maybe it was oil after all ...
April 20, 2003 5:34 PM   Subscribe

This post was deleted for the following reason: go into the metafilter timeout corner and think about what you did.



 
Specialk: You're either saying the war was about oil - which has been said and discussed before - or implying that Iraq was invaded by the U.S., U.K. and Australia in order to provide Israel with cheaper and more accessible oil - which is ridiculous.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:42 PM on April 20, 2003


The war isn't about weapons of mass destruction. Where were you when the Bush administration changed the purpose of the war to the "liberation of the Iraqi people". They keep changing the reason of the war because their real reason is a secret. Whether oil or whatever else, the truth will eventually come out. By then, however, Americans will not care. I love how despite world opinion, the Bush administration was able to connect the war so vigorously to patriotism, that those who did not support it were entirely marginalized. Also ingenious was presenting evidence connecting Iraq to terrorism. No matter how flawed their data, the media picks it up, and then every American believes it. How fast we forget that the bin Laden and the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is still at large... we're already off to another "bad guy" another "evil doer"... just sickening
posted by banished at 6:00 PM on April 20, 2003


banished, I'd just like to say that while you haven't said anything NEW, you've said it well. For me to make the same points, I'd probably have written a 3 page diatribe, which you summarized in one (albeit slightly oversized) paragraph...
posted by twiggy at 6:04 PM on April 20, 2003


miguel.

i think the old cliche goes "I don't make the news ..."

it looks like some "war supporters" thought it was about the now being swept under the rug WMDs as well:

" “What is the main reason you support the Bush administration’s decision to take military action against Iraq?” "

Disarm Hussein – 23%
Remove threat to America – 14%
Hussein violated U.N. Resolutions – 12%
Liberate Iraqi people – 15%
Hussein is evil – 11%

posted by specialk420 at 6:08 PM on April 20, 2003


Even More Shocking! The world continues to turn!
posted by mnology at 6:19 PM on April 20, 2003


To add to Banished's post, I'll point to this article in the Independent, posing the serious questions about what this war was all about, and how the reasons just aren't holding up to scrutiny.

(I was going to post this as a story, but the warning about Iraq posts, scared me off, so I'll sneak it in here, as it seems pertinent.)
posted by Blue Stone at 6:24 PM on April 20, 2003


How fast we forget that the bin Laden and the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is still at large... we're already off to another "bad guy" another "evil doer"... just sickening.

Maybe YOU are "off to another bad guy... but I don't think you can speak for everyone. Didn't the U.S. just nab a terrorist that's been wanted since the 80's for highjacking a cruise ship and dumping the cripple over board? Believe me banished, these people are never forgotten and are always on the run. We'll get 'em. Sit tight. Nobody has forgotten anything. For you to even presume that to be the truth is absurd.

Oh... and speak for yourself. Jackass.

By then, however, Americans will not care.
posted by Witty at 6:29 PM on April 20, 2003




Sit tight??? SIT TIGHT? Christ, sit tight?? I can't believe someone would presume to tell someone that.. 'trust your government' 'don't ask questions' 'why do you hate america so much?'... sit tight.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:36 PM on April 20, 2003


Sit tight.
posted by Witty at 6:39 PM on April 20, 2003


Even More Shocking! The world continues to turn!

well, I'll be damned. guess we shouldn'tve wasted our breath, huh?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:41 PM on April 20, 2003


This is a war about freedom, but "free" means different things in different contexts, hippies, so listen up.

Free can mean the absence of something, as in "Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, now that we've found all those stockpiles."

There's also freedom from a previous oppressive state, as in "the people of Iraq are now free from the oppressive yoke of a military leader, at least until the new one moves his furniture in."

But free can also mean something that doesn't cost anything, as in "I got this color television for free, having looted it in the midst of a lawless descent into anarchy."

Then again, free can sometimes be used to describe something that is not in captivity, like a wild horse, or Osama bin Laden.

Freedom is also another word for nothing left to lose.

And don't you forget it, hippies.
posted by Hildago at 6:43 PM on April 20, 2003


The government did it for all the oil. No wait, the government did it to turn 9-11 fear into high Bush approval ratings in the name of anti-terrorism. No wait, the government did it to propogandize the liberation of the iraqi people.

WMD or no WMD, oil or no oil, freedom-mongering or no freedom-mongering, Hussein was a horrible and dangerous man who epitomizes all that is counter to the Bill of Rights all the protestors take for granted.

The ends most certainly justify the means. Why does that carry such a stigma? They do! Anything else is short sighted.
posted by paddy at 6:46 PM on April 20, 2003


Sit tight.

Thank you. I feel much better now. They have been doing a great job so far. How many evildoers that were actually involved in 9-11 have been prosecuted (or caught) so far.. coming up on 2 years later? Jackass.
posted by specialk420 at 6:49 PM on April 20, 2003


Sit back, just let them talk, and be horrified and amused at the same time.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:50 PM on April 20, 2003


paddy: exercising 1st amendment rights isn't taking them for granted. exercising 1st amendment rights to protest their revocation definitely isn't taking them for granted.
posted by bingbangbong at 6:50 PM on April 20, 2003


Exactly, Paddy.

By the way: The Economist magazine published an article just prior to the commencement of the conflict describing deals that French and Russian oil companies had to drill in Iraq. Deals worth billions of dollars. So peace meant that big evil corporations got tons of money, and the Iraqi people got fucked by Saddam, whereas war meant that big evil corporations got tons of money and the Iraqi people cease being fucked by Saddam.

Either way, the megacorps would be making big money. At least this way Saddam isn't killing his own people anymore.
posted by dazed_one at 6:55 PM on April 20, 2003


bingbanbbong: so we're in agreement that denying people those rights is worth avoiding. As long as they're protected within our bubble, though. Stopping a man from doing it elsewhere just takes so much effort!
posted by paddy at 6:55 PM on April 20, 2003


Unless of course this is just another leak to turn the heat up on the Syrians: "You guys aren't the only ones with a Mediterranean oil terminus." This scenario is a whole lot more likely than a US president risking the Atlantic alliance system and spending vast political capital to shave a couple shekels off the price of gas in Israel.

I mean, think about it for a second. The Guardian gets the real story in a quiet leak from the CIA a week after the war ended? Get serious. If the intelligence community wanted to sabotage the effort and impinge Bush's judgement don't you think the time to leak was, oh, maybe last October, before this thing ramped up?

And 420, if there were a dozen reasons not to go to war, why shouldn't there be a dozen reasons to go to war? Every one of the poll responses is a good idea. Most reasons against were worthy of consideration. Why can't people take action for multiple positive reasons which outweigh the multiple negatives?
posted by ednopantz at 6:55 PM on April 20, 2003


Yeah, we're belaboring the obvious here. I liked the characterization of the talks among "Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad." "Potential"? Wonder what the qualifications are?
posted by hairyeyeball at 7:00 PM on April 20, 2003


You're talking to a wall ednopantz... but I applaud your effort.
posted by Witty at 7:02 PM on April 20, 2003


Frome the article, I think there are two salient points [trying to pull this thread up from its death spiral]:

1. It would be a big deal if an arab country would sell oil to Israel. Right now, none will. Israel has to import oil from halfway around the world, while there only 400/500 km from some of the richest reserves in the world.

2. It would be a big deal if the U.S. did not have to rely on Saudi Arabia for its source of mid-east oil. The US does rely on it now and you can bet it's a reason why we've not been so quick to indict them for their much more salient connection to 9/11 than some other countries that have been freed recently. [ on preview: what ednopantz said, only about Saudi Arabia]
posted by zpousman at 7:09 PM on April 20, 2003


I was personally told the war was about potato chips and dill pickles.

I feel very, very lied to.
posted by xmutex at 7:11 PM on April 20, 2003


the article is about the plan being implemented by certain forces that secures Iraqi oil for israeli and US use - with the help of "coalition of the willing" appointed stooges



the plan is audacious if nothing else.
posted by specialk420 at 7:17 PM on April 20, 2003


Didn't the U.S. just nab a terrorist that's been wanted since the 80's for highjacking a cruise ship and dumping the cripple over board?

Bait and switch. Abu Abbas is a bad man, and should be shipped back to an Italian jail, but his relevance to the war on Iraq (and particularly the tenuous links to 'the war on terrorism™') is non-existent, particularly as the US seems rather good at providing aid, comfort and safety for rather a large number of terrorists with similarly murky pasts.

Believe me banished, these people are never forgotten and are always on the run. We'll get 'em.

Indeed, you got many of them already. Some of them lead St Patrick's Day parades in the US, and others hide away from justice just because their crimes more than suited the US administration of the time. In short, the US can start crowing about the arrest of Abu Abbas as a triumph against terrorism once it sends Orlando Bosch back to Cuba. Hmm.

Now, just where are those thousands of litres of chemical and biological nastiness? And those drones, and those mobile labs, and those weapons plants? After all, if UNMOVIC was so fucking incompetent at finding anything, surely the US will be so much better... after all, it has a long history of being able to look after its own stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Either way, the megacorps would be making big money.

Strange, that, since there was the small matter of UN sanctions which meant that the megacorps weren't likely to cash in on any of their deals while Saddam remained in power. Of course, if the Israeli government manages to cash in on Iraqi oil, that'll be another thing entirely. Perhaps they can follow the habit of the last decade and divert oil destined for Arab households, just as they've raided the aquifers of Palestinian areas.
posted by riviera at 7:23 PM on April 20, 2003


"Strange, that, since there was the small matter of UN sanctions which meant that the megacorps weren't likely to cash in on any of their deals while Saddam remained in power."

You're exactly right, riviera. Strange, that, prior to the most recent conflict, France was the most outspoken objector to the sanctions against Iraq, complaining that the sanctions were killing babies and innocent people. The French made no mention, however, that they were attempting to set up multi-billion dollar deals with Saddam to drill oil wells for him.

It's pure ignorance to assume that any nation really was acting in a particular manner towards Iraq out of any sense of nobility or genuine good naturedness. Everyone's looking out to line their own pockets. The reason, however, that I support this war in Iraq is because while the US was out lining it's pockets in Iraq, it was also deposing a dictator who was willing to kill thousands of his own civilians, as opposed to the French, who, when lining their own pockets in Iraq, were willing to support and keep this dictator in power.
posted by dazed_one at 7:40 PM on April 20, 2003


were willing to support and keep this dictator in power

speaking of cliches - is'nt there one about glass houses?
posted by specialk420 at 7:44 PM on April 20, 2003


dazed_one: If your decision regarding whether to support the war or not came to whether to support the American or French government positions, then you were doing any particularly deep thinking.
posted by raysmj at 8:03 PM on April 20, 2003


I fail to see your point, specialk420. As I said, the US is out only to line its own pockets. Your link just supports what I'm saying.
posted by dazed_one at 8:04 PM on April 20, 2003


raysmj: My descision of whether to support the war or not came down to the fact that I think Iraq eould be better off without Saddam Hussein, so long as the means to remove him was less damaging to the Iraqi people as opposed to leaving him in power.

But this isn't the place to get into debates about why I or you support or disagree with the removal of Saddam from power. This thread is about whether it was oil that started the war or whether it was WMDs.

I'm saying that the war was definitly about oil, but so, too, was peace.
posted by dazed_one at 8:12 PM on April 20, 2003


Bletch, your link didn't work. Here it is: WarFilter.
posted by homunculus at 8:12 PM on April 20, 2003


« Older http://www.sfsite...   |   room 101 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments