IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hapaboy, Jan 30, 2003.

  1. If posts can contain something more insightful than slogans perhaps there can be some good debate here.

    It would be especially helpful if voters would post the reasoning behind their votes.

    I voted for option 4 because I feel the "this is all about the US wanting to take over the world's oil" argument is ridiculous. America has had numerous opportunities to have taken over the oil supply of many a nation due to an overwhelming military advantage, yet we have NEVER done so.

    We had the opportunity after WWII when we were the sole nuclear power. What did we do with our unprecedented, one-sided power? We helped the world rebuild. Indeed, we helped our greatest enemies in the conflict, Germany and Japan, become economic powerhouses.

    We had the opportunity after Desert Storm. Did we take advantage of the beating we dealt to the Iraqis then and press on to Baghdad? Did we take over Kuwait's oil fields which Saddam tried to destroy? No. We helped Kuwait put out the fires and then..... left.

    Those of you on other threads (Candle, Madison, traderfut2000, bungrider, et al) who have posted that Bush is doing this solely to control the oil have an opportunity here to state your reasoning. Hopefully you will not avoid the issue as you have on those threads. If you do avoid it, we can then assume you have no argument. Your silence will indeed speak much louder than your empty slogans.
  2. i'm an american and voted 4 also. obviously, there are many reasons for what bush wants to do. however, i would say the main reason is to prevent a man like saddam from getting too far ahead with his objectives.

    as others have said, we learned from hitler. he was let loose for too long. if he was stopped sooner, maybe the terrible events he caused never would have happened. why take a chance with this asshole?

    it's clear saddam does not like the USA, if someone is going to make a nuke and give it to someone else to use it on us, he'd definitely be a prime suspect. nevermind nukes, he has all his chemical and bio weapons, too. who does he plan on using them on? bush's #1 job is to protect his citizens.

    more reasons:

    saddam violated his agreements from the previous war. if the world lets him get away with that, then really, what meaning does any wartime agreement have?

    he kills his own people and gives them poor freedom.

    he does control some oil, which gives him something to bargain with. if we can let a better person control the oil, why not?

    add it all up and ask yourself why the world should put up with saddam hussein?

  3. ElCubano


    don't you think that attacking Saddam would spur more terrorist attacks ( thats just obvious )?? Terrorist groups love the limelight and will use this War as their stage ..So voting that The War is to protect America from terrorism when in fact the War will spur more terrorism is false......peace

    In my opinion if you want to stop terrorism you need to start right here at home....with what methods I have no idea.
  4. what a crude rhetorical tactic - falsely attribute a statement to someone, then claim that if that person does not refute it that it therefore must be true.

    perhaps the lack of response you have received is due to an expectation that anything said will be misconstrued and selectively quoted, or that it will only be met with childish ad hominem rebuttals, arrogant dismissal of differing opinion, and empty slogans parroted amongst the neocon talk-show guests.

    believe whatever you want, and rant to your heart's content - I wish you the best. people can read for themselves what I have and have not posted on this subject.
  5. you still haven't responded madison.

    the idea that we want to steal oil from Iraq is totally insane.
  6. Madison, I owe you an apology. I did mistakenly lump you in with Candle and co. You have avoided other issues and questions but this one had yet to be posed to you. Again, my apologies.

    Let me ask you about this one:
    Here you are stating that seizing control of the oil supply is one of the motives for the administration. Please elaborate on that. What is the difference between that and stealing the oil? Do you mean to say that after invading Iraq and forcing a regime change, we are NOT going to relinquish the country's resources to its new government? :confused:
  7. I was talking to my friend about this entire situation and suddenly it dawned on both of us that this "armchair politics" that we all engage in is futile.

    So, instead of debating whether war is good or bad or for what reasons the U.S. is preparing for war and why they want it with Iraq, why don't we just all accept the obvious -- that nothing we say or do is going to convince George Bush something other than what he is currently thinking.

    I doubt he's going to log onto Elitetrader and read a post by Gordon or Babak and think, "Hmm, my entire cabinet was wrong -- these traders are really onto something here!"

    Let's just face facts and submit to the realization that whatever world events that are going to occur, we're in no position to stop them no matter how great our arguments are.

    Instead, why not just accept what's going to happen and figure out how it would affect our lives and make preparations for those events and perhaps find ways to profit from the entire situation.
  8. The Cabinet is filled with cronies from the first Bush persidency. IMO, this is more about family honor and the fact that Saddam wanted to kill his daddy and oil than it is about fighting terrorism and weapons.

    Last time Saddam invaded Kuwait.

    This time, other than the weapons issues and humanitarian issues, what is there? The US has supported quite a few regimes that haven't been shining stars in the humanitarian areas, so I'll call BS on that.

    IMO, the Saudi's likely provide more in $ to terror than Iraqi's.

    I agree with some of the others here, that an attack will become a lightning rod for those opposed to the US.

    To say that we shouldn't express our 1st amendment rights, pro or con regarding war, reminds me of an old Bobby Knight quote. "If rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it." Sorry, if i don't enjoy this. If someone asks, and I find something distasteful and can voice my opinion regarding such acts, you're likely to hear it, because I can. It is a tough pill to swallow because you sometimes feel as though your voice isn't really considered in such matters. Good thing I can still bitch about it though.

    Aphe.... I agree that we as citizens don't have much say is such matters. We can only live with the consequences of the actions of the elected or non-elected leaders depending on your political affiliation. Unfortunately, we can't prepare for all the unknown that certain terrorist factions will dispense on the US.



    P.S. Bobby Knight is a good BB coach but an idiot!!!

  9. uhh.......I think this "idea" was put forth by the bush supporters..

    none of us Bush-haters suggested bush wanted to "steal" oil -

    what I implied (pretty straightforwardly) was that he wants to make Iraq's new regime friendly to US refiners...those refiners are run by his friends, and dick's friends, and those friends would stand to make alot of money if Iraq's oil supply were to be made more liquid...

    same thing with the pipeline thru afghanistan...
  10. that's really intelligent.

    you sound like the people who don't vote b/c they know their votes won't matter anyway

    and look who won the last election by like 150 votes
    #10     Jan 30, 2003