| Iraq's oil |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Mark ® 03/25/2003, 20:25:31 Author Profile Mail author |
I saw a graphic on CNN a few days ago regarding Iraq's oil reserves that said (1) Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world, (2) an estimated 90% of unproven reserves remain unexplored, and (3) Iraq has among the lowest oil production costs in the world. This got me curious so I looked for more information on the web,
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."
Iraq's Oil Reserves: Untapped Potential
Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included: Canada 46.2 million barrels
So while it's true that we import a lot less oil from Iraq than from other countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, its potential is much higher and more lucrative (low costs, high yield, higher potential), plus it's current oil production is way below its potential according to this same web page (due to antiquated equipment and infrastructure that was destroyed in the Gulf War that has been difficult to rebuild due to sanctions and other international constraints since then. The most likely reason for us going to war with Iraq is oil. Regards,
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Venezuela Re: Iraq's oil -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
03/25/2003, 20:32:21
Author Profile Mail author
http://eatthestate.org/07-13/VenezuelaDifferentSort.htmHere is an interesting article on Venezuela that I read. It is barely relevant, but I thought I'd post it here.
Those who don't think our need for oil plays a huge role in foreign policy should think again.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Venezuela Re: Venezuela -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/26/2003, 14:45:24
Author Profile Mail author
Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Huh? Re: Iraq's oil -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Chad ®
03/25/2003, 21:44:41
Author Profile Mail author
While I will agree that Iraq has oil, I can't find any evidence in your post that would support the fact that it is at the root of this conflict. Certainly, I will agree that we stand to benefit from having the new regime as an ally. One benefit of that alliance could possibly be an oil supply, but I'll still say that if this war is about Iraqi oil, then WWII was about German beer and sushi.
Convince me.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Stronger case Re: Huh? -- Chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/25/2003, 22:59:42
Author Profile Mail author
It would be simplistic to describe a new Gulf War as merely "a war about oil". There are many other domestic and international policy considerations involved. But oil and energy security is clearly a prime consideration in US foreign policy. Abject dependence on fossil fuels distorts US policy, prevents it from dealing rationally with countries from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, and constitutes a major threat to global security and peace.
The need for the world in general and the US in particular to cut dependence on fossil fuels has never been greater. Not the least of the political errors of President Bush has been to review energy policy, and then, like an SUV driver with his eyes closed, put the pedal to the metal and head resolutely in completely the wrong direction. The consequences may be seen in a new war in the Gulf, and in the international conflict and turmoil that would surely follow.
---- End of quotes/paraphrases from the article----I've ended up quoting nearly the entire article. You can find the complete article at
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4596962,00.htmlBtw, France, Russia, and others on the Security Council opposed to the war are no more honorable in this than we are. They're taking their position for economic reasons as well. And economic reasons are nothing to put down, but we need to be honest about it and work together as a society to come up with more moral solutions. Difficult to do tho' when few are even being honest about it. But honest discussion and flow of information is an important thing in a democratic society, if we are to be truly democratic in nature.
Best Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Stronger case for Iraqi oil... Re: Stronger case -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Chad ®
03/26/2003, 11:14:41
Author Profile Mail author
Objection, calls for speculation.
As I have stated before, I certainly understand that there are economic gains to be had here, but it would seem that any benefit that we would gain from additional Iraqi oil would benefit the new Iraqi regime just as much since they most likely will not be either giving it away or paying us to take it. Once again, it would seem that a great effort to create a plausable negative context for this action has left me wanting more. I love the reference to the "evil" SUV in that article as well. In the endless propaganda campaign of capitalist apologists the fun just never ends.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Stronger case for Iraqi oil... Re: Stronger case for Iraqi oil... -- Chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/26/2003, 11:32:48
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
gas = evil Re: Re: Stronger case for Iraqi oil... -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Chad ®
03/26/2003, 11:51:28
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
TRUE environmentalism Re: gas = evil -- Chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ryan2 ®
03/26/2003, 13:17:41
Author Profile Mail author
Then, all of a sudden, this crazy little parasite called life showed up. Determined to milk the earth of all it's energy, the evil plant parasites sucked carbon from the atmosphere, and stored it deep within the earth in the form of oil and coal.
Come everyone!! True environmentalists everywhere, join hands together! Free the earth from it's oppressive captors! We must search out this oil and coal, wherever it may be. Then, we must burn it so we can release the carbon back into the very atmosphere from which it came. This is a sacrifice on our part, but we must do it for Mother Earth!!
Modified by Ryan2 at Wed, Mar 26, 2003, 13:20:43
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Does not equal Eocene conditions... Re: TRUE environmentalism -- Ryan2 Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
04/13/2003, 20:32:05
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/www/news/resnews/palaeo/palnews/Greenhouse.htmlhttp://www.biology.utah.edu/bionews2.php?story=cerling.txt
http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV4-43_SAR1202,00.shtmlCo2 only part of the equation, what other emissions are modifying the earths atmosphere? I hardly think that natural co2 levels are the same as auto emissions. (that is there must be other compounds as well, not to mention all the other trash we are creating in landfills, and other residues...)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Landcover, llubricant, oil alternatives Re: gas = evil -- Chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
04/13/2003, 20:05:26
Author Profile Mail author
http://eartheasy.com/grow_lawn_alternatives.htmOil alternative
http://www.greenfuels.org/bioworld.htmlOther environmental friendly ideas...surely you can do ONE of the following on occation.
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/santamonica.htmSoy oil for your bike? And other mechanical parts?
http://www.bcs.uni.edu/abil/HTMLpages/News/Recent_News.cfm
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Clear connection Re: Stronger case for Iraqi oil... -- Chad Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/26/2003, 14:34:54
Author Profile Mail author
Wrt your statement about the new Iraq regime not favoring the US, that's just wishful thinking on your part (or blind belief in what you've been told by those trying to sell this war). There's no question that this will occur and that other countries are justifiably fearful of it. There'll be no democratically elected government there in the forseeable future, and whatever government is there will either be directly controlled by the US (a US occupation) or will be a dictatorship very friendly to US oil interests. You're living in fantasyland if you think otherwise. US foreign policy has been far too consistent in this area, putting aside any goals of democracy or even human rights to achieve US economic objectives.
Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
oil is not a convincing explanation Re: Clear connection -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/26/2003, 18:40:36
Author Profile Mail author
It is unfortunately true that American policy has long been guided by our insatiable demand for oil (and that explains much of the distrust and hatred that currently exists for U.S. policy), but that does not mean this war is primarlily over oil. We could have simply purchased oil from Iraq.
It is much more plausible that this war is about national security, and the threat that rogue regimes pose . Rightly or wrongly, Bush linked the attacks of 9-11 to global terrorism and to nations that support terrorism, including Iraq. Of the three main targets after Afghanistan, Iraq is the simplest to deal with using millitary means.
I have little doubt that we would be attacking North Korea, were it not for the fact that North Korea evidently already possesses an atomic weapon.
We will see what form of government replaces the current one in iraq. I cannot imagine that it could be worse than what the Iraqis currently have.
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Wed, Mar 26, 2003, 18:41:49
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oil is the only convincing explanation Re: oil is not a convincing explanation -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/26/2003, 19:42:43
Author Profile Mail author
You really believe we would have invaded Iraq if we didn't have any oil interests there?
Also, I don't buy your "national security" threat; that simply doesn't wash. If Iraq had any WMD they'd have used them against us long before now (we're invading them for goodness sake). The evidence is very clear, and it's not on the side of this administration. The linking of 9-11 to Iraq is specious and even Bush knows it. Time will tell who's right about a new government in Iraq, but I doubt very much that I'll be the one who has to eat my words on this one. Will you change your tune when you find out I'm right? Let's all follow up on what happens with oil contracts also, OK?
Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oil is the only explanation acceptable to you Re: Oil is the only convincing explanation -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/26/2003, 20:11:36
Author Profile Mail author
Yes, I do believe we would have invaded Iraq even without the oil interests. Do you also believe we invaded Afghanistan for oil?
Of course you do not buy the notion that there is a legitimate national security threat. I did not expect that you would. You already know the truth.
Why would the Iraqis use weapons they have denied using? That would reveal their lies for what they are. Why do you think Iraqi soldiers have been issued chemical weapon suits, antidotes to nerve agent, and gas masks?
I fully expect the oil contracts to go to companies favorable to American interests. What would that prove?
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Wed, Mar 26, 2003, 23:19:26
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Let's reason together Re: Oil is the only explanation acceptable to you -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/27/2003, 00:24:11
Author Profile Mail author
We're both reasonable people (that's my impression) who look at the evidence wherever it leads (again my impression of you, and what I try to do). As I just said to Chad, it's no coincidence that the various countries' oil interests line up with their stances on the war. This in and of itself is evidence that their oil interests are motivating the various countries in how they act wrt Iraq. Now I'll agree that this doesn't in and of itself mean that that's the main or only reason that we invaded Iraq, but it does lead one to ask the question. Now I admit biases based on my reading of numerous other situations in US foreign policy around the world that have shocked me, things that I didn't want to believe about our leaders and what they were so callously doing and lying to us about (I remember back in the 80's listening to Ollie North testify in the Iran Contra hearings, and like many others at the time thinking that this guy was actually a hero for what he'd tried to do to help the "freedom fighters" (contras) in Nicaragua, until I read more about that episode later). And these color my suspicians about what's going on. But at the same time, there is basic evidence that our oil interests are motivating what we do, AND there's good evidence that we've followed these kinds of economic objectives before while lying or covering it up (and may be trying to that very type of thing in Venezuela right now), AND there's no evidence that's been put forward that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or poses a threat to us, despite numerous inspections, etc. Your belief that that is the case is simply an appeal to authority (the administration has said it so it must be true). So in the absence of good provable reasons to wage war on Iraq, and with the evidence that we have big oil security reasons for doing it (reasons which have led us to similar things with coups, etc. in the past), I'm led to inescapable conclusion that that's what we're doing.
Moreover, you said "I fully expect the oil contracts to go to companies favorable to American interests. What would that prove?" If the oil contracts are changed from French, Chinese, Russian, etc. oil companies to primarily US and UK companies it would not happen without US govt "persuasion", and would surely bolster the claim that the US had more than altruistic or defensive reasons for going in.
Also, altho' I can't prove it at this point (altho' I wouldn't be surprised with a little research if I could) I really don't think the issue is as simple as "we can buy oil from the Iraqis, so we'd have no reason to try to control it". We are currently buying 11 million barrels of oil per month from Iraq, but the potential is much higher and can be much further developed, and could be very lucrative for our economy rather than the Iraqis, while at the same time filling our insatiable consumer need for it, and I think that's the view that the administration and our foreign policy is motivated by. The US and UK policy papers that I refered to in an earlier posting indicate the importance of "oil security". What does that mean if we can simply buy what we need.
At any rate, those are my basic views. I can honestly understand why you might disagree. I would have not too many years ago as well.
Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let's reason together Re: Let's reason together -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
03/27/2003, 01:25:15
Author Profile Mail author
saddam has owned WMD in the past, has USED them in the past. these are facts. noone disputes this. saddam also obviously desires to acquire more of them(i refer you to powell's address to the UN with regards to iraq's attempts for a nuclear program), and has offered no proof he has disarmed...no documentation as to what he did with his vx nerve gas and anthrax stockpiles. and yet, you say there's no evidence he has WMD.
is anyone else confused about mark's definition of "evidence"?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let's reason together Re: Re: Let's reason together -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
03/27/2003, 01:48:43
Author Profile Mail author
I would say I strongly suspect Saddam has WMD, as I strongly suspect our interest in the Middle East involves oil. I'm not the kind to carry the "No blood for oil" signs, though.
Clearly there are many factors at work here, and oil is probably one of them. It may even be the primary factor. But anyone who says it is the only reason is not credible, IMO. Just as anyone who claims the primary reason is "national security" or "the people of Iraq". It's a combination of things, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let's reason together Re: Re: Let's reason together -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/27/2003, 02:14:32
Author Profile Mail author
> I would say I strongly suspect Saddam has WMD,
> as I strongly suspect our interest in the
> Middle East involves oil. I'm not the kind to
> carry the "No blood for oil" signs, though.
>
> Clearly there are many factors at work here,
> and oil is probably one of them. It may even
> be the primary factor. But anyone who says it
> is the only reason is not credible, IMO. Just
> as anyone who claims the primary reason is
> "national security" or "the people of Iraq".
> It's a combination of things, and it's foolish
> to pretend otherwise.I don't particularly disagree with you Dan. I line up with the following statement from the London Observer article that I quoted from in an earlier post:
---start of quote---
It would be simplistic to describe a new Gulf War as merely "a war about oil". There are many other domestic and international policy considerations involved. But oil and energy security is clearly a prime consideration in US foreign policy. Abject dependence on fossil fuels distorts US policy, prevents it from dealing rationally with countries from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, and constitutes a major threat to global security and peace.
---end of quote---You don't seem to be as skeptical about WMD in Iraq as I am, which is your prerogative, but do you agree there's no solid evidence for them currently in Iraq?
Also, I hope you can see that I haven't presented no evidence for my point of view about the importance of oil in this war (as it seems Grendel would have us believe), even if I haven't conclusively proved it.
Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let's reason together Re: Re: Let's reason together -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: nofaith ®
03/27/2003, 12:30:32
Author Profile Mail author
> Iraq?Yep. I just can't believe Hussein destroyed every single bit of VX, etc. It would be too easy to save some. But this is different from knowing for sure.
I agree that there is good reason to believe our policy in Iraq regards oil. It hasn't been "proven" but it's likely.
-Dan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let's reason together Re: Re: Let's reason together -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/27/2003, 14:12:06
Author Profile Mail author
Remember the story from the U.S. government about the WMD Trucks?
Those, what, 17 (heh) moving trucks around Irak making chemical weapons?Well, if it's possible to fit a chemical weapon factory in a truck, it's possible to fit a chemical weapon factory ANYWHERE.
Hense, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove that a country has no chemical weapons, since any basement in any house anywhere in the WORLD could be a chemical weapon factory.So to say the the U.S. could attack Irak because some people THINK Irak might have some chemical weapons. Well, that's like saying the U.S. can attack anyone anytime for no other reason that suspicion.
-----
>It hasn't been "proven" but it's likely.
Now, about the proof that the U.S. in in Irak for the oil.
What did the U.S. army first 'liberate' in Irak?
Oil infrastructures and Irak's only deep-water arbor suitable to internationnal distribution of oil (aka. 'Umm Qasr').Now, they are dropping paratroopers in northern Irak, a location filled with oil fields, of course.
-----
A last think, for any people beleiving there are links between Saddam and Bin Laden. You know about the terrorist camps in Irak? They are in the Kurdish region of Irak. The same Kurds who constantly resist the Saddam regime. The same Kurds who where gassed by Saddam's regime a few years ago.
It's quite unlikely that Saddam is stupid enough to give some WMD to his Kurd enemies (Al Qaeda).So, for Saddam to supply WMD to terrorist is a realy lame excuse to invade Irak. Not to say that he got his weapons from the U.S., thus he had about 15 years so far to give them to terrorists (and didn't).
Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Let's reason together Re: Re: Let's reason together -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mark ®
03/28/2003, 05:03:26
Author Profile Mail author
> policy in Iraq regards oil. It hasn't been "proven"
> but it's likely.which lines up perfectly with the last line of my first
post in this thread.Regards,
Mark
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Contributing factors Re: Re: Let's reason together -- nofaith Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/27/2003, 05:12:59
Author Profile Mail author
Gunnar
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
OK, let's reason Re: Let's reason together -- Mark Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/27/2003, 09:49:20
Author Profile Mail author
You'll get no argument from me about how entirely wrong-headed U.S. foreign policy has been, especially where U.S. energy interests were at stake.
But let's focus on just one of the issues here: weapons of mass destruction. You believe the Iraqis do not have them. I believe they do.
Again, I'll ask the question:
Why would the Iraqis be issuing suits to their troops for protection against chemical weapons, gas masks, and antidotes for nerve agents if they do not in fact possess such weapons?
While I do believe the claims of weapons of mass destruction, I am very much disgusted with the way the Bush administration has managed to alienate most of the world through thoughtless rhetoric ("This is a crudsade"; "old Europe"), bullying, posturing, and isolationist positions (Kyoto, war crimes tribunals, etc.). The close ties of the Bush administration to Big Oil do not help either.
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Thu, Mar 27, 2003, 11:09:32
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: OK, let's reason -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/27/2003, 13:32:53
Author Profile Mail author
Because the U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, and has an history about using them. The U.S. army even tried to get clearance to be able to use them (chemical) in the current war against Irak.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/27/2003, 13:53:54
Author Profile Mail author
You say that "the US has weapons of mass destruction and a history about using them".
When you refer to the US "history" of using weapons of mass destruction, are you referring to nuclear weapons and their use against Japan in World War II? Do you really believe these situations are comparable?
You also say, "The US Army even tried to ge clearance to be able to use them (chemical) in the current war against Irak".
Please provide evidence to support that assertion.
Do you seriously believe that US intends to use chemical or biological weapons against Iraq?
Do you seriously believe that the Iraqis do not have chemical and biological weapons - and a willingness to use them - even against their own people?
Do you really believe Saddam's denials? If so, why do you choose to believe a known liar and ruthless murderer?
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Thu, Mar 27, 2003, 13:57:31
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/27/2003, 14:45:19
Author Profile Mail author
> When you refer to the US "history" of using weapons of mass destruction, are you referring to nuclear weapons and their use against Japan in World War II? Do you really believe these situations are comparable?
> Do you really believe these situations are comparable?
Yep, U.S. excuses was that they nuked Japan twice to save lives.
U.S. was winning and trying to finish the war quickly.> When you refer to the US "history" of using weapons of mass destruction, are you referring to nuclear weapons and their use against Japan in World War II?
In an indirect way, but I was mostly talking about nerve gas, which U.S. special forces are specially fond of.
Not all chemical weapons are 'instant kill'. Take tear gas for example, used all the time by special forced/cops, against american targets.>You also say, "The US Army even tried to ge clearance to be able to use them (chemical) in the current war against Irak".
>Please provide evidence to support that assertion.Hmm, that's old news (about a month ago), it'll take me a while before I can find a link.
> Do you seriously believe that US intends to use chemical or biological weapons against Iraq?
Chemical weapons, yes, biological, obviously no.
> Do you seriously believe that the Iraqis do not have chemical and biological weapons - and a willingness to use them - even against their own people?
We can't know, and like I said, if you read me.
Do you have any proof that YOU don't own any WMDs?And, 'his own people' are the Kurd which are NOT 'his own people', he's a Sunni, not a Kurd and not Shiite.
Saddam is protecting his people, the Sunnis, a minority in Irak, from the Kurds and the Shiites, the tyrannicaly oppressed quiet majority.So, yes, Saddam is ready to used WMDs to crush a revolt, that doesn't mean he's ready to use them for 'terrorist' ends.
And, again, like I said, the Al Qaeda camps in Irak are in Kurdish territory.
> Do you really believe Saddam's denials?
Well, I don't care what he's saying actually. You, on the other, would probably beleive a proof that he has WMDs, that he says he don't.
He might have some, he might not have any.
You'll never know, since the U.S. army would certainly not be above planting WMDs in Irak to give themself a moral justification for the attack.> If so, why do you choose to believe a known liar and ruthless murderer?
The problem isn't about choosing Saddam or not.
It's about choosing a liar and murderer, over ANOTHER liar and murderer.Phoebus
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/27/2003, 17:09:44
Author Profile Mail author
You say, "It's not because I'm against war in Irak that I'm for Saddam"
Since you are against Saddam, what would you do to get rid of him?
You compare the use of nuclear weapons in WWII with the current situation, and you say, "Yep, U.S. excuses was that they nuked Japan twice to save lives. U.S. was winning and trying to finish the war quickly."
As I understand it, the US was facing a long and protracted invasion of Japan that would have taken many lives.
Apparently, you classify tear gas as a weapon of mass destruction. in that case, I can see why you see the US as hypocritical. However, I would not put tear gas and pepper spray in the samecategory as nerve gas. The Iraqi soldiers were prepared with antidotes for nerve gas.
You say that Saddam did not use weapons of mass destruction on his own people because , "his own people are the Kurd which are NOT 'his own people', he's a Sunni, not a Kurd and not Shiite. Saddam is protecting his people, the Sunnis, a minority in Irak, from the Kurds and the Shiites, the tyrannicaly oppressed quiet majority."
Amazing. You would justify a bloody dictator by presenting him as a defender of an oppressed minority.
Previously I asked, "Do you really believe Saddam's denials?"
You responded: "Well, I don't care what he's saying actually. "
Of course you don't.
Then you add: " You, on the other, would probably beleive a proof that he has WMDs, that he says he don't. He might have some, he might not have any. You'll never know, since the U.S. army would certainly not be above planting WMDs in Irak to give themself a moral justification for the attack."The preponderance of evidence is that Saddam has these weapons. He has never disclosed what he did with his huge stockpiles of ricin and anthrax.
Previously I askedwhy do you choose to believe a known liar and ruthless murderer, and you responded: "The problem isn't about choosing Saddam or not. It's about choosing a liar and murderer, over ANOTHER liar and murderer."
i assume you mean George Bush. I don't like most of his p[olicies , but see no evidence that he is a liar and murderer. Al Gore is alive and well, and the Democratic party still exists.
George Bush is clearly convinced that the only way to prevent a repeat of 9-11 is to attack terrorism and the states that spponsor terrorism. he could be wrong, and he may even be making the terrorism problem worse, but that is why we are in this war.
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Thu, Mar 27, 2003, 17:14:00
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/28/2003, 09:06:42
Author Profile Mail author
> Since you are against Saddam, what would you do to get rid of him?1. So you are saying that the only way to deal with a problem is to 'get rid' of people?
2. It's not because I'm NOT for Saddam, that I'm AGAINST Saddam.
3. If the so called 'country of democracy and freedom' can't find a peacefull solution to Irak's problem, then why do you except Saddam to? If YOU think that the only way to deal with 'problem people' is to kill them(etc.), then how can you call Saddam/Al Qaeda evil for just doing THAT?
4. I won't lower myself to terrorism, why do you?
5. I don't have a solution myself. (Geez, -I- am not paid to solve middle east's problems.)
> You compare the use of nuclear weapons in WWII with the current situation, and you say, "Yep, U.S. excuses was that they nuked Japan twice to save lives. U.S. was winning and trying to finish the war quickly."
> As I understand it, the US was facing a long and protracted invasion of Japan that would have taken many lives.You beleive that the invasion of Irak will be short and with little casualities?
Btw, there's no difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities and crashing two planes in edifice buildings.
Both are terrorist acts that have for goal to terrorize people into submission.
So is terrorism to make an 'example' of Irak for the rest of the world.
> Apparently, you classify tear gas as a weapon of mass destruction. in that case, I can see why you see the US as hypocritical. However, I would not put tear gas and pepper spray in the samecategory as nerve gas. The Iraqi soldiers were prepared with antidotes for nerve gas.Does the antidote works against the WMDs supplied to Irak by the U.S.?
Does it work against some WMDs that the U.S. has in stock today?
How could the Iraquis know that the U.S. won't use WMDs against them? (They just CAN'T rush to 'Terrorist-mart' (hehehe) to buy nerve gas antidotes after U.S. start using some against them.)
It's logical to beleive that Irak would protect their troops as well as they can.I'm not saying it's not suspicious (geez), but it's not a given that it's to protect Iraquis from their own WMDs.
> You say that Saddam did not use weapons of mass destruction on his own people because , "his own people are the Kurd which are NOT 'his own people', he's a Sunni, not a Kurd and not Shiite. Saddam is protecting his people, the Sunnis, a minority in Irak, from the Kurds and the Shiites, the tyrannicaly oppressed quiet majority."
> Amazing. You would justify a bloody dictator by presenting him as a defender of an oppressed minority.tyrannicaly, tyrannicaly, tyrannicaly.
I know your reply with your guts, but please read what I write carefully.
Would you make an argument out of Irak using WMDs against Iran?
No, well, beside Irak being in a war against Iran, it was U.S. idea and initiative to use WMDs against Iran.The argument about 'using WMDs against his own people' is only potentially valid in showing that Saddam could have no respect for his own people. Since I simply showed you that the Kurds are NOT Saddam's people (even if they live in Irak), that argument doesn't hold.
He's still a dictator who's ready to use WMDs against OTHER people thought. (But then, so are the U.S.)
> Previously I asked, "Do you really believe Saddam's denials?"
> You responded: "Well, I don't care what he's saying actually. "
> Of course you don't.What's wrong with not caring about what Saddam says?
He's just a dictator schmuck, he could by lying like telling the thruth, and for all I care, he's NOT a reliable source of information.
Give me FACTS, and I'll beleive.
Give me dictatorial (or presidential, whatever) allocutions, and I couldn't care less.
> Then you add: " You, on the other, would probably beleive a proof that he has WMDs, that he says he don't. He might have some, he might not have any. You'll never know, since the U.S. army would certainly not be above planting WMDs in Irak to give themself a moral justification for the attack."
> The preponderance of evidence is that Saddam has these weapons. He has never disclosed what he did with his huge stockpiles of ricin and anthrax.Ok, let's reason.
Saddam destroys all the WMDs that the U.S. estimates Saddam has.
Does that prevent the war?
Why?
Case closed.
WMDs have -NOTHING- to do with invasion of Irak. They are just a PR excuse.
> Previously I askedwhy do you choose to believe a known liar and ruthless murderer, and you responded: "The problem isn't about choosing Saddam or not. It's about choosing a liar and murderer, over ANOTHER liar and murderer."
> i assume you mean George Bush. I don't like most of his p[olicies , but see no evidence that he is a liar and murderer. Al Gore is alive and well, and the Democratic party still exists.
> George Bush is clearly convinced that the only way to prevent a repeat of 9-11 is to attack terrorism and the states that spponsor terrorism. he could be wrong, and he may even be making the terrorism problem worse, but that is why we are in this war.I wasn't refering to George W. Bush, I was refering to the U.S. government/army.
And like I said already, I don't beleive Saddam.
I don't beleive the U.S. officials ether. Of course, you probably beleive that if the U.S. president says something that it MUST be true. (lol)
The main reason why I'm against the war is that the U.S. army is a much greater potential threat to human life, democracy and freedom than Saddam could ever be.
And preemptive wars is DEFINITELY a slippery slope toward that ugly scenario.
Phoebus
PS.: Weew! That's alot!
Modified by Phoebus at Fri, Mar 28, 2003, 09:10:15
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/28/2003, 10:25:01
Author Profile Mail author
You say, "So you are saying that the only way to deal with a problem is to 'get rid' of people?"
Of course not. But in this instance that appears to be the case.
You say, "It's not because I'm NOT for Saddam, that I'm AGAINST Saddam"
That makes no sense to me
You say, "If the so called 'country of democracy and freedom' can't find a peacefull solution to Irak's problem, then why do you except Saddam to?"
I expect Saddam to do what brutal dictators always do - kill and torture those who oppose him and whip up nationalistic sentiment.
You say, " If YOU think that the only way to deal with 'problem people' is to kill them(etc.), then how can you call Saddam/Al Qaeda evil for just doing THAT?"
Good grief. Of course, there are many ways to solve problems, but there are cases which can only be stopped with force. Saddam and Al Queda fall in that category.
You say, " I won't lower myself to terrorism, why do you?"
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. I do not support that.
You say, " I don't have a solution myself. (Geez, -I- am not paid to solve middle east's problems.)"
I see no easy solution, however, I do believe that it is better to confront brutal dictators earlier rather than later after they have strengthened their hold on power.
You say, " You beleive that the invasion of Irak will be short and with little casualities?"
No, I believe it will be exceptionally brutal and long.
You say, " Btw, there's no difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities and crashing two planes in edifice buildings.Both are terrorist acts that have for goal to terrorize people into submission. "
I disagree. The goal of one act was to stop war and minimize loss of life longterm. The goal of the other act was to initiate war and maximize loss of innocent life. Apparently, you are unable to make that moral distinction.
You say, "So is terrorism to make an 'example' of Irak for the rest of the world."
Bush has concluded that terrorist rogue nations, which include Iraq, are a threat to national security. I believe he is right on this issue, though I disagree with his political methods as i disagree with virtually all of his political policies.
You say, " How could the Iraquis know that the U.S. won't use WMDs against them?"
The Iraqi government understands that a military weakness of the US is that we will do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. That is why the Iraqi regime will use civilians as human shields. Of course they know that the US will not use nerve gas. To argue otherwise is simply specious.
You say, "Saddam destroys all the WMDs that the U.S. estimates Saddam has. Does that prevent the war? Why?"
Yes, I believe that if Saddam had disclosed all his weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no war.
You say, "Of course, you probably beleive that if the U.S. president says something that it MUST be true."
You really are something. Do you always assume the worst about other people (as you have about me in this case)?
You say: "The main reason why I'm against the war is that the U.S. army is a much greater potential threat to human life, democracy and freedom than Saddam could ever be. "
How anyone can compare the US army with a ruthless and saddistic dictator is simply beyond me.
You say, "And preemptive wars is DEFINITELY a slippery slope toward that ugly scenario."
I disagree. A preemptive war against Hitler in world War II might have saved millions of lives.
I believe this war will be extremely bloody with huge loss of life - both Iraqi, American, and British - but the longterm consequences of allowing Saddam to remain in power may well be worse in terms of loss of human life and suffering.
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Fri, Mar 28, 2003, 10:42:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: OK, let's reason Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/28/2003, 12:12:44
Author Profile Mail author
Isn't that what the U.S. does?
> Good grief. Of course, there are many ways to solve problems, but there are cases which can only be stopped with force. Saddam and Al Queda fall in that category.You switched topic...
Let's view things from everyone's perspective:
Saddam Hussen kills the 'terrorists' who try to overthrow is 'righteous' regime. He crush rebelions and treats to peace in Irak with the help of his army and a few chemical weapons.
For Al Qaeda, the US are terrorist coercing and slaughtering (or supporting the) Arab/Muslims.
So they they are trying to 'decapitate' the US government, by destroying (9/11) the pentagon, the white house and the world trade center, and at other time US embassies.The US thinks Saddam is supporting terrorists and potentialy giving them WMDs.
So the US army tries to assassinate Saddam, destroy his palaces, destroy military or pseudo-military structures and the civilians working in them.----------
So, beside the U.S. having the most powerfull army (might makes right *sob*), there's no difference in the way they deal with problem:
Ultimatums, blackmail, threats, hostile takeovers, assassination, bombardment, invasion & military occupation.
> Yes, I believe that if Saddam had disclosed all his weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no war.The question here is, how can you KNOW if he has or not disclosed (or disposed) all his weapons of mass destruction?
Saddam could always give to terrorist (improbable like I explained before, but let's blabber) his last chemical can to be used against the US.
Hence a 'preemptive war' was impossible to avoid (well, through disarmament at least).
> Bush has concluded that terrorist rogue nations, which include Iraq, are a threat to national security.Since the war, the U.S. & U.K. are rogue nations. That doesn't mean much.
Many arabs beleive the U.S. is a threat to THEIR national security, is that a good reason for them to try to blow up the U.S.?
> You really are something. Do you always assume the worst about other people (as you have about me in this case)?Sorry about misunderstanding you.
But don't forget that the U.S. has over half of the world's total investment in military.
If the U.S. army gets out of control we are in 'Deep Shit'(tm). (No, the U.S. army is NOT democratic, it's a solid dictatorial regime, and the U.S. army have alot of high tech weaponry which are not protecting democracy by their nature (they can be easily controled by a minority against a majority). )
Don't mind me for caring about the 'worst case scenarios', and 'preemptive wars' is a pretty scary thing in this perspective.
> How anyone can compare the US army with a ruthless and saddistic dictator is simply beyond me.How does the army treats the Al Qaeda 'prisoners' of 'war' already? (Politics are not an excuse on the battlefield of morality)
And I did talk about 'potential', the U.S. army is currently controled by the U.S.'s public opinion (well, as much os the public know/care to control the army), if ether the U.S. army is (mostly) cleared from having to deal with public opinion, or the public become unsensitive to war or used to deal with problem using war, more 'potential' will be unleashed.
> I disagree. A preemptive war against Hitler in world War II might have saved millions of lives.Yes, then again, it's Hitler (and Japan) that used the 'preemptive' war that time. Same thing, different name.
> I believe this war will be extremely bloody with huge loss of life - both Iraqi, American, and British - but the longterm consequences of allowing Saddam to remain in power may well be worse in terms of loss of human life and suffering.True.
Phoebus
PS.: I think we should split the discussion in more threads, the size of the discussion's posts are getting ridiculous. :P
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
moral equivalency Re: Re: OK, let's reason -- Phoebus Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/28/2003, 15:04:01
Author Profile Mail author
Talk about world views that are oceans apart.
You continue to argue that there is a moral equivalence between the U.S. actions and the behavior of terrorist organizations. I reject that. Past US policies have largely been based on opposition to communism and the need for energy. This led to some terrible decisions. But the basis of these decisions was very different from the motives that you impute.
Clearly the US has made many foreign policy blunders, especially in the Middle East and Latin America, but it is also the country that rebuilt Germany and Japan after defeating them. You seem eager to ignore the positive actions of the US government and to focus on the negative actions.Previously I said, "Good grief. Of course, there are many ways to solve problems, but there are cases which can only be stopped with force. Saddam and Al Queda fall in that category."
And you claimed that I had switched topic. I do not see why you say that.
You say, "Let's view things from everyone's perspective"
Now you claim to be speaking on behalf of "everyone". Incredible.
You say, "Saddam Hussen kills the 'terrorists' who try to overthrow is 'righteous' regime. He crush rebelions and treats to peace in Irak with the help of his army and a few chemical weapons."
What a bizarre justification for a cruel mass murderer.
You say, "For Al Qaeda, the US are terrorist coercing and slaughtering (or supporting the) Arab/Muslims."
The US is going after Al Queda because Al Queda has sworn to attack the US and has already repeatedly attacked the US. They must be destroyed because they have commited to destroy America.
You say, " So they they are trying to 'decapitate' the US government, by destroying (9/11) the pentagon, the white house and the wor"ld trade center, and at other time US embassies."
You actually attempt to justify the events of 9-11? You actually attermpt to make this morally equivalent to US actions? Unbelievable.
You say, "The US thinks Saddam is supporting terrorists and potentialy giving them WMDs. So the US army tries to assassinate Saddam, destroy his palaces, destroy military or pseudo-military structures and the civilians working in them."
It is not just a question what the US "thinks". Saddam is clearly supporting terrorists. One example is the payment of money to suicide bombers in Palestine. Saddam has clearly wasted the Iraqi treasury trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He is a threat to world peace.
You say, "So, beside the U.S. having the most powerfull army (might makes right *sob*)"
I do not believe that "might makes right, but I do believe that might can prevent further wrongs.
You say, ", there's no difference in the way they deal with problem: Ultimatums, blackmail, threats, hostile takeovers, assassination, bombardment, invasion & military occupation."
You are 100% wrong. Saddam butchers and tortures his own people and steals for his own personal gain. The US works through diplomacy as far as possible, and abides by the rule of law. In this case, diplomacy came up short, but the need to act was still there.
Previously I wrote, "Yes, I believe that if Saddam had disclosed all his weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no war".
And you responded, "The question here is, how can you KNOW if he has or not disclosed (or disposed) all his weapons of mass destruction?"
He has never accounted for the ricin and anthrax that he previously admitted to havin stockpiled.
You say, " Saddam could always give to terrorist (improbable like I explained before, but let's blabber) his last chemical can to be used against the US. Hence a 'preemptive war' was impossible to avoid (well, through disarmament at least)."
I am not sure what you are saying , but I would agree that a pre-emptive war eventually became unavoidable.
Previously i wrote: Bush has concluded that terrorist rogue nations, which include Iraq, are a threat to national security.
You say, "Since the war, the U.S. & U.K. are rogue nations"
I suppose we need a definition of "rogue nations". A rogue nation in my view is one that deliberately targets innocents to execute its aims. The US and UK are not deliberately targeting innocents.
You say, "Many arabs beleive the U.S. is a threat to THEIR national security, is that a good reason for them to try to blow up the U.S.?"
My general impression is that the Arab people have been fed a constant stream of lies for so long that many have difficulty distinguishing good from evil.
You say, "But don't forget that the U.S. has over half of the world's total investment in military. If the U.S. army gets out of control we are in 'Deep Shit'(tm). "
The US army has good people and is under firm civilian control.
You say, "No, the U.S. army is NOT democratic, it's a solid dictatorial regime, and the U.S. army have alot of high tech weaponry which are not protecting democracy by their nature (they can be easily controled by a minority against a majority). )"
Again, the US military is an arm of the US government and is under civilian control.
Previously I wrote: "How anyone can compare the US army with a ruthless and saddistic dictator is simply beyond me."
You say, "How does the army treats the Al Qaeda 'prisoners' of 'war' already? (Politics are not an excuse on the battlefield of morality)"
As I understand it, the Al Queda prisoners are receiving food and shelter and are not tortured, though some have been sleep deprived. Some of these prisoners have sworn to kill innocent people, so they must be treated with great caution.
You say, "And I did talk about 'potential', the U.S. army is currently controled by the U.S.'s public opinion (well, as much os the public know/care to control the army), if ether the U.S. army is (mostly) cleared from having to deal with public opinion, or the public become unsensitive to war or used to deal with problem using war, more 'potential' will be unleashed."
The US public has to be persuaded that the cause is just. Most do believe that war with Saddam's regime is a just cause. I believe it is, but I am grieved at the likely large loss of life on all sides.
Previously I wrote: A preemptive war against Hitler in world War II might have saved millions of lives.
You say, "Yes, then again, it's Hitler (and Japan) that used the 'preemptive' war that time. Same thing, different name"
Amazingly, you do not discriminate between democracies that allow law-abiding citizens to enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and brutal fascists dictatorships that are intent on destroying human rights and maintaining their own power at all costs.
There is no moral equivalency.
Craig
.
Modified by Craig C. at Fri, Mar 28, 2003, 16:44:52
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'm splitting the post into manageable parts. (NT) Re: moral equivalency -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/28/2003, 16:52:16
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Bigotry Re: moral equivalency -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Phoebus ®
03/28/2003, 17:16:09
Author Profile Mail author
Definition of Bigotry: The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
Definition of Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Phoebus> Let's view things from everyone's perspective:Craig> Now you claim to be speaking on behalf of "everyone". Incredible.
Phoebus> That's out of context. My everyone was not every individual but the general perspective of the nations, as stated.
What Saddam regime say they are doing.
What Al Qaeda terrorist say they are doing.
What US say they are doing.
'Everyone' has in, everyone pertinent to the current discussion.
Phoebus> (Refering to his own position, not my opinion, like stated above) Saddam Hussen kills the 'terrorists' who try to overthrow is 'righteous' regime. He crush rebelions and treats to peace in Irak with the help of his army and a few chemical weapons.Craig> What a bizarre justification for a cruel mass murderer.
Phoebus> I'm just stating that THEY (Saddam's regime) justify their actions in their own mind.
Phoebus> (Refering to their own position, not my opinion, like stated above) For Al Q
