Iran and Iraq: too much there for countries to ignore
October 30, 2002 9:11 AM   Subscribe

Iran and Iraq: too much there for countries to ignore If the peaceniks in the U.S. insist that going into Iraq is an attempt to get hold of the oil, then it might equally be said that those nations opposed to an American attack on Iraq also have self-interest in not wanting America to enter Iraq.
posted by Postroad (14 comments total)

 
Pot, kettle?

Also, Postroad, "peaceniks"? I hope you're sixty, 'cause if you're younger than that, well, it' sounds kinda sad...
posted by matteo at 9:17 AM on October 30, 2002


Iraq owes at least US$7 billion to the Russians, who can't afford to just write off that kind of debt. My guess is that the Russians don't like Saddam anymore than anyone else, they just don't want a big hit in the wallet.
posted by gimonca at 9:25 AM on October 30, 2002


Let me get this straight.

The point of the article is that, surprise surprise, other countries besides the U.S., including France, use oil and natural gas, and are doing business with Iraq, which has vast quantities of both.

Your point is that us "peaceniks" who don't want the U.S. to go to war with Iraq are blindly ignoring the fact that... France buys oil from Iraq?

There is no logic in this argument. If France were planning on attacking Iraq after blocking the U.S. from doing so, then maybe this would make some sense.

Everybody buys oil from Iraq. Who cares? Only the U.S. is oilthirsty enough to want to invade. Right now the playing field amongst foreign investors in Iraq relatively even. If the U.S. invaded we would tilt that playing field further in our (and Britain's and anyone else who antes up) direction.

Good businessmen are not afraid of a level playing field. It is the swindlers, the bullies, and the old men on the take that are always pushing for the extra take.
posted by zekinskia at 9:31 AM on October 30, 2002


Peaceniks? Haven't heard that in a while. What's next, long-haired commie peace freak?

it might equally be said that those nations opposed to an American attack on Iraq also have self-interest in not wanting America to enter Iraq.

I'd say that was a given, if you're talking about the countries that we have to bribe to support us. So what's your point?
posted by norm29 at 9:31 AM on October 30, 2002


YOUSSEF M. IBRAHIM, "Iran and Iraq Too Big for Companies to Ignore," New York Times, September 30, 1997

Is the date above the date of this material?
posted by thomcatspike at 9:38 AM on October 30, 2002


So these vaginas, they vibrate?

Metafilter: Pantload's Potty (TM)
posted by donkeyschlong at 9:40 AM on October 30, 2002


Somebody has to stop that John Lennon and his Beatles before our youth become godless commie atheists!
posted by 2sheets at 9:49 AM on October 30, 2002


From the article:

The sheer economic logic of using Iran as a transit route by
its neighbors to transport oil and gas is overcoming political obstacles caused by U.S. sanctions legislation


This is exactly what some of us "peaceniks" are afraid of. The "sheer economic logic" of the amounts of oil in the region overcomes moral and enlightened self-interest.

I am all for invading Iraq in order to depose a deplorable dictator and encourage the development of an independent Iraqi state that will become a shining example of democracy and prosperity that will make most of the Arab world forget the so-called promise of radical Islam. Why fly yourself into a building when you now can make your own?

But you see, the "sheer economic logic" of the situation will make it hard not to treat Iraq as a colony, which will make it harder for it to become a shining example of democracy and prosperity.... unless we approach it with extreme discipline.

Good businessmen are not afraid of a level playing field. It is the swindlers, the bullies, and the old men on the take that are always pushing for the extra take.

Zekinskia, my observation has been that good businessmen are also fond of the "sweetheart deal". The level playing field is what's fought for by the smaller, entering players. The established players like to fight for the "free market" -- the ability to use their weight and power without restriction or regulation. "Sheer economic logic" will mean that there will be american oil interests trying to negotiate a sweetheart deal with american occupation. It's essential to our enlightened self-interest that we don't give them that. The best way to wage war against terrorism is to make sure we look like and are the good guys.
posted by namespan at 9:54 AM on October 30, 2002


The difficulty in building a coalition has more to do with the aggressiveness with which the US is approaching Iraq than oil interest. It's not surprising that most are opposed to a preemptive war.

On a horse, Postroad?
posted by eddydamascene at 9:55 AM on October 30, 2002


A link to an article five years old?! "Peaceniks"?! This is a new low, even for you, Postroad...
posted by JollyWanker at 9:57 AM on October 30, 2002


I agree with you, Postroad. The country that that consumes the most oil, the United States, faces the most
dire consequences of oil shortages.
posted by cfm at 11:11 AM on October 30, 2002


I would think that french and russian politicians are making decisions that are influenced by oil, but as far as peaceniks go, I would assume they are protesting because they want ..uhhmm..peace.
posted by stifford at 12:19 PM on October 30, 2002


I also think the original post is flawed, because it assumes that Americans cannot have economically self-interested reasons for avoiding war. As the creation of groups such as Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities shows, there are certainly some business owners who view war in Iraq as harmful to the economy.
posted by jonp72 at 1:50 PM on October 30, 2002


this must be THE most outrageous post i've ever seen on MEFI. EVER....

take your head out of your patriotic a...
posted by mary8nne at 3:12 PM on October 30, 2002


« Older The werewolf myth...  |  Got Milk? High?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments