Yes, the universe is just a lattice of coincidence, I understand that very well. But pushing for absolute proof is not realistic. Even a court of law will convict based on circumstantial evidence if there's enough of it.
Besides, it's hypocritical of the pro-war crowd to ask for irrefutable evidence of something that's only provable if we can read someone's mind. If we're to hold Bush to the same standard you're requiring to prove the oil connection, Bush certainly hasn't surpassed the burden of proof required to support an attack on a sovereign nation.
Sigh. That's not what I'm saying at all. I just want a little more evidence besides a coincidence in timing. Foreign relations are more complicated than you may think, this was surely one of many, many factors involved.
As for your second argument, I'll leave that alone as it is just your opinion, not an established fact. Suffice it to say that I do not agree.
What I always love about stories like this is how the motivations and conditions must remain the same for years but how, no matter what the conclusions, the leftists are good and the conservatives are bad.
No patterns can, emerge, we can't learn from past mistakes, we can't draw new conclusions. Always just the same motives.
So when Iraq has chemical weapons in the 80's and haven't attacked us yet. We don't attack them either. As a result we are a bunch of uncaring, imperialist, greedy, oil stealing pigs. (Republicans)
So when Iraq has chemical weapons in 2000+ and we do attack them out of concern they will give them to terrorists organizations, we are a bunch of unilateral, uncaring, imperialist, greedy, oil stealing pigs.
Pretty much damned if you do or don't and no matter what course of action we want the oil.
If we wanted oil so bad, Mexico is right next door. They have oil reserves estimated at over 12 billion barrels and we already are the largest purchaser of it. We could claim the war on drugs, illegal immigrations, national security related to the huge open border, whatever if the motives are as questionable as articles like this always assume.
How about Venezuela? They are also a large producer of oil.
There are so many targets that are so much easier and control large percentages of the worlds oil. Also they don't have militant Catholics attempting Jihad against the U.S.
However then there is also this thing called experience. Saddam took power and then almost immediately started a war with Iran. It lasted 8 years and involved chemical weapons. Within a couple years of that Iraq turned and attacked Kuwait. (war with Iran ended in 1988 and he attacked Kuwait in 1990)
So lets see Saddam took power in 1979 and has proceeded to basically attack his neighbors for 8 out of the next 10 years.
But of course all this is about the Republicans and oil. Meanwhile he gases Iranians, he gases Kurds, etc. I suppose we could and should step in but we haven't been attacked yet. The fact that we don't proves it is all about oil. When we do come in and attack to take away the gases, it is still all about the oil, even after terrorist attacks.
In the meantime we learn about the region. We begin to understand the real openness of the borders, the quiet backdoor means of supporting terrorist groups not only from our allies and enemies, but even by supposed charities in the U.S. It begins to dawn on us that these guys do not think like we do nor follow the same rules we do.
Then it dawns upon us, (the epiphany occurs, not because of a gas price spike, but because of planes crashing into buildings) that perhaps this same type of casual openness that allows Saudis and other Arabic/Islamic people to train in Afghanistan with funding, leaders and weapons from all over could also occur with things like poison gas, dirty nukes, etc.
Of course when we learn this... it is all about the oil.
When we act in a manner we haven't before based off this new knowledge, it is not because of safety or thousands who have died. It isn't because of the financial distress caused to the economy by having our financial centers and defensive centers hit. It isn't about the families, our feeling safe, anthrax scares, the travel industry and airlines practically collapsing do to people's fears...
What I always love about stories like this is how the motivations and conditions must remain the same for years....
The problem I see with your thoughts are just that the only constant throughout this is the republican connection to oil. It's existed since before Saddam and with the same people straight through until today. Were Busy to have banned drilling in the ANWR, persued alternative sources (rather than raping their budgets) and then said 'we're going to war in Iraq', I'd have a lot less harder time believing him.
But there's no way you can believe him. After decades of oil influence, the burden of proof is now on the republicans to prove that they're not after oil. In general, they are the obstacle to reducing our dependency on the stuff and they are the ones that profit from it (and war).
Bush can quote other reasons to go to war, but he hasn't even been able to consistently stick to one of those reasons. He piggy-backed on broken U.N. Resolutions to disarm until the U.N. didn't support his war. Then he jumped ship to, what are we doing now? Regime change? Why? WMD? Humanitarian Crisis? I honestly can't remember right now what he's said last, but it's a moving target. The only constant has been oil, oil money, and republican connections to oil.
I just want a little more evidence besides a coincidence in timing.
I don't blame you for that. My previous post to trumptman covers a little bit of why I would probably need less concrete proof than you do at this point in time. Basically, oil and the republican oil connection is the constant througout the whole decades long Iraq crisis. Ultimately in my opinion that shifts the burden of proof on to Bush.
The problem I see with your thoughts are just that the only constant throughout this is the republican connection to oil. It's existed since before Saddam and with the same people straight through until today. Were Busy to have banned drilling in the ANWR, persued alternative sources (rather than raping their budgets) and then said 'we're going to war in Iraq', I'd have a lot less harder time believing him.
But there's no way you can believe him. After decades of oil influence, the burden of proof is now on the republicans to prove that they're not after oil. In general, they are the obstacle to reducing our dependency on the stuff and they are the ones that profit from it (and war).
Bush can quote other reasons to go to war, but he hasn't even been able to consistently stick to one of those reasons. He piggy-backed on broken U.N. Resolutions to disarm until the U.N. didn't support his war. Then he jumped ship to, what are we doing now? Regime change? Why? WMD? Humanitarian Crisis? I honestly can't remember right now what he's said last, but it's a moving target. The only constant has been oil, oil money, and republican connections to oil.
The only thing that makes all of this laughable is that we aren't in dire straits regarding oil, nor have we been during any time since the mid-70's.
If this were honestly as you contend, why didn't we just polish Iraq off in 1991? Why not grab Kuwait, Iran and Iraq in 1988 when Iran and Iraq were both on the ropes after 8 years of war and Kuwait couldn't defend itself then or now.
Again if terrorism is just a ruse, why not attack Mexico as part of the war on drugs?
To me it just doesn't make sense to describe a group as thirsting for blood when they have had so many opportunities to grab it and haven't just doesn't make sense. They could have gotten more oil, with less effort much sooner than now. They could have just kept Kuwait in 1991 and laterally drilled into the southern Iraqi oil field which is why Saddam claimed the need to attack Kuwait in the first place.
It isn't that I can't change my thinking, it is that my thinking requires consistancy from the claimed evil do-er with regard to his motivations, abilities and actions. I have pointed out how we could have just as much oil as it is claimed we would have from attacking Iraq purely for oil reasons. Thread after thread goes on about how Bush is such a moron yet he got clear super majorities in both Congresses to support this war including Daschle for example. So he is an idiot but is so smart he can carry on a facade so powerful and complicated that even the most progressive members of the Democratic party dare not stand up to it.
It is claimed Bush only wants the oil yet he didn't even take action on this until after 9/11. I mean he didn't even do "Wag the Dog" hey lets lob a few missles at Saddam just to insure the news reports he still evil and not complying thing.
It's the same thing with 9/11 even. Oh Bush knew what was going to happen but just didn't take action. Then afterward, oh Bush knows these guys could be a threat but they haven't attacked us yet so how dare he act unilaterally.
No matter what the conspiracy comes back to one constant. Republicans bad.
How many companies in the world are competent to do what Bechtel (and Halliburton) are going to do after the war? Not many, I'd guess. Post here an objective number on that and maybe someone will listen.
Hey, if Rumsfeld and Saddam were all buddy-buddy at one point, and now Mr. Secretary says "let's get him because he's dangerous", I'm inclined to take his word for it. Adds to Rumsfeld's credibility, in my opinion. Heck, he should be an EXPERT on the guy, given all the links that the paranoics have attributed to this.
But there's no way you can believe him. After decades of oil influence, the burden of proof is now on the republicans to prove that they're not after oil. In general, they are the obstacle to reducing our dependency on the stuff and they are the ones that profit from it (and war).
It's been stated before, we aren't exactly in the middle of an oil crisis. In any event, the Iraqis will control their oil. They could choose not to sell it to us, but they probably will in exchange for other aid.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Bush can quote other reasons to go to war, but he hasn't even been able to consistently stick to one of those reasons. He piggy-backed on broken U.N. Resolutions to disarm until the U.N. didn't support his war. Then he jumped ship to, what are we doing now? Regime change? Why? WMD? Humanitarian Crisis? I honestly can't remember right now what he's said last, but it's a moving target. The only constant has been oil, oil money, and republican connections to oil.
Has it occurred to you that they can all be true at the same time? It's all of those things at once. Regime change because said regime is threatening everyone with WMD, which was what we were fighting for the disarmament of. Regime change because said regime is oppressing the people needlessly. It's not one or the other, it's both at once.
It is claimed Bush only wants the oil yet he didn't even take action on this until after 9/11. I mean he didn't even do "Wag the Dog" hey lets lob a few missles at Saddam just to insure the news reports he still evil and not complying thing.
His first day in office he (and the Brits) initiated the largest bombing ever in the no fly zones.
Has it occurred to you that they can all be true at the same time?
Of course it has, but the burden of proof has never been reached. The humanitarian crisis is not so great that war now was more important than fixing the humanitarian crisises elsewhere. The threat of terrorism from Iraq is non-existant. No connection has been established. Etc., etc., etc.
Oil is the constant. If not oil, then dollars. ROI.
Anyway, I'm glad to see all of your reasons as to why this 'connection' is meaningless (those of you who thought so)
Now I too am convinced that it means nothing, and neither do all the other so called 'connections' between industry, the "military Industrial Complex (as Eisenhower called it) oil and foriegn policy.
um . . that was General, then President, Eisenhower
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Yes, the universe is just a lattice of coincidence, I understand that very well. But pushing for absolute proof is not realistic. Even a court of law will convict based on circumstantial evidence if there's enough of it.
Besides, it's hypocritical of the pro-war crowd to ask for irrefutable evidence of something that's only provable if we can read someone's mind. If we're to hold Bush to the same standard you're requiring to prove the oil connection, Bush certainly hasn't surpassed the burden of proof required to support an attack on a sovereign nation.
Sigh. That's not what I'm saying at all. I just want a little more evidence besides a coincidence in timing. Foreign relations are more complicated than you may think, this was surely one of many, many factors involved.
As for your second argument, I'll leave that alone as it is just your opinion, not an established fact. Suffice it to say that I do not agree.
No patterns can, emerge, we can't learn from past mistakes, we can't draw new conclusions. Always just the same motives.
So when Iraq has chemical weapons in the 80's and haven't attacked us yet. We don't attack them either. As a result we are a bunch of uncaring, imperialist, greedy, oil stealing pigs. (Republicans)
So when Iraq has chemical weapons in 2000+ and we do attack them out of concern they will give them to terrorists organizations, we are a bunch of unilateral, uncaring, imperialist, greedy, oil stealing pigs.
Pretty much damned if you do or don't and no matter what course of action we want the oil.
If we wanted oil so bad, Mexico is right next door. They have oil reserves estimated at over 12 billion barrels and we already are the largest purchaser of it. We could claim the war on drugs, illegal immigrations, national security related to the huge open border, whatever if the motives are as questionable as articles like this always assume.
How about Venezuela? They are also a large producer of oil.
There are so many targets that are so much easier and control large percentages of the worlds oil. Also they don't have militant Catholics attempting Jihad against the U.S.
However then there is also this thing called experience. Saddam took power and then almost immediately started a war with Iran. It lasted 8 years and involved chemical weapons. Within a couple years of that Iraq turned and attacked Kuwait. (war with Iran ended in 1988 and he attacked Kuwait in 1990)
So lets see Saddam took power in 1979 and has proceeded to basically attack his neighbors for 8 out of the next 10 years.
But of course all this is about the Republicans and oil. Meanwhile he gases Iranians, he gases Kurds, etc. I suppose we could and should step in but we haven't been attacked yet. The fact that we don't proves it is all about oil. When we do come in and attack to take away the gases, it is still all about the oil, even after terrorist attacks.
In the meantime we learn about the region. We begin to understand the real openness of the borders, the quiet backdoor means of supporting terrorist groups not only from our allies and enemies, but even by supposed charities in the U.S. It begins to dawn on us that these guys do not think like we do nor follow the same rules we do.
Then it dawns upon us, (the epiphany occurs, not because of a gas price spike, but because of planes crashing into buildings) that perhaps this same type of casual openness that allows Saudis and other Arabic/Islamic people to train in Afghanistan with funding, leaders and weapons from all over could also occur with things like poison gas, dirty nukes, etc.
Of course when we learn this... it is all about the oil.
When we act in a manner we haven't before based off this new knowledge, it is not because of safety or thousands who have died. It isn't because of the financial distress caused to the economy by having our financial centers and defensive centers hit. It isn't about the families, our feeling safe, anthrax scares, the travel industry and airlines practically collapsing do to people's fears...
It is just about the oil.
Yep... makes sense to me....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What I always love about stories like this is how the motivations and conditions must remain the same for years....
The problem I see with your thoughts are just that the only constant throughout this is the republican connection to oil. It's existed since before Saddam and with the same people straight through until today. Were Busy to have banned drilling in the ANWR, persued alternative sources (rather than raping their budgets) and then said 'we're going to war in Iraq', I'd have a lot less harder time believing him.
But there's no way you can believe him. After decades of oil influence, the burden of proof is now on the republicans to prove that they're not after oil. In general, they are the obstacle to reducing our dependency on the stuff and they are the ones that profit from it (and war).
Bush can quote other reasons to go to war, but he hasn't even been able to consistently stick to one of those reasons. He piggy-backed on broken U.N. Resolutions to disarm until the U.N. didn't support his war. Then he jumped ship to, what are we doing now? Regime change? Why? WMD? Humanitarian Crisis? I honestly can't remember right now what he's said last, but it's a moving target. The only constant has been oil, oil money, and republican connections to oil.
Originally posted by Spart
I just want a little more evidence besides a coincidence in timing.
I don't blame you for that. My previous post to trumptman covers a little bit of why I would probably need less concrete proof than you do at this point in time. Basically, oil and the republican oil connection is the constant througout the whole decades long Iraq crisis. Ultimately in my opinion that shifts the burden of proof on to Bush.
Originally posted by bunge
The problem I see with your thoughts are just that the only constant throughout this is the republican connection to oil. It's existed since before Saddam and with the same people straight through until today. Were Busy to have banned drilling in the ANWR, persued alternative sources (rather than raping their budgets) and then said 'we're going to war in Iraq', I'd have a lot less harder time believing him.
But there's no way you can believe him. After decades of oil influence, the burden of proof is now on the republicans to prove that they're not after oil. In general, they are the obstacle to reducing our dependency on the stuff and they are the ones that profit from it (and war).
Bush can quote other reasons to go to war, but he hasn't even been able to consistently stick to one of those reasons. He piggy-backed on broken U.N. Resolutions to disarm until the U.N. didn't support his war. Then he jumped ship to, what are we doing now? Regime change? Why? WMD? Humanitarian Crisis? I honestly can't remember right now what he's said last, but it's a moving target. The only constant has been oil, oil money, and republican connections to oil.
The only thing that makes all of this laughable is that we aren't in dire straits regarding oil, nor have we been during any time since the mid-70's.
If this were honestly as you contend, why didn't we just polish Iraq off in 1991? Why not grab Kuwait, Iran and Iraq in 1988 when Iran and Iraq were both on the ropes after 8 years of war and Kuwait couldn't defend itself then or now.
Again if terrorism is just a ruse, why not attack Mexico as part of the war on drugs?
To me it just doesn't make sense to describe a group as thirsting for blood when they have had so many opportunities to grab it and haven't just doesn't make sense. They could have gotten more oil, with less effort much sooner than now. They could have just kept Kuwait in 1991 and laterally drilled into the southern Iraqi oil field which is why Saddam claimed the need to attack Kuwait in the first place.
It isn't that I can't change my thinking, it is that my thinking requires consistancy from the claimed evil do-er with regard to his motivations, abilities and actions. I have pointed out how we could have just as much oil as it is claimed we would have from attacking Iraq purely for oil reasons. Thread after thread goes on about how Bush is such a moron yet he got clear super majorities in both Congresses to support this war including Daschle for example. So he is an idiot but is so smart he can carry on a facade so powerful and complicated that even the most progressive members of the Democratic party dare not stand up to it.
It is claimed Bush only wants the oil yet he didn't even take action on this until after 9/11. I mean he didn't even do "Wag the Dog" hey lets lob a few missles at Saddam just to insure the news reports he still evil and not complying thing.
It's the same thing with 9/11 even. Oh Bush knew what was going to happen but just didn't take action. Then afterward, oh Bush knows these guys could be a threat but they haven't attacked us yet so how dare he act unilaterally.
No matter what the conspiracy comes back to one constant. Republicans bad.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Do note that Bechtel is one of the companies slated to do work in postwar Iraq. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ebuild28.shtml
How many companies in the world are competent to do what Bechtel (and Halliburton) are going to do after the war? Not many, I'd guess. Post here an objective number on that and maybe someone will listen.
Hey, if Rumsfeld and Saddam were all buddy-buddy at one point, and now Mr. Secretary says "let's get him because he's dangerous", I'm inclined to take his word for it. Adds to Rumsfeld's credibility, in my opinion. Heck, he should be an EXPERT on the guy, given all the links that the paranoics have attributed to this.
Originally posted by bunge
But there's no way you can believe him. After decades of oil influence, the burden of proof is now on the republicans to prove that they're not after oil. In general, they are the obstacle to reducing our dependency on the stuff and they are the ones that profit from it (and war).
It's been stated before, we aren't exactly in the middle of an oil crisis. In any event, the Iraqis will control their oil. They could choose not to sell it to us, but they probably will in exchange for other aid.
Originally posted by bunge
Bush can quote other reasons to go to war, but he hasn't even been able to consistently stick to one of those reasons. He piggy-backed on broken U.N. Resolutions to disarm until the U.N. didn't support his war. Then he jumped ship to, what are we doing now? Regime change? Why? WMD? Humanitarian Crisis? I honestly can't remember right now what he's said last, but it's a moving target. The only constant has been oil, oil money, and republican connections to oil.
Has it occurred to you that they can all be true at the same time? It's all of those things at once. Regime change because said regime is threatening everyone with WMD, which was what we were fighting for the disarmament of. Regime change because said regime is oppressing the people needlessly. It's not one or the other, it's both at once.
Originally posted by trumptman
Again if terrorism is just a ruse, why not attack Mexico as part of the war on drugs?
More bang for the buck.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is claimed Bush only wants the oil yet he didn't even take action on this until after 9/11. I mean he didn't even do "Wag the Dog" hey lets lob a few missles at Saddam just to insure the news reports he still evil and not complying thing.
His first day in office he (and the Brits) initiated the largest bombing ever in the no fly zones.
Originally posted by Spart
Has it occurred to you that they can all be true at the same time?
Of course it has, but the burden of proof has never been reached. The humanitarian crisis is not so great that war now was more important than fixing the humanitarian crisises elsewhere. The threat of terrorism from Iraq is non-existant. No connection has been established. Etc., etc., etc.
Oil is the constant. If not oil, then dollars. ROI.
Is it me, or do I remember hearing something about Saddam paying quite a bit to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
Now I too am convinced that it means nothing, and neither do all the other so called 'connections' between industry, the "military Industrial Complex (as Eisenhower called it) oil and foriegn policy.
um . . that was General, then President, Eisenhower