewed as legitimate by the populace are a key step as well, and it sounds plausible to me.

How do we know if this is what they want?

It is clearly what some want. That governance is preferable to anarchy is an assumption.

I would hope that you have done some thinking on the topic...

But what thinking I have done on the topic is only relevant when I am trying to advocate a course of action. When you are advocating a course of action, then what thinking you have done is important.

 

[Skyhunter]

With help from the outside, insurgents have not been mostly quashed. Removing outside assistance will only make the problem much worse.

Did you mean; mostly quashed or "not mostly quashed"

So the insurgents are now the enemy?

What happened to the terrorists?

The unemployed Iraqi men who patiently waited while the CPA bungled the occupation are the insurgents.

Reason #2 for the invasion when the pre-war hype was debunked. "We are there to free the Iraqi people".

Now the Iraqi people are our enemy because they are getting outside help and encouragement. It is their country and they believe they are fighting for it.

Why are we there again?

The Iraqi's have had it bad for a long time and now they are blaming us! The sad thing is they have good reason.

Peacekeeping troops would seem the obvious thing for trying to maintain peace.

Is that what our troops are doing? Peace keeping?

Thomas J. Strickland, a sergeant in the Army National Guard, was killed in Iraq on Aug. 15 when his vehicle rolled into a canal. He had just returned from a brief leave. Two days before Strickland died, Raw Story reports, the 27-year-old resident of Douglasville, Ga., wrote the following on his blog:

The insurgency is on the rise in our area, with a most impressive coordinated assault on one of my sister FOBs (St. Joe) under their belt. Apparently they have enough folks and sophistication in my back yard where they can simultaneously place accurate mortar rounds on three separate locations (at least 30k apart) to tie up any ground mounted quick reaction forces, as well as offer up multiple RPG strikes on the guard towers at Joe. These RPG attacks really bring out the QRF who face their own ambush as they come out the gate, at least 12 insurgents occupying buildings with an overwatch position to Joe's only entrance armed with more rpg's and small arms. The only possible responses are tanks or Apaches. Luckily we have both on call. 12 dead insurgents, destroyed buildings, a compromised FOB, sustained, accurate and unaswered indirect fire and lots o unanswered questions later... I'm here.

There is more that I can't post here but read it for yourself.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rev_wayfarer/

Sure would have been nice to have a president who could have successfully gone to our allies, NATO, and the UN, so that our troops did not have to bear the brunt of the insurgency. Perhaps give the mission at least the cloak of legitimacy.

Why isn't the rest of the world helping in Iraq?

Because they would want some say in how things were managed. The egocentric bully that is our president would have none of that!

It seems the experts think that drafting a constitution and trying to hold elections viewed as legitimate by the populace are a key step as well, and it sounds plausible to me.

That is the whole problem with the constitution. The Sunnis oppose it. Because of the Shia majority the Kurds made sure that it only takes 3 provinces to vote it down. The Sunnis have not been a part of the process in any meaningful way. They are now registering to vote so they can defeat it.

I wonder if Vegas is offering odds on it passing?

But what thinking I have done on the topic is only relevant when I am trying to advocate a course of action. When you are advocating a course of action, then what thinking you have done is important.

The thinking that I have done leads me to believe that the administration has screwed this up so bad, that even had I agreed that we could establish a democratic Iraq that would be a close ally to the US, I would have to admit that the way it was carried out was a demonstration of how not to do it!The leadership in this country is at an all time low! Cindy Sheehan has demonstrated more leadership than the president of the United States!

Why was George Bush hyping the war yesterday when the city of New Orleans was being flooded?

Where are the Louisiana national guardsmen and all their equipment?

Until it becomes part of his agenda it doesn't seem to exist.

Don't need to finish those levees. Need that money for the "war on terror".

Global warming is a myth. Change the language in the reports from scientists to reflect the policy.

Need to invade and occupy Iraq. "Fix the intelligence and the facts to fit the policy."

A man goes to heaven and meets Saint Peter.
The man asks. "What are all the clocks for?"
St Peter says. "Everyone has a clock, and every time they tell a lie the hands move."
"Where is George W. Bush's clock?" asks the man.
"It is in Jesus's office" replies St. Peter
"He is using it for a fan."

I am mad as hell that this smirking chimp we call a president who has so ruined the country I love.

 

[Hurkyl]

Did you mean; mostly quashed or "not mostly quashed" ... What happened to the terrorists?

I meant what I wrote. To restate: "It is not the case that insurgents have been mostly quashed". It is also true that the terrorists haven't been quashed either.

So the insurgents are now the enemy?

Well, they are fighting to bring down the government and to rout coalition troops, aren't they?

Now the Iraqi people are our enemy

No, the insurgents. (And the terrorists)

Is that what our troops are doing? Peace keeping?

Well, yes. That is what it's called when troops are used to try and quell violence, isn't it?

That is the whole problem with the constitution. The Sunnis oppose it. Because of the Shia majority the Kurds made sure that it only takes 3 provinces to vote it down. The Sunnis have not been a part of the process in any meaningful way. They are now registering to vote so they can defeat it.

Nobody made a claim that the work on the constitution has been finished, or that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I would have to admit that the way it was carried out was a demonstration of how not to do it!

How it was done is irrelevant to the issue of what to do now.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

So...you do agree with me?

"Terrorist would not be able to take control of the oil fields had we not invaded."

Right, so how can that be a justification for starting the war in the first place? Its self-contradictory. edit: wait, does this involve Bush's time machine from the New Orleans thread? If Bush knew ahead of time that he wouldn't be able to control the oil fields 2 years after the invasion, he could justify the invasion on the basis of protecting the oil fields after the invasion... er, um, wait a minute... :uhh:

"The need to stay and protect the now endangered oil fields is a consequence of our own actions which Bush has finally acknowledged."

Right - a justification for staying, not a justification for invading Iraq in the first place.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

We're agreeing again. We must stop doing that.

 

[Skyhunter]

We're agreeing again. We must stop doing that.

It's is alright as long as we keep it to a minimum.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?
Iraq's strongest economic base will be oil. If we are going to protect Iraq's interests then we definitely ought to keep an eye on their most plentiful resource for them and make sure it doesn't go up in flames.
So if the US just up and left Iraq right now are you saying that you all wouldn't be up on here moaning about the US screwing over Iraq by walking out and letting their government fall apart after we invaded them? It hardly matters what the US does at this point because anything and everything they do will be criticized. If their troops staid away from the oil and the oil was destroyed because of it everyone would moan about the US not protecting Iraq's interests like it should be. If the US protects their oil then they must be there to steal it from them. The US let's them make their own constitution and it doesn't turn out well it's the US's fault. The US gives them a constitution then they're opressing them.

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions. The onus is on you. You don't think what is going on is the right way for things to go on then tell us what you think ought to be done. And sorry saying that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place is no solution unless you can figure out how to build a time machine.

 

[Skyhunter]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?
Iraq's strongest economic base will be oil. If we are going to protect Iraq's interests then we definitely ought to keep an eye on their most plentiful resource for them and make sure it doesn't go up in flames.
So if the US just up and left Iraq right now are you saying that you all wouldn't be up on here moaning about the US screwing over Iraq by walking out and letting their government fall apart after we invaded them? It hardly matters what the US does at this point because anything and everything they do will be criticized. If their troops staid away from the oil and the oil was destroyed because of it everyone would moan about the US not protecting Iraq's interests like it should be. If the US protects their oil then they must be there to steal it from them. The US let's them make their own constitution and it doesn't turn out well it's the US's fault. The US gives them a constitution then they're opressing them.

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions. The onus is on you. You don't think what is going on is the right way for things to go on then tell us what you think ought to be done. And sorry saying that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place is no solution unless you can figure out how to build a time machine.

Why is the onus on those of us who opposed the war?

What was it Colin Powell said?

"You break it you own it."

I don't have a solution. The man I thought could possibly lead us out of this disaster was Wesley Clark. When he didn't get the nomination I swallowed and threw my support behind Kerry.

Of course if congress had listened to Wes Clark and not given this madman in the White House carte blanch to wage war as he saw fit, the weapons inspectors would have determined that there were no WMD or imminent threat, so Bush & Co. would have had to manufacture some other justification for invading and occupying Iraq.

And even if I had a solution, do you think he would listen?

Face it, he has screwed us all and the only option left to us is to voice our despair and outrage on PF.

 

[Evo]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?
Iraq's strongest economic base will be oil. If we are going to protect Iraq's interests then we definitely ought to keep an eye on their most plentiful resource for them and make sure it doesn't go up in flames.
So if the US just up and left Iraq right now are you saying that you all wouldn't be up on here moaning about the US screwing over Iraq by walking out and letting their government fall apart after we invaded them? It hardly matters what the US does at this point because anything and everything they do will be criticized. If their troops staid away from the oil and the oil was destroyed because of it everyone would moan about the US not protecting Iraq's interests like it should be. If the US protects their oil then they must be there to steal it from them. The US let's them make their own constitution and it doesn't turn out well it's the US's fault. The US gives them a constitution then they're opressing them.

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions. The onus is on you. You don't think what is going on is the right way for things to go on then tell us what you think ought to be done. And sorry saying that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place is no solution unless you can figure out how to build a time machine.

Great post.

It's easy to sit back and criticize, but it doesn't fix things. I need to get a copy of something that was in a class I attended last week "because that's the way it is". It was great.

I didn't vote for Bush, don't like Bush, and disagree with everything that he does, but thanks to many "felluh Amerkins" I'm sitting in this boat. TSA is right, pulling out of Iraq right now would be an even worse disaster, there are too many corrupt self interest groups wanting to take control. We are in a bad situation, let's not make it worse with more knee jerk decisions.

 

[pattylou]

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions.

We have been.

A year ago we were begging everyone to "Vote Kerry."

Remember?

We still are suggesting solutions. On another thread, someone suggested overthrowing the government. LOL. I don't personally think that this is a tenable idea, but you can't say people aren't throwing solutions around. My suggestion: Vote democrat. Even more importantly: work towards paper-trail verified balloting in your area. Demand it, sign petitions, raise awareness, and so on. That's my solution. First make *damn* sure we're getting the person in office that the people want.

BTW, the point of the OP was to (futilely) try to wake up those who refuse to see that the reason for the war keeps changing. I don't know if people really don't see it, or if they see it and don't care. Either possibility is scary.

Our reasons for going to Iraq will change again. It will be tied into Iran soon, we'll have to keep fighting in Iraq in order to prevent Iran from blah blah blah... Iran was not an original reason for us to go to Iraq.

Neither was oil. Neither was "spreading democracy." Neither were a couple others that I forget. But everyone is so knee-jerk afraid that the muslims want to kill us all because we're the infidels, that we're hell bent on killing them first. So any morphing reason spouted by bush, feeds on that fear and gets licked up by a segment of the population.

Well, at least he's not a flip-flopper. He can change his reasons for invading a hundred times, but, you know, that's not "flip flopping." That's sticking to your guns. God bless him.

( OK, so maybe I'm a *little* bitter.)