It is all about Oil [WAS Re: [CLUE-Talk] Traitors, Cowards, Scoundrels, and Intelligent Dissenters]

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 08:31, Randy Arabie wrote:
> I'm really, really sick of hearing this:
> 
> On Saturday, 29 March 2003 at  7:36:31 -0700, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> 
> "... - the administration is after the oil, end of story."
> 
> Joe, there have been a number of claims, but nothing proven.  None, zip,
> nada, zero.  The evidence isn't any more substantial than the evidence
> that links Iraq to terrorism.

Watch and see what happens when this plays out, Randy. Of course
nothing's been "proven" because it HASN'T HAPPENED YET. Yet there are
plenty of facts to suggest that the administration is going after the
oil, and damn few to suggest otherwise. 

There's a big difference here -- If Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda it
should be possible to prove it, yes? There should, somewhere, be
evidence that they had either funneled money or arms or put up training
camps or something. If they supported them, it's an action that has
already happened, and is therefore provable. As of yet, we haven't been
able to show that proof, despite having tried very hard to turn it up. 

Let me tell ya, if they had been able to link Iraq and Al Qaeda
convincingly, I'd be all in favor of this. I was in favor of what we did
in Afghanistan, though I'm very displeased with our follow-up. 

Unfortunately for you and me the only way to prove the Bush
administration is doing what I think they're doing is to let them go
ahead and do it. The evidence I've seen points to intent to grab Iraqi
oil. In my opinion, it takes a pretty gullible or generous nature to
assume the Bush administration has good intentions regarding the
treatment of Iraqi oil with the facts at hand. 

The evidence that the Bush administration is tied very closely to big
oil is certainly much more solid than evidence tying Saddam to Al Qaeda.

I suppose you're proposing we should sit back and see what happens, and
then complain after we've stolen the Iraqis oil? 

You do understand the difference between past and future actions, right?
You do understand that we have (or had) the opportunity to prevent
something from happening vs. proving something had happened. Further,
the burden of proof should have been on the administration to prove its
case - and it couldn't succeed before the U.N. It can't explain why Iraq
and not Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Syria or even Israel. 

Sorry, I doubt we're going to turn up a Bush administration memo that
says "why we're really going to invade Iraq." I doubt we'll catch Dubya
on camera going "heh heh heh, suckers" right before a press conference. 

> In making such statements you are implying that the 70%** of the American
> people who support the war to disarm Iraq and liberate it's people are
> in fact a bunch of useful idiots who have been duped into supporting
> the worlds largest armed robbery.  

This wouldn't be the first time in history a population had been duped
into supporting something other than what the reigning government told
them they were supporting, now would it? History is rife with examples
of governments using propaganda to trick the population into supporting
a land grab or some other agenda far removed from what the public
thought they were supporting. 

If history has proved anything, it's that mass opinion is frequently
proven wrong in hindsight and that the public at large is poorly
informed and easily swayed by propaganda from "official" sources.

> Not only are 70% of American people
> now useful idiots, but the Bush administration has also managed to
> dupe the leaders of over 40*** coalition nations.

Yeah, go see how many of those "coalition nations" are actually
contributing warm bodies or dollars - most of the nations we're lumping
in as a "coalition" are just countries who have agreed not to actively
oppose what we're doing. 

Note the "contributions" 

"direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support,
specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights,
humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support."

In other words, we're calling it support if a country will just
publically say we're doing the right thing - or at least not actively
oppose us. We're calling it support of our actions if a country is
willing to send humanitarian aid -- that doesn't show support for what
we're doing, it shows concern for Iraqis who are being bombed out of
their homes by us. 

The "coalition" that supported the first Gulf War actually contributed
dollars and troops. We've certainly lowered the bar here. 

> What really suprises me, is that this statement came from someone who
> repeatedly whines about people being lumped into categories unfairly by
> the use of labels like liberal, lefty, anti-American, Marxist, etc...

Hey Randy, bite me with the "whining" crap, okay? There's a difference
between objecting to something and whining. That's another lovely tactic
employed all to often by folks like Rush or Coulter - if they bitch
about Clinton, it's "intelligent discourse" or "informing the public" if
someone complains about the Bush administration it's "whining." 

Also, if I make a "statement" that people are "useful idiots" you'll
know because I'll say it outright. Leave the interpretation to literary
critics and stick to what I've actually said. All of my questions were
directly to Kevin because I'm interested in how he can justify his
position. If you want to jump in, feel free - but don't try to
reinterpret my statements into something they weren't.  

If you want me to comment on public opinion, here it is: I think the
"average American" is too concerned with professional sports, "American
Idol" and what's at the box office to spend any time forming anything
like an intelligent opinion. My belief is that the American public won't
care about this issue until it starts having an impact on their daily
life - and it hasn't, and they don't think that it will. 

I'll give you (and Kevin) this much: You've spent a little time doing
some research and reading about this issue - I wholeheartedly disagree
with your interpretation of those facts, but at least you seem to have
made an effort. 

The "average American" is getting most of their information straight
from CNN, Fox or other televised network news - which isn't good for
anything in terms of forming an intelligent opinion. And I'm not talking
about bias here, I'm talking about the complete lack of substance and
context when it comes to political issues. 

> Granted, your whinning isn't totally baseless.  However, I would expect
> you to be a little more cautious before making statements that greatly
> oversimplify the situtation and consequently imply that anyone who
> thinks the war is justified is a useful idiot.

I'd say that that's a pretty interesting interpretation of what I
actually wrote. 

I'm trying to point out that Kevin's arguments supporting the war are
crap. The whole "do you want another 9/11" question implies that by not
going to war with Iraq we were somehow setting ourselves up for another
terrorist attack. I don't buy it and there's been no evidence to support
that claim.

The whole "Iraqis are being oppressed" argument is crap because we're
obviously not on a mission to end oppression - otherwise we could start
with some of the coalition governments like El Salvador and Rwanda.

Dissect all of the arguments made by the Bush administration for
attacking Iraq and what are you left with? Oil. 

I cannot fathom how anyone could actually examine the facts here and
come away thinking this war is justified. I'd truly like to understand,
if there's something I've overlooked - but the arguments that people
have dished up don't cut it. 

The Bush administration has a horrible record for supporting human
rights. We're happy to do business with countries that have governments
friendly to the U.S. no matter what their human rights records may be.
We'll even intercede in cases against U.S. companies in those countries
in the interest of not harming business relations. So I don't buy the
argument that we're there to "liberate" anyone. I'm not impressed with
our efforts to "liberate" the people in Afghanistan. If the next
government is equally oppressive, but friendly to the U.S., we'll be
happy to do business with them. 

What would convince you, Randy? What will it take to prove that this
administration does not have good intentions? I'd really like to know,
because I'm wondering if you'll be convinced when we have a puppet
government installed and full control of Iraqi oil, or if you'll find
another way to justify their actions. 

Also, please tell me how I'm "oversimplifying" compared to statements
like "so, you'd wait for another 9/11?"

> ** Approximate, grabbed from a quick look here:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82357,00.html, my favorite
> "right-wing" propaganda machine. I'm sure there are polls that show
> different numbers, but the point is a significant number of Americans
> (if not a majority) support the war.  

I'm sure a significant number of Germans supported Hitler, that doesn't
mean he was right. 

A significan number of people used to support slavery, that didn't make
it right. Public support is not an indication that something is right.
I'm sure that a number of Clinton critics would be quick to say that
just because the polls showed support for Clinton didn't mean that he
wasn't a bad president. 

(Note, I'm NOT comparing Bush to Hitler - I'm just pointing out that
there are many occasions when public opinion was found to be dead
wrong.)

We're in it now. I realize there's no chance at all that we'll just pull
out - but I'm going to keep being as loud as possible in the hopes that
it will keep the administration honest (as possible) and that we won't
follow this attack up with an attack on Iran, Syria and so on. I will
keep raising questions in the hopes that we won't do what I truly
believe we're over there to do - steal Iraqi oil for American interests.
If you call that "whining," you're way off base. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net