The REAL meat an potato's of this war.

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:50 pm

What do you all think is the TRUE meat and potato's (mm, potatos..) reason for this war? maybe this will become PCA's top flame thread! YAY! I honestly have mixed feelings about this war, as most of you all do too. but perhaps, we can all agree upon this subject if we can learn more about it, from one another.

marscheese · Post by **marscheese** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:10 pm

Saddam's a ruthless madman, he has weapons...we're trying to do the world a favor.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:20 pm

German, French and Russian companies have VERY lucrative exclusive oil contracts with Saddam's regime.

Germany, France and Russia were the most vocal opponents to the war.

Coincidently German, French and Russian companies have been implicated in selling Iraq technology that can be used to manufacture Weapons of Mass Destruction and Russian companies may have sold conventional weapons to Iraq.

No, it's not about oil....

marscheese · Post by **marscheese** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:50 pm

a couple things FP...first off, those are reasons for opposition, what's your input for other countries (including ourselves) of why to go to war?

Secondly:

Germany: sold scores of weapons/materials for the building of weapons to Iraq. We go in, find some of these (that the Germans don't want us to be able to prove), so they don't want us in there, because it'll make them look bad.

Russia: Iraq is in heavy debt with Russia. If Iraq is in war, sort of hard for them to be making payments back to the russians.

France: sold parts to make weapons...sort of like the Germans.

I'm sure oil is a reason, but don't let it overshadow the other issues.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:08 pm

Our reason?

The official line: "Guaranteeing the stability of the region".

Translation: "Guaranteeing our continued smooth supply of oil."

Phjorg · Post by **Phjorg** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:08 pm

It's a few things. 45+ countreies in the world here get it.

1) We see Sadamms links to al-quada and funding terrorists. As such, this is a continuation on the war on terrorism. Sadamm is linked to the murder of 3000 innocent civilians. And as such, is being rounded up in the global fight on terrorism.

2) 12 years of failing to uphold UN resolutions on disarming. Sadamm had 45 days to completely disarm after the first gulf war as defined by UN. 4000+ days later Sadamm still hasn't disarmed thus breaking the ceasefire agreement and allowing for hostilities to _continue_

3) Estimates as to the bloodyness of Sadamm regime are somehwat guesswork, but a figure of 500000 of his people being murdered, raped, beaten and tortured but him and his government is generally accepted. For human rights reasons alone, there is enough to warrent a forceable removal of him and his regime.

Phjorg · Post by **Phjorg** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:12 pm

Translation: "Guaranteeing our continued smooth supply of oil."

I have a problem with this one. This war is NOT about oil... I can't say this enough. Hell, even bush said it. The oil in Iraq belongs to Iraq!!! If iraq wants to sell oil to us, then fine, they will. And true, they most likely will since business is business. But it's a free market. it's economics, we AREN'T stealing it from them...

I truely find it hard to believe that 30+ other countries in this world are lending military simply so Bush can get oil...

blade · Post by **blade** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:19 pm

Translation: "Guaranteeing our continued smooth supply of oil."

Whoooaaaa! What thu... :; I agree with Phjorg and <b>completely</b> disagree with you fp. Man, you can't be that blind.

I'm typed out for now but Phjorg did a damn good job explaining the facts. Maybe read them over:

1) We see Sadamms links to al-quada and funding terrorists. As such, this is a continuation on the war on terrorism. Sadamm is linked to the murder of 3000 innocent civilians. And as such, is being rounded up in the global fight on terrorism.

2) 12 years of failing to uphold UN resolutions on disarming. Sadamm had 45 days to completely disarm after the first gulf war as defined by UN. 4000+ days later Sadamm still hasn't disarmed thus breaking the ceasefire agreement and allowing for hostilities to _continue_

3) Estimates as to the bloodyness of Sadamm regime are somehwat guesswork, but a figure of 500000 of his people being murdered, raped, beaten and tortured but him and his government is generally accepted. For human rights reasons alone, there is enough to warrent a forceable removal of him and his regime.

And mars did well too:

Germany: sold scores of weapons/materials for the building of weapons to Iraq. We go in, find some of these (that the Germans don't want us to be able to prove), so they don't want us in there, because it'll make them look bad.

Russia: Iraq is in heavy debt with Russia. If Iraq is in war, sort of hard for them to be making payments back to the russians.

France: sold parts to make weapons...sort of like the Germans.

Yes the above helps to insure the flow of oil, but that isn't the reason we are doing this. You did well in your first post though.

honz · Post by **honz** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:43 pm

I think Saddam's sadistacy (is that a word??) is the main reason. But like anything else in life, there are other factors.

as for selling weapons. lets not forget that we have sold weapons to many terrorist countries also.

We may get oil out of them afterwards. so will russia, france and germany. they aren't fighting?!?!?! Business is business. I can't see how you said in the other post that the war was unavoidable, but that you also claim its because of oil? etf, I must be missing something huge here.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:44 pm

Sorry, but oil is a large part of what this is all about. There's nothing wrong with that either - the stability of oil availability is important.

We fought Gulf War 1 for two major reasons: stability of oil availability, and because Iraq had too large and an army which was threatening to destabilize the region (putting us in the uncomfortable position of having to help the Iranians defend themselves against Iraq because we could afford to have one unfriendly dictatorial government in control of two very large oil producing nations in the region).

Or do some of you think we REALLY gave a rat's ass about the well being of some wealthy Kuwaiti's?

This time around it's about oil again, and the issue of weapons of mass destruction (once again a region stability issue).

Guys, it's NOT about US getting their oil, or even US companies getting their oil.

It's about the SMOOTH FLOW OF OIL.

Oil is everything - it runs our economy, as well as every other modern nation's economy.

The availability of oil affects EVERYTHING.

When there's trouble in the middle east, oil prices rise, which means electricity and fuel prices rise. Businesses lose money, consumers are unhappy, our economy suffers. It affects us less than Europe, but we still import a LOT of oil.

Gasoline prices are heavily subsidized in this country because if we had to pay what europeans are paying, people would be rioting in the streets.

The present administration is treating the oil dependency issue as so serious that it's openning up the Alaskan wildlife refuse to oil drilling. Convenient way to pay back GW's oil buddies who put him in office because in practical terms there will be no oil flowing from those fields for several years - the transportation infrastructure has to be built first.

Yes Saddam has been in bed with terrorists, yes he's tortured mained and killed hundreds of thousands, yes he's violated UN treaties. So what? That describes a couple of African countries as well -I don't see us invading any God forsaken countries in Africa. Why? Not important, they don't have anything that matters to us (except those with rare metals our industries rely on, and then we get involved).

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying that's the way it is. Anyone who thinks we fought Gulf War 1 to liberate the people of Kuwait and are fighting this time to liberate the people of Iraq, also probably think the civil war was entirely about freeing the slaves. In all three cases it's a naive and incomplete perspective.

The politcal realities are VERY complicated. Let's not forget that at one time we armed Saddam and helped him hold on to power (our long history of supporting the dictator we THINK we can trust as opposed to the one we can't trust).

Busby · Post by **Busby** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:02 pm

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
also probably think the civil war was entirely about freeing the slaves.

What was it about then? I went through AP US History last year with a great teacher and the only real reason was slavery, maybe a few economic issues but mainly slaves (even though a large part of the South did not have slaves and only wealthy, powerful people did).

Lemme guess FP, you're more liberal than conservative?

Personally, the war may be happening in effect because of oil but not mainly because of it. It's the breaking of the UN resolutions, poor treatment of Iraqi citizens, terrorism, and the weapons of mass destruction.

What we don't know is why we are at war. Bush and Blair and others know things that we don't know and we will find out once we get this over with. Yes, lives will be lost but the lives that will be lost will be for a good cause, and not for oil as the first war was over.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't France and Germany have some oil fields in Iraq? Now, why would they have so much opposition to this war? Sounds like a no brainer to me.

Is the Iraqi response to war not enough to justify going in fully and killin the SOBs? They've acted like surrendering and then firing at our soldiers, they've broken the Geneva Convention by broadcasting interrogation and the bodies and faces of dead American soldiers. What are we doing to the "captured" Iraqi soldiers? It sure as hell isn't that!

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:41 pm

Never made a secret of my liberal tendencies, although I prefer the politcal appellation of "Rational Anarchist" thank you

I realize there's some radical American groups that calls themselves that nowadays, unfortunately, but that's not what I'm talking about.

For an explanation of that term I refer you to Robert H. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress":

"I'm a rational anarchist. . . .A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame ... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world ... aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

honz · Post by **honz** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 12:45 am

FP, if this war is about oil, heres my question.

Why now? Why is the war now?? What has changed? Oil has always been pretty much free flowing. Its like the only damn economy they have.

It may not be going to us, but its going somewhere. Most likely its going to Germany, France and Russia. Don't confuse cause with effect. There really was no price change in gas, or economy until this while war started rolling around in the making.

Sure, I totally agree the 'Iraqi Liberation' is just publicity for Bush. We hadn't paid any attention to Saddam for years, while he was killing his own people. This is about terrorism. He saw that they were becoming a threat, that likely they were helping terrorists, and that cutting him off would help his 'War Against Terror'. If Bush had left things alone like had been done since the first war, we would have our oil.

When there's trouble in the middle east, oil prices rise, which means electricity and fuel prices rise. Businesses lose money, consumers are unhappy, our economy suffers. It affects us less than Europe, but we still import a LOT of oil.

so why would we want to create the trouble by starting a war?? cuz its not about oill =)

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:06 am

Hmmm... just speculating out loud, if I was a suspicious bastard and had little regard for the morals of politicians and big business....

Fueling fears of oil appears (mid-east instabilities & Argentina social turmoil)... Administration uses that as an excuse to (rather easily) remove all restrictions on drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge (nice payback for GW's oil buddies).... Present situation (threat of war) has substantially raised the price of oil & gas here (possibly more money for GW's oil buddies since we really have no idea how much of a profit margin they're making).... Perhaps the oil companies hope that after the war is over the American people will be used to paying over $2 a gallon for gas (in some places in the west it's been over $3) and with any luck (for them) prices will settle down a bit higher after the war is over (same as during the so-called oil crisis of the 70's when they got us used to seeing prices over $1 a gallon)...

Again I'm not saying it's ALL about oil, but it's a large part of the equation.

Shadow250 · Post by **Shadow250** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:48 pm

i agree with fp on this one, why else would we want to invade iraq? as sombody said about africa they broke treaties and starved their own people. we did not intervene. but iraq has the oil wealth. what else is important enough to fight over there? the sand?:jedi