I found it kind of interesting that the only people who argue against oil as the main reason for the invasion and occupation are the usual suspects, sirs and plane. Let's examine their reasoning.
sirs: <<It can't be any of the reasons that have been made public and on record, logical, and completely within the realm of common sense. Nooooooooooooo. It has to be something completely nefarious & sinister>>
In other words: 1. We should believe in the multiple reasons that the U.S. government has given for its actions. Those reasons are logical and completely within the realm of common sense. It is both logical and common sense to believe that Iraq would attack the U.S.A., an infinitely more powerful nation, with WMD, for what unimaginable benefit other than its own anihilation we cannot say - - very logical and commonsensical; and
2. It's ridiculous to believe that a U.S. government led by Bush and Cheney could have nefarious and sinister motives, since they are, presumably, as saintly and pure a pair of men as ever led the U.S. to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state.
plane: <<Ther is no possible outcome that would give the USA such "controll" as you imagine , it is so far fectched that I have troubble following your imagination.>>
yeah, I agree, this is very hard to follow. I invade a country and destroy its leadership, pick another government, choosing all the candidates who can run for office and who cannot, keep it in power by my own force of arms and stay there as long as I have to stay, either in permanent military bases within the very boundaries of the country itself or all along its borders. Nevertheless, despite my installation of this government and my ability to intervene at a moment's notice to keep it in power, I expect it to be scrupulously fair in its oil policies, especially when there are more barrels of oil sought than there are barrels of oil for sale, I will be treated as just one more customers in a whole line of customers waiting patiently, money in hand, to purchase what that government will allow us to buy and accept whatever allocation it chooses to make amongst its customers. Yeah, that makes sense. Also, if the government owing its very existence to my military forces decides as its predecessor did that it will sell its oil for euros instead of dollars, I will just tell them, "Well that's OK, that is YOUR decision to make and although I am very disappointed in you, I say God bless you and may you enjoy your new euro bank account in good health." BOY are you naive!
sirs: <<So apparently nearly every country's head of state and intelligence agency were morons. But Bush....he lied. >>
Relying again on the fiction that every head of state and every foreign intelligence agency also believed in Bush's bullshit. On what basis no one has ever figured out, except sirs, who probably speaks to all of them on a daily basis or believes he does, and hears from them (or the voices in his head that claim to be them) that "We believed it too, sirs, honest we did!") Which clashes oddly with the known fact that NONE of the heads of state of France, Germany, Canada, Russia, China and dozens of other countries were taken in by this bullshit and WOULD NOT SUPPORT a Security Council initiative to authorize an invasion of Iraq because there was no justifying evidence. I don't expect these inconvenient facts will ever stop sirs from spouting that same tired bullshit about the unanimity of international opinion behind Bush, but the fact of the matter is there, and I hope these facts will put some perspective on sirs' nonsense.
sirs: <<So why don't we?? Most powerful nation on the Globe...largest, most technically advanced military. Every justification could be made in taking over the oil fields in "repaying us" for taking out Saddam, and yet.........................>>
And yet . . . YOU CAN'T. That is the problem, and you stated it very well. "Most powerful nation on the Globe . . . largest, most technically advanced military." You can't commit all your forces to that one point because then you would be powerless at many other points. So you commit what you sensibly can commit to the job, but those limited forces are not enough. So more will have to be committed. Still many more will have to be held back otherwise you will be attacked at other points, or powerless to protect your friends who are attacked at other points. And a superpower who can't protect its friends . . . won't have those friends for very long. Long story short: you can't because you just aren't powerful enough.
sirs: << No, that [the change in rationalization from WMD to "bringing democracy"] was never a change, only a moral requirement following regime change & taking out the WMD threat>>
It was a "moral requirement" to kill 600,000 Iraqis so that they could have the kind of democratic government the American government thinks they should have? How on earth is the blatant violation of the basic principle of non-intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state, a part of the Charter of the United Nations which the U.S. itself has solemnly pledged itself to obey, a "moral requirement?" And BTW, the intellectual dishonesty of your argument that the U.S. "took out" a "threat" of WMD is duly noted. Nobody can "take out" a non-existent threat.
The American people were lied into war with the lie that Saddam had WMD that posed an immediate threat to America; once that lie was exposed, they were told that they had to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis had a self-sustaining democratic government or a reasonable shot at one, or similar nonsense - - definitely a change from the original rational of "protecting" America from the "threat" of Saddam's WMD.
sirs: [in response to my question, who will control the Iraqi oil fields if the U.S.A. does not?]
<<Ummm, the Iraqi people? Gads, what a concept>>
Oh, THAT'S a relief. So in about ten or fifteen years time, the Russians, Chinese and Indians, as desperate for oil as they may be, will still voluntarily refrain from taking any steps towards securing the Middle East oil fields -- in fact will be just as scrupulous about respecting Iraqi sovereignty as the U.S. and Britain have been. Gee, it's nice to know that the neo-cons in Washington are so trusting of other rival powers' intentions regarding something as important as oil. Are you there when they all sing Kumbaya together sirs, or are those little singalongs just limited to heads of state?
plane: <<Number one , Saddam had history of seeking , buying , building and useing WMD.>>
Well that's a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Or of the misleading power of half-truths. You mis-stated "history" here by what you left out. The "history" of Saddam's use of WMD was that it was allegedly used against powers that were vastly inferior in retaliatory power to the U.S.A. Neither the Kurds nor Iran had the power or have the power to wipe Iraq off the map. It is almost like arguing, "Well he ("he" being the 98-pound weakling next door) spanked his four-year-old, that proves he was about to come over here and punch my lights out." The fact that he used a weapon against victims who were in no position to wreak massive retaliation (anihilation, actually) upon him and his country is NOT an argument that makes it any more likely that he would use the same weapon against a country that COULD physically anihilate Iraq. Also, not just Iraq but many countries (Israel and the U.S. included) have histories of "seeking, buying and building WMD." India and Pakistan to name just the two most obvious.
plane: <<Number two , oil has lubed history for more than a century now , but "controll" as you put it is not a possibility now as much as it once was back when national enonomys were more independant , can you imagine the result of some idiotic contorller trying to reduce the availiblity of Oil to one of the major markets ? . . . >>
plane is speaking of today's conditions when there is still enough oil to satisfy every major player's need. I am speaking of a time when there won't be enough oil to satisfy all buyers, when allocations will have to be made by the producers. A time when China will be much more militarily powerful than it is now. I pointed out several times in this group a statement made by a senior Chinese defence official that China's goal was to achieve technological parity with the US military in fifteen years, which IMHO would be a very significant milestone. It could be argued that it would be sheer negligence for any U.S. administration today NOT to take steps against that eventuality. In any event, I do not take plane seriously on this point since he is basing his argument on today's market conditions and my argument rests on a longer but still foreseeable term.
