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

[Randy Arabie]

On Saturday, 29 March 2003 at  9:31:14 -0700, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> 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. 

If you claim we are there for nothing but oil then you should be able to
present some facts to back it up.  You had to come to that conclusion
some how.

> 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. 

Iraq has proven ties to terrorists.  Do you dispute that?

> 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. 

So, you only support a fight against Al Qaeda, but not other terrorists?

> 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. 

What evidence have you seen?  Why aren't you sharing it with us?  You've
yet to provided any facts.  I've heard you an others on this list assert
that, but I've yet to see anything that convinces me.  I guess I'm just
gullible.

> 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.

What does Bush administration "ties to big oil" prove?  That alone
does not prove we are going to war to steal Iraq's oil.  

That's would be like me saying, "The French and Russians oppose the war
because French and Russian oil companies hold the contracts to develop
the Iraqi oil fields."  While that is true, French and Russian oil
companies do hold such contracts, that fact alone does not prove
anything of the sort.

And why must Saddam be tied to Al Qaeda before you will beleive that he
supports terrorism?  Do you think Al Qaeda are the only terrorists who
are trying to get their hands on WMD?

> 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. 

They've proven enough for me, 70% of the US population, and the 40+ members
of the coalition.

> 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. 

Nor should you expect the Iraqi regime to hand over a signed affidavit
detailing their support of terrorists.  What's your point? 

If there is a wide-spread conspiracy between the Bush administration and
"big oil" to steal Iraq's oil, don't you think someone somewhere could
get proof of it? 

I hear all the same arguments used 12 years ago before the first Gulf
War.  

"Bush has ties to big oil."
"The US consumes more oil per capita."
"Iraq has the worlds second largest proven oil reserves."
"We are just there to steal oil."

Well, it didn't happen then.  Show me something that will lead me to
conclude otherwise this time.

> > 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. 

I never said this coalition is as strong as the other was.  What I said
is that if we are only going there for oil then either these 40+ nations
support that, or they have been duped into beleiving we are going for
justifiable reasons.  Dubya must be a darn good dupper...a veritable
Super Dupper Dubya.

> > 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." 

According to Webster, the 2nd definition of whine is "to complain in a
childish way."  Your "objection" to people being lumped into categories
unfairly by the use of labels like liberal, lefty, anti-American, or
Marxist sounds like whining to me. That's just they way I see (or hear)
it.

My answer to your whine is if patriotic war protesters don't want to be
miss categorized perhaps they shouldn't walk with people waving signs
that say "BUSH IS THE TERRORIST" at rallies funded and organized by self
described Marxist organizations.

> 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.  

Whether you said it or not, saying that this war is about nothing more
than oil implies that those who support the war have been duped into
believing we are there for justifiable reasons.  I'll stick by my
interpretation. It is tantamount to saying the war supporters are useful
idiots.
 
> 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. 

That's a polite way of saying the masses are asses.  In some cases you
might find me agreeing with you.  Since I'm one of the asses in this
situation, I have to disagree with your assessment.

> 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. 

Here is what my effort has turned up.  These are the reasons I support
the war to disarm Iraq:

1.  Under the agreement(s) that ended the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussien
agreed to disarm willfully.  UN inspectors were sent to verify the
disarmament.  Twelve years later, Saddam has not willfully disarmed.  

The following facts have led me to conclude that Hussein will never
willfully disarm:

 - Iraq never presented evidence to substantiate their claims that they
   have disarmed.
 - The al Samoud 2 missile program indicates that Iraq has done just the
   opposite, continued to arm rather than dissarm.
 - The purchase of technologies and machinary used to produce WMD
   indicates that Iraq is continuing to persue armament.
 - Iraq refused to let UN inspectors question scientists in an
   environment free from Iraqi influence.
 - Iraq's possesion of UAV's and their development of equipment designed
   for chemical or biological agent disspersal indicates that Iraq
   continues to develop chemical and/or biological weapons. 
   
   Details on each of these points are available here:
   http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/intro.htm

2. The Iraqi regime does support terrorism.  They are known to have
trained members of the Palistinian Liberation Front and they supply
money to the families of Palisinian suicide bombers through the Arab
Liberation Front.  Iraqi intelligence agents have been involved in
terrorist attacks and assination attempts.  

On February 5th, Secretary of State Powell presented evidence that
indicates Iraq is harboring a network of Al Qaeda operatives 
in Iraq. This is another link to the same State Department
documents, but goes directly to the terrorism evidence:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/terrorism.htm

Just this week, the State Department has announced that Iraqi
intelligence agents posing as diplomats have been arrested in a
suspected plot to carry out terrorist attacks against U.S. targets in
two foreign countries.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/28/us.iraq.terror.threat/
http://msnbc.com/news/892232.asp
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030329-8853530.htm

The British reported this week that intellegence indicates Al Qaeda
opperatives are fighting along with the Iraqi paramilitary forces.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82542,00.html

These facts are enough evidence for me to conclude that the Iraqi regime
has ties to terrorists.

3. Several members of the UN Security Council made it clear that they
would be unwilling to approve any course of action that would lead to
war.  As indicated in point #1 above, I have concluded that Iraq was not
willing to disarm peacefully.  Thus, I agree with the Bush
administration's assessment that the only remaining course of action was
war without UN approval.

4. Does Iraq pose a immanent threat to US interests?  I have concluded
it does.  Here is why:

 - As I concluded in point #1, Iraq posess and continues to develop WMD.
 - Iraq has demonstrated a willingness to use WMD in situations outside
   of internationally accepted norms by using them against Iraqi
   citizens.
 - As I concluded in point #2, Iraq does support terrorism against US
   interests.

Does this mean that I also consider Iran, North Korea, and Syria
threats, too?  Yes, but not necessarily immanent.  While it is well
known that these three nations also support terrorism and have or are
persuing WMD, none are known to have used WMD. None have launched an
unprovoked military campaign against thier neighbors as Iraq did against
Kuwiat. 
 
5. Our only means of defense against the terrorists who seek to use WMD
agains us is a good offense.  It isn't a matter of IF one of these
nations (Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea) pass on WMD to the terrorists.
It is a matter of WHEN.  Hopefully, this demonstration of our
willingness to back up our words with action will prove to be a
deterrant to them.  If not, force may be necessary there, too.

Does this mean we have to be the world's police?  I don't know, maybe.
We have to protect our ourselves and I'm certainly not willing to cede
my security to the UN.  Ask the survivors in Bosnia and Rwanda what the
UN did to protect them.  When it comes to matters of international
security, the UN is not effective.  It can only react.  The UN has not
prevented the proliferation of WMD.  It has not prevented genocides.
And it has not prevented terrorism.  If the US is the only nation
willing to stand up against the terrorists and the nations that support
terrorists, then I suppose so.

6. Liberating the Iraqi people, rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, and
fostering a more democratic government in both is a means of
demonstrating that our fight is not against the people or Islam.

-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/