<strong>A commonly heard statement is "George W Bush wants to invade Iraq to get oil." Is this going to be a war for oil? I think when people say this, it is just intellectual laziness.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. It's not purely a war for OIL, per se; it's more an issue of a war for CONTROL of oil. The US doesn't need to worry about oil; they can get it elsewhere, from more reliable sources. As pointed out earlier, Iraq has a huge amount of potential for oil exploration and access. I've even heard that it's possible that Baghdad itself could be floating on an large oil field. Once/if the US gets a hold of Iraq, they have a huge amount of leverage in the Middle East, and they will have a reliable Middle Eastern ally--something that Saudi Arabia once was, but from what I see it isn't seen of as that anymore.
to tell you the truth...i have no idea why we are going to war with Iraq...i think oil plays a part, but it just befuddles me and i can't wrap my head around GW's almost blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people....g
<strong>...i can't wrap my head around GW's almost blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where have you heard Bush say he wants to wipe-out the Iraqi people? My understanding is that the goal is to dethrone the Iraqi dictator and liberate the Iraqi people. Is it possible that some people read "Iraq war" and assume dethroning a dictator and genociding the natives as one and the same? I'm not saying that facetiously, either. I've read posts here and on other forums, and it really seems like some people actually believe the US intends to march into Iraq "Civil War" style and systematically, exclusively mow down civilians with extreme prejudice.
Where have you heard Bush say he wants to wipe-out the Iraqi people? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Kosovo & Afghanistan were bad enough. Our government has shown an ability to prioritize very poorly at times.
Someone posted about how special ops military groups were being trained on how to prevent and/or stabilize oil rigs from catching on fire in the event of a "scorched earth" policy from Saddam. If that's the case, then there's already been more effort put into saving oil than preparing for refugees.
Kosovo & Afghanistan were bad enough. Our government has shown an ability to prioritize very poorly at times.
Someone posted about how special ops military groups were being trained on how to prevent and/or stabilize oil rigs from catching on fire in the event of a "scorched earth" policy from Saddam. If that's the case, then there's already been more effort put into saving oil than preparing for refugees.
That's sick. If that's Bush's plan he's sick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's sick to combat a scorched earth policy. Such an action could have global economic effects. However, such preparation should indeed be balanced with training to deal with refugees.
But training for handling refugees is not as news worthy as training to prevent oil from burning up. I'm not crying "liberal" media, it has nothing to do with political leanings of news orginizations, just that good news takes a back seat to the bad news.
<strong>Our government has shown an ability to prioritize very poorly at times.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted, priorities can be a sticky area, but how do you equate this with absolute statements such as "...blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people..."? IMO, such a statement is clearly baseless or extremely misinformed, and should be called out, not defended or diverted with other issues (unless you are genuinely in agreement with such an assertion; if so, then just say so). By all other measures, I don't think it is such a bad priority at all to put out gigantic fires, anyway.
By all other measures, I don't think it is such a bad priority at all to put out gigantic fires, anyway. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that the "lust to kill Iraqi people" is an exaggeration, but there is an apparent lust to attack and that attack (lustful or not) will undoubtedly kill innocent civilians.
As for the fires, it's the fact that they'll put that priority over that of saving the already living breathing civilians. That's sick.
And I specifically used the refugee example because not too long ago there were a lot of criticisms of the US for not adding or helping at all to prepare for the refugee crisis that our attack would create. I just haven't seen any news since then that refutes it.
If by now they have a plan, it's come after the plan to save the oil (hence my feeling that Bush prefers to save the oil rather than the civilians) and most likely due to international political pressure. That's sick.
[quote] wipe-out the Iraqi people <hr></blockquote>
never said that...attack the Iraqi people is what i said, and that is exactly what Bush is planning....one to two weeks of bombing Baghdad followed by troops going building to building....the troops are already training in Kuwait on how to go building to building...many many Iraqis that we wish to "free" will die...many children who only wish to live in the city of their birth....i recommend putting a bullet in sadam's head over killing so many of the people we wish to free....instead of spending 60 to 100 billion, put 1 billion in a swiss acct payable to the first person to kill sadam...we save 59 to 99 billion in tax money and take one life instead of thousands...with that one shot we make an enemy of sadam's family vs dropping bombs and storming building by building with troops and then making enemies of every Iraqi family with a dead member in it...g
never said that...attack the Iraqi people is what i said, and that is exactly what Bush is planning...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Bush was genuinely planning to "attack the Iraqi people", he certainly has the means to wipe them out. Why not wipe out what you are intending to attack? What would be the purpose of "attacking the Iraqi people"? To teach them some sort of lesson? Clearly, this is not the true intent of this operation, so your comment simply remains as extremely poorly worded and arguably intended to be misinterpreted by those who don't know better.
<strong> [quote]...i recommend putting a bullet in sadam's head over killing so many of the people we wish to free.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That [assassination] is a "nice" sentiment, but unfortunately that is not an option open to Bush, is it (at least not publicly)? So what is the point of holding Bush responsible for options that he formally has no access to? Assuming that option is not available to you either, you are pretty much where Bush is right now. So you can't really claim to have any "better ideas" than what is already on the table, can you?
<strong> [quote]...vs dropping bombs and storming building by building with troops and then making enemies of every Iraqi family with a dead member in it...g</strong><hr></blockquote>
...or maybe the living will be just grateful enough to not be under oppressive rule of Saddam anymore. Could it be? You really think we are going to carpet bomb residential building after residential building just for the hell of it? If anything, I think the more reasonable approach will be strategic targets to hit Iraqi military forces. It is especially naive that anyone could believe that this can be done any other way without some sort of casualties. That's just inherent to the process. What you really want to say is that you wish no wars ever happened- just let anybody take whatever they please by force for as long as recorded human history just to save some lives lost from bombing as a result of an attack. (might I add, that is yet another "warm, fuzzy gesture" with absolutely no practical/sane implementation in real life)
[quote] If Bush was genuinely planning to "attack the Iraqi people", he certainly has the means to wipe them out. Why not wipe out what you are intending to attack? <hr></blockquote>
war is rarely about genocide as you suggest...Bush wants war with Iraq, his words and actions suggest that...i don't think Bush wants to wipe out the Iraqi people and commit genocide...i do think he wants Sadam killed and is willing to kill other Iraqis to achieve his aims....g
[quote] i can't wrap my head around GW's almost blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people <hr></blockquote>
perhaps i am naive....i will give you that using the terms "blind lust and desire" are used to paint GW as somewhat unbalanced in his thoughts of Iraq and Sadam (which i think he is...there is a lot of hatred in GW about this, you see it on his face, hear it in his words)....but "attack" going to "wipe out" is your terms and thought process...i never had that in my head at all...i would (slightly) worry about why YOU see it that way instead of reading my words...perhaps wipe out is in your heart, it surely is not in mine...g
I find it amusing that Bush is always painted as being in bed with big oil and having the interests of oil companies behind all his actions. No one ever accused Bill Clinton of being in bed with lawyers or Jimmy Carter of being in the pocket of farmers. Just because Bush made money in oil doesn't mean he is in the pocket of big oil companies and if you insist that he is then certainly Clinton was a puppet of the law lobby hence the dire need for tort reform.
<strong>As for the fires, it's the fact that they'll put that priority over that of saving the already living breathing civilians. That's sick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Save the "already living breathing civilians"from what??? If you have massive fires burning to the extent that daylight becomes night, these civilians won't be breathing (or living) that well, will they?
You may view the prioritization as sick, but it simply comes down to strategic responses to strategic actions of however Saddam plans to go about this war. If he were to threaten his own people directly as a response to an attack, I'm sure that would be the focus of the UN incursion (or whoever ends up doing it).
Comments
<strong>A commonly heard statement is "George W Bush wants to invade Iraq to get oil." Is this going to be a war for oil? I think when people say this, it is just intellectual laziness.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. It's not purely a war for OIL, per se; it's more an issue of a war for CONTROL of oil. The US doesn't need to worry about oil; they can get it elsewhere, from more reliable sources. As pointed out earlier, Iraq has a huge amount of potential for oil exploration and access. I've even heard that it's possible that Baghdad itself could be floating on an large oil field. Once/if the US gets a hold of Iraq, they have a huge amount of leverage in the Middle East, and they will have a reliable Middle Eastern ally--something that Saudi Arabia once was, but from what I see it isn't seen of as that anymore.
<strong>...i can't wrap my head around GW's almost blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where have you heard Bush say he wants to wipe-out the Iraqi people? My understanding is that the goal is to dethrone the Iraqi dictator and liberate the Iraqi people. Is it possible that some people read "Iraq war" and assume dethroning a dictator and genociding the natives as one and the same? I'm not saying that facetiously, either. I've read posts here and on other forums, and it really seems like some people actually believe the US intends to march into Iraq "Civil War" style and systematically, exclusively mow down civilians with extreme prejudice.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Where have you heard Bush say he wants to wipe-out the Iraqi people? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Kosovo & Afghanistan were bad enough. Our government has shown an ability to prioritize very poorly at times.
Someone posted about how special ops military groups were being trained on how to prevent and/or stabilize oil rigs from catching on fire in the event of a "scorched earth" policy from Saddam. If that's the case, then there's already been more effort put into saving oil than preparing for refugees.
That's sick. If that's Bush's plan he's sick.
<strong>
Kosovo & Afghanistan were bad enough. Our government has shown an ability to prioritize very poorly at times.
Someone posted about how special ops military groups were being trained on how to prevent and/or stabilize oil rigs from catching on fire in the event of a "scorched earth" policy from Saddam. If that's the case, then there's already been more effort put into saving oil than preparing for refugees.
That's sick. If that's Bush's plan he's sick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think it's sick to combat a scorched earth policy. Such an action could have global economic effects. However, such preparation should indeed be balanced with training to deal with refugees.
<strong>Our government has shown an ability to prioritize very poorly at times.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Granted, priorities can be a sticky area, but how do you equate this with absolute statements such as "...blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people..."? IMO, such a statement is clearly baseless or extremely misinformed, and should be called out, not defended or diverted with other issues (unless you are genuinely in agreement with such an assertion; if so, then just say so). By all other measures, I don't think it is such a bad priority at all to put out gigantic fires, anyway.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
By all other measures, I don't think it is such a bad priority at all to put out gigantic fires, anyway. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that the "lust to kill Iraqi people" is an exaggeration, but there is an apparent lust to attack and that attack (lustful or not) will undoubtedly kill innocent civilians.
As for the fires, it's the fact that they'll put that priority over that of saving the already living breathing civilians. That's sick.
And I specifically used the refugee example because not too long ago there were a lot of criticisms of the US for not adding or helping at all to prepare for the refugee crisis that our attack would create. I just haven't seen any news since then that refutes it.
If by now they have a plan, it's come after the plan to save the oil (hence my feeling that Bush prefers to save the oil rather than the civilians) and most likely due to international political pressure. That's sick.
never said that...attack the Iraqi people is what i said, and that is exactly what Bush is planning....one to two weeks of bombing Baghdad followed by troops going building to building....the troops are already training in Kuwait on how to go building to building...many many Iraqis that we wish to "free" will die...many children who only wish to live in the city of their birth....i recommend putting a bullet in sadam's head over killing so many of the people we wish to free....instead of spending 60 to 100 billion, put 1 billion in a swiss acct payable to the first person to kill sadam...we save 59 to 99 billion in tax money and take one life instead of thousands...with that one shot we make an enemy of sadam's family vs dropping bombs and storming building by building with troops and then making enemies of every Iraqi family with a dead member in it...g
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>i can't wrap my head around GW's almost blind lust and desire to attack the Iraqi people....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you got pretty close to "wipe out" there.
I'm figuring that if you don't get it at this point, you probably just aren't going to.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
<strong>
never said that...attack the Iraqi people is what i said, and that is exactly what Bush is planning...</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Bush was genuinely planning to "attack the Iraqi people", he certainly has the means to wipe them out. Why not wipe out what you are intending to attack? What would be the purpose of "attacking the Iraqi people"? To teach them some sort of lesson? Clearly, this is not the true intent of this operation, so your comment simply remains as extremely poorly worded and arguably intended to be misinterpreted by those who don't know better.
<strong> [quote]...i recommend putting a bullet in sadam's head over killing so many of the people we wish to free.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That [assassination] is a "nice" sentiment, but unfortunately that is not an option open to Bush, is it (at least not publicly)? So what is the point of holding Bush responsible for options that he formally has no access to? Assuming that option is not available to you either, you are pretty much where Bush is right now. So you can't really claim to have any "better ideas" than what is already on the table, can you?
<strong> [quote]...vs dropping bombs and storming building by building with troops and then making enemies of every Iraqi family with a dead member in it...g</strong><hr></blockquote>
...or maybe the living will be just grateful enough to not be under oppressive rule of Saddam anymore. Could it be? You really think we are going to carpet bomb residential building after residential building just for the hell of it? If anything, I think the more reasonable approach will be strategic targets to hit Iraqi military forces. It is especially naive that anyone could believe that this can be done any other way without some sort of casualties. That's just inherent to the process. What you really want to say is that you wish no wars ever happened- just let anybody take whatever they please by force for as long as recorded human history just to save some lives lost from bombing as a result of an attack. (might I add, that is yet another "warm, fuzzy gesture" with absolutely no practical/sane implementation in real life)
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
war is rarely about genocide as you suggest...Bush wants war with Iraq, his words and actions suggest that...i don't think Bush wants to wipe out the Iraqi people and commit genocide...i do think he wants Sadam killed and is willing to kill other Iraqis to achieve his aims....g
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>war is rarely about genocide as you suggest...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not suggesting it! I'm saying you are suggesting it by the way you worded your post.
<hr></blockquote>
your interpatation, which you are entitled to...i see attack and wipe out as two very different things...g
perhaps i am naive....i will give you that using the terms "blind lust and desire" are used to paint GW as somewhat unbalanced in his thoughts of Iraq and Sadam (which i think he is...there is a lot of hatred in GW about this, you see it on his face, hear it in his words)....but "attack" going to "wipe out" is your terms and thought process...i never had that in my head at all...i would (slightly) worry about why YOU see it that way instead of reading my words...perhaps wipe out is in your heart, it surely is not in mine...g
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>As for the fires, it's the fact that they'll put that priority over that of saving the already living breathing civilians. That's sick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Save the "already living breathing civilians"from what??? If you have massive fires burning to the extent that daylight becomes night, these civilians won't be breathing (or living) that well, will they?
You may view the prioritization as sick, but it simply comes down to strategic responses to strategic actions of however Saddam plans to go about this war. If he were to threaten his own people directly as a response to an attack, I'm sure that would be the focus of the UN incursion (or whoever ends up doing it).