The UN fights for oil.
I've been kicking this idea around for awhile, and I just can't resist after seeing that pitiful display by Chirac, post Bush's keynote (haha).
In 1990, A coalition formed around the US. In 1990 Iraq threatened the world's oil supply to the tune of a few dollars a barrel. Everyone (about 5 months later) got in on the act 'cause the cost of oil was at stake.
In 2002/3, 9-11 threatens the USA. Hasty rhetoric follows, the link between Sadam and 9-11 is tenuous, but intelligence about his future plans for WOMD are probably understated. He is a danger. Bush has handled everything badly, but that's besides the point too.
Let's just for a moment subject the UN (particularly France and Germany) to the same filter everyone wants to point at the USA. Oil.
When oil interests were clearly at stake, they were in 110%. Now that the issue is dictatorship, a murderous regime, the very real intelligence threat of chemical, biological, and (most likely though no one wants to say it) post soviet nuclear know-how, France and Germany are out.
Who really fights for oil?
In 1990, A coalition formed around the US. In 1990 Iraq threatened the world's oil supply to the tune of a few dollars a barrel. Everyone (about 5 months later) got in on the act 'cause the cost of oil was at stake.
In 2002/3, 9-11 threatens the USA. Hasty rhetoric follows, the link between Sadam and 9-11 is tenuous, but intelligence about his future plans for WOMD are probably understated. He is a danger. Bush has handled everything badly, but that's besides the point too.
Let's just for a moment subject the UN (particularly France and Germany) to the same filter everyone wants to point at the USA. Oil.
When oil interests were clearly at stake, they were in 110%. Now that the issue is dictatorship, a murderous regime, the very real intelligence threat of chemical, biological, and (most likely though no one wants to say it) post soviet nuclear know-how, France and Germany are out.
Who really fights for oil?
Comments
I've noticed that there aren't a whole lot of anti-war people praising France (at least not that I've seen). To me, that's telling.
How about the fact that Iraq invaded and took over Kuwait? One of the missions of the UN is to prevent things like that from happening.
The coalition was formed to liberate Kuwait.
Originally posted by Matsu
Who really fights for oil?
Everyone that bases their transport, energy, and industrial infrastructure on it. Basically all the nations on Earth. In the end if someone threatens to weaken or destroy this important aspect of your society, it's a valid reason to go to war. Note that valid?great but nothing about war is great.
Again Matsu, terse analysis that's sure to irk some people here.
That will definitely piss some folks off.
Originally posted by Matsu
In 1990, A coalition formed around the US. In 1990 Iraq threatened the world's oil supply to the tune of a few dollars a barrel. Everyone (about 5 months later) got in on the act 'cause the cost of oil was at stake.
In 2002/3, 9-11 threatens the USA. Hasty rhetoric follows, the link between Sadam and 9-11 is tenuous, but intelligence about his future plans for WOMD are probably understated. He is a danger. Bush has handled everything badly, but that's besides the point too.
When oil interests were clearly at stake, they were in 110%. Now that the issue is dictatorship, a murderous regime, the very real intelligence threat of chemical, biological, and (most likely though no one wants to say it) post soviet nuclear know-how, France and Germany are out.
Your argument is based on falsehoods.
The first Iraq war was to free Kuwait. This second war is to free oil.
Bush's handling of the situation is not beside the point.
France and Germany are not 'out'. If Saddam crossed an international border and voted against taking action then you could say they were 'out'.
The link between Saddam and Osama is not tenuous, it's non-existant.
Kuwait? There are barely more Kuwaitis than there are Kurds. Anyone who believes Gulf War v.I was about Kuwait is being selectively naive.
Originally posted by Matsu
They haven't threatened the price of oil, yet, so how can America's war be read as a war for oil?
Kuwait? There are barely more Kuwaitis than there are Kurds. Anyone who believes Gulf War v.I was about Kuwait is being selectively naive.
Saddam having the oil is considered a threat to the oil.
Kuwait? Like I said, if Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait both France and Germany would support action right now. So, how can that be read as a war for oil?
I wouldn't read either as a war for oil. To read this one as a war for oil will require you to also conclude oil is the major motivator of France and Germany as well.
It's interesting that France now wants to be involved in the rebuilding of post Saddam Iraq. That's very lucrative business, expensive, but lucrative.
You can't really say that either war is a play for oil unless you say they both are, though in different ways.
I hate it when people are intentionally naive. Obviously this is about diplomactic power structures. Now that the US has basically iradicated France's play, the French want to be dealt back in, firstly, by saying that they would join an effort IF Iraq used chemical or biological weapons, and secondly, that they would want a UN resolution for the rebuilding of Iraq. France will want to get back into position with the next regime and that's how they can do it. And they can make a better case for the participation in that re-building if they participate in the war effort, which, if Saddam uses WOMD, they now indicate they will. Don't want the yankees hogging all the best contracts.
So, if you protect a genocidal dictator (as the US has also done, I don't dispute the alterior motives of the US, just want to put some attention on the alterior motives of some other nations)... if you protect a genocidal dictator to protect your trade arrangements, that may not be making war for oil, so much as sustaining oppression for oil. Not so differrent actually.
Please don't keep bringing up Kuwait, it isn't just an inconvience to this more realistic (if cynical) train of thought, it really is an incedental matter. What have we done for the Kurds? No oil, no help. I don't see how you can condemn this war because of oil when if anything the previous gulf war was more about oil than this one. For the UN, (and the US) Kuwait was just a good fortune of semantics.
Originally posted by Matsu
You can't really say that either war is a play for oil unless you say they both are, though in different ways.
War was a factor in both. There were mitigating circumstances that precluded the first war though. This war has no substiantial mitigating circumstances.
Wether or not France has economic interests in Iraq doesn't negate the fact that the right course of action for the world is still the right course of action even if it helps their cause. That's coincidence. When the first war occurred, it was beneficial for the US, but that didn't negate the fact that we should have gone in to liberate a country which shall remain nameless.
Originally posted by Eugene
So bunge, where was this outcry for peace from France and Russia (or any of you Bush-haters) when Clinton was lobbing missiles into downtown Baghdad 5 years ago? Bush is just an easy target to pick on. This isn't about oil. This is about what's chic in global politics. It's chic to oppose Bush right now.
I suppose it's 'chic to oppose Bush' through no fault of his own? Do we really want to compare lobbing missiles with a full on invasion? Do we really want to compare an administration that was working with the U.N. with one that no longer is willing to do so?
There has been no outcry while Bush has increased the aggression in the No-Fly-Zones either. If it's so 'chic' to bash Bush, why haven't France and Russia been condemning Bush for that?
Because you're wrong in your assertion.
It does get expensive you know, especially since I always drive alone so I have no one to split the costs with. If it means an occasional war on guys in the Middle East so that I only have to pay $35 per fillup instead of $40 then so be it. Those trips add up when you are driving from suburbia all the way to downtown you know.
And I can use that saved money on other worthwhile pursuits like buying pesticides to keep my huge beautiful lawn of grass bug free. Also I can spend that extra dough on worthwhile charitable causes like helping all of the brown people with beards and Qs in their names who have been displaced by their own selfish wars of aggression. It's good to help them out and know that you are doing the right thing sometimes.
Originally posted by Matsu
Which extra oil is Iraq commanding ATM? The same oil they've been dealing for the last decade. They haven't threatened the price of oil, yet, so how can America's war be read as a war for oil?
Kuwait? There are barely more Kuwaitis than there are Kurds. Anyone who believes Gulf War v.I was about Kuwait is being selectively naive.
If we occupy Iraq won't the other counties basically be buying it from us?
Originally posted by jimmac
If we occupy Iraq won't the other counties basically be buying it from us?
That's not the plan.
Originally posted by groverat
That's not the plan.
How can we be sure they will follow through with the " plan "?
Originally posted by jimmac
How can we be sure they will follow through with the " plan "?
We can't, but we also can't assume that they will do the opposite of what they say.
Originally posted by groverat
We can't, but we also can't assume that they will do the opposite of what they say.
I agree 100%.
Saddam says he gave up all of the WMD, and we just can't say he's did the opposite of that. We can't assume he not only still has them, but that he's been able to make more while being sanctioned.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the hawks don't really understand what they're saying when they speak.
Originally posted by bunge
I suppose it's 'chic to oppose Bush' through no fault of his own? Do we really want to compare lobbing missiles with a full on invasion? Do we really want to compare an administration that was working with the U.N. with one that no longer is willing to do so?
There has been no outcry while Bush has increased the aggression in the No-Fly-Zones either. If it's so 'chic' to bash Bush, why haven't France and Russia been condemning Bush for that?
A full invasion is more meaningful than firing a few missiles.
"Aggression" in the no-fly zone? Is that like aggressive in-line skating?
Originally posted by Eugene
A full invasion is more meaningful than firing a few missiles.
Exactly. Thus, it is subject to greater scrutiny and held to a higher standard. One Clinton surpassed, but Bush has not.
Originally posted by Eugene
"Aggression" in the no-fly zone? Is that like aggressive in-line skating?
Yes, and I hear it's going to be in the next Olympics too.