It was all about the oil, or was it?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by roe, Jun 7, 2003.

  1. roe


    Well, while they are still dividing the spoils of this latest sample of global bullying, and the leaks from the "sea of oil" are plugged with pipes leading directly into Wall Street, threads here are closed. Most probably it is becoming too obvious and too embarrassing for the apologists of the pre-war propaganda, to carry on their line, which was that those who said that the war was all about the oil, were simply brainless ijits.

    It's a pity that the intellectual level of the war proponents has sunk so low, but there are many historic examples. Take our German friends some 70 years ago: their leader had just risen to power in 1933 and was preparing for war. What happened then, you might ask. Well, the German version of war proponents are history, and unfortunately millions had to suffer from the Nazi's stupidity.

    What will Americans in 70 years say about this Bush administration, I wonder. Will there be some Nuremberg-style trials in The Hague for war crimes?
  2. Possibly, but it won't be Bush or his administration on trial.
  3. Again, as previously, I have to wonder what you even think you're saying. How does a leak get plugged with a pipe to Wall Street, and what is that supposed to have to do with Elite Trader policy? You seem to be suggesting that the vast right-wing conspiracy is so vast, powerful, and paranoid that it reaches into Elite Trader and closes chit-chat threads. Is that a joke? If that's what you believe, then I would never call you brainless, as mental impairment cannot exist in the absence of at least some mentation, however simplistic and twisted, to be impaired. I think you might be trying to say something else, but I'm not sure.

    You also appear to be referring to the Wolfowitz "sea of oil" statement - the one that was taken out of context and put at the center of a phony story that was retracted by its main purveyor, THE GUARDIAN. We've already discussed this event elsewhere on ET - see (Better go there quickly before the vast right-wing conspiracy deletes the entire thread.)

    As for the larger point, no one with any sense, Bush and company least of all, denied that oil played a significant role in the entire situation that led to the Iraq war. Brainless ijiocy typically centered, and apparently still centers, on some notion that the war was fought for the sake of particular oil or oil service companies and for the purpose of stealing Iraqi oil from the Iraqi people.
  4. roe


    Perhaps: but those who demonstrated in the streets of the world saying that "it's all about the oil" were shouted down by louts like you and were called names that are more fitting for you and people like you. The "sea of oil" statement was not retracted, unless of course your miserable attempts of retracting it should be seen as such: for the rest of the world it was the confirmation of what they had always feared.

    Or have you forgotten all the hype about the WMD? Which suddenly became "bureaucratic" reasons for war?

    The truth is: North Korea will not be attacked, because there is no oil, although they openly cry out to the world what Saddam Hussein has always denied for his country: "we have weapons of mass detruction, and we can retaliate if you impose sanctions on us".

    So: it was about the oil, right?
  5. Is it possible that it was indeed about the oil primarily?

    What betrays your objectivity is that you assume with 100% certainty that you are correct, rather than being open to the possibility that it was a major factor.

    Or do you routinely believe that politicians are open, honest, and direct with their political agendas?

    You are bright, but often myopic when arguing from conclusion to evidence. Not a search for the truth in my opinion. When it comes to politics, the truth is rarely known.

    Those who truly understand the big picture of the world's need for the free flow of oil at a reasonable price, and the need for stability in the middle east to ensure that, would never dismiss that oil did not play a part in the agenda of the current administration, and in fact may have been the number one reason for the actions taken.

    I have been of the belief that there were multiple reasons for Bush's actions....what was number one on the list of reasons only the inner circle really knows....but to deny oil as a factor is to be in denial of the reality of our world economy and the way world politics works.

    Time will eventually reveal the truth.
  6. roe


    Thanks for the compliment, and the time has come.

    Multiple reasons? Prepare for an invasion of Iran, perhaps?
  7. Compliment? Unless you are Kymar, you are taking what is not yours to take.
  8. I'm rather dubious about arguing with you about any subject whatsoever, partly because you've demonstrated personal hostility towards me since the first post of yours I ever noticed, but mainly because I have no trust either in your reading comprehension skills or in the state of your connections to reality.

    This retraction issue is a good case in point: Neither Wolfowitz nor the department which he serves felt the need to "retract" his statement - as they both felt that the statement, read in its full context, was informative and harmless, if perhaps too commplicated for some to understand. As for myself, I am not able, as you suggest, to retract the statement or even to make an "attempt" to do so, miserable or otherwise, as the statement was not mine to retract. The only retraction was the one performed by THE GUARDIAN, not of the "sea of oil" statement - which, again, was not THE GUARDIAN's to retract - but of the story that made approximately the same unjustifiable use of the statement that you initially made.

    The material was available at the link that I provided. Apparently, you either did not check the link, or you do not understand the concept of retraction. Here, again, is what THE GUARDIAN said about its own report:

    "Hype" is precisely the right word for that story, where, again, a perfectly reasonable statement of Wolfowitz's was taken out of a larger context to make it seem that he was saying what his opponents would like him to have said. We've gone over this elsewhere on ET also.

    These two stories may show that some opponents of Administration war policy are willing to stoop to very low levels for the sake of scoring minor propaganda points. Some of these opponents may simply like spreading confusion and annoyance. Some may be confident - as we have seen with these and many other stories - that a juicy enough lie, even if later retracted by the original purveyor, can achieve a life of its own if it's picked up and passed on quickly enough.

    The fact remains that you'd have to be rather naive to believe that Wolfowitz would ever have expressed himself as claimed in either story.

    Your statement of the "truth" relies on too many dubious and unclear presumptions and is too unintelligibly self-entangled to justify any conclusion.
  9. What I said was:

    I don't deny, haven't denied, haven't made any statements that I believe could reasonably be construed to deny, and don't believe that any intelligent observer could deny or would want to deny, that oil was "a major factor."

    I see nothing wrong with most of your related statement, for instance:

    During the build-up to the war, we frequently discussed these matters: I argued then that oil played a critical, multi-sided role in the larger equation - first in sustaining and insulating the Iraqi regime, second in putting it in a position to re-constitute its military apparatus and ambitions as soon as containment slipped, third in making the world at large vulnerable to Iraqi aggression or blackmail.

    Surely you can understand the difference between acknowledging the importance of resource issues in a geopolitical context and basing foreign or military policy on thievery and corruption. Those seeking and spreading anti-Bush bumper sticker slogans may remain unsatisfied with this distinction.

    Others whose opposition extends to the international economic order itself may not acknowledge the distinction for other reasons: They already believe that capitalism implies injustice ("property is theft," as they used to say and as some still do), and their reflex is to oppose any action that implicitly supports international capitalism. When they say "No blood for oil," what I think they really mean is "no blood to support international capitalism."

    In a way the communists, anarchists, and even their newly appearing Islamic fascist allies who can march together these days under the banner of "anti-globalization" agree with their opponents about the importance of oil to the economic system - and in this sense are more sophisticated than many of their dupes - they just disagree about the economic system itself. Many of them are unimpressed, for instance, with tales of Hussein's depradations because they believe that capitalism and its supporters (with the US at the center of it all) are truly responsible for Hussein himself and for much worse, all over the world, day after day and year after year. They are happy to support "peace," and to make common cause with pacifists, but they do so as much because they recognize that peace means defeat and surrender for their real enemies.

    As you know, I used to be one of those people, and I hasten to add that I no longer consider either their evidence or the reasoning to be sound.

    So are we clear?
  10. You appear to me to be "Pro Bush" rather than "Neutral Bush" searching for the truth.

    If so, that is bias.

    Any purely objective party would question the motives of Bush, based on actions of presidents in the past, and the view of history of what has happened when men wield the amount of power that Bush currently yields, compounded by the amount of fear generated by 911.

    I have not reached any conclusion, how could I, all the facts are not in evidence.

    However, when I take off the pro/anti Bush glasses, and just look at the facts, the facts do raise questions that I believe deserve answers.

    When I see you levy any criticisms against the administration, which is normal (every husband who loves his wife still has his criticisms) then I may come to belief that your perceptions are not filtered with pure bias, in the same way you used to hold extremist communist beliefs. Unfortunate, I view you as one of those types who have swung 100% to a polar opposite, and are pro Bush, rather than take each and every issue independently. You appear to me to tow the party line unequivocally.

    There is a real disease in our society these days, the disease of polarization.

    We have an abundance of people who have their opinions formed by them via Fox News (Clear and balanced my ass.) In the wake of 911, and the fears generated, people have surrendered their intellect, and have put a blind faith in the current administration. Those who suggest the administration might be wrong, or corrupt are labeled unpatriotic, rather than simply Americans expressing a different perspective.

    The pure fact is that we don't know what Bush & Company's real agenda is, do we?

    The facts are nebulous, and much is hidden from view, or sealed under the guise of "National Security" which creates an impossible situation, except for the leadership to say: "Just trust us."

    I have a serious problem with the Administration changing policy in mid stream. Going from WMD and National Security, to removal of a threat, to liberation of the Iraqi citizens could possible indicate that all the proclamations of Bush about WMD were false.

    It seems quite illogical to me to think a man proclaimed to be as evil as Hitler, if he were in possession of WMD, would not have used them on the invaders of his country. It seems highly illogical that even if Hussein was killed, that there were not standing orders to unleash those weapons upon his death.

    Why is it important what the motive of Bush and Company was? Is all that matters in the end, is the end result?

    Let me ask you a question, is an illegal search and seizure justified when it produces something in the search which is positive?

    The court says no. The courts say you have to abide by the rules, abide by the law. The law prescribes a protocol of action, that if deviated from nullifies the results of the actions.

    Bush said in the beginning that this was about WMD, not the liberation of Iraqi people. He said emphatically that they exist....yet to this point they do not exist.

    If in fact he did falsify the real reasons for his war, and now justifies the war because the end result leaves Iraq in a better position now than it was before the war (debatable), does that make his actions right? Does it make his actions legal?

    Here is the bottom line.

    We do need to know the truth as a society, we do need to trust our leadership. Only 30 years ago, we had Nixon. Only 30 years ago! Yet people who are pro Bush are unwilling to hold him to the necessary scrutiny, or even accept the possibility that he may well have abused his power, in a "means to the end" war.

    So many pointed to Hussein and made parallels to Hitler as justification of action before and after the war, but if you suggest any parallels between Bush and Nixon (or Reagan with Iran/Contra) the same people decry you as heretical.

    Is it so hard to believe that a Republican administration is acting in a clandestine manner?

    One basic difference between a democracy, and a totalitarian state, is that in a democracy like ours the principles do not support an "end result is a justification of the means" approach to policy and making and execution of said policy.
    In a totalitarian regime, the end always justifies the means in the eyes of leadership.

    Had the stated goal been from the very beginning to liberate the people of Iraq, if that was the agenda from the beginning, presented to Congress and the American people, to the United Nations and the rest of the world....and if the support was there for that agenda that is one thing.

    That simply was not the case.

    Failure to hold those in power to fulfilling their promises because a side effect of the policy is deemed of value, leads those in power to dismiss the stated goals and choose rather to look for ways to rationalize the means.

    When those in power are allowed that kind of power, unchecked by the media, Congress, and the American people....we have a totalitarian state in the making.

    Do I know Bush is guilty of some impropriety? No, do you know that he is not?

    We have to keep our minds open to all possibilities, and scrutinize the politicians with the keen sword of our intellects, and not fall prey to the warm fuzzies that they offer in black and white solutions to the gray areas of life.

    The people in Germany in the early 30's turned off their intellects in favor or a vision of a Utopian society. We must not forget the reward of their lack of vision and scrutiny, and not always checking the power of leadership against all possible measures.
    #10     Jun 8, 2003