tomcat

Sources for WHAT? Sources for information in my brain? So what you're telling me is you'd like me to do the work for you and research historical events which you should already know? Tell you what, I'll play your game .. you tell me the fact you are having trouble with, and I'll come up with a legitimate source.

Where are the facts you ask? It's pretty hard to argue with history. It's not my job to present evidence of facts that are reality. If you are truly interested in this, like I said, look them up on the net .. they're there for the finding. Why would you respond to my posts on this thread if this topic doesn't matter to you? That's pretty pointless.

Erik, I expected you to take the easy way out. The internet is a vast source of information regarding this subject, just watch which source you're reading because a lot of the information written on the net is written by people like those on this thread who have no perception of a logical argument, or reality. If you truly care, research this on the net and get back with me. People act like I'm doing a big disservice by arguing my opinion on the current Iraq war on this thread. Let me remind you that this thread is all about war, and discussion was solicited when Necro put his opinion out there. No hard feelings.

Those opposed to the American liberation of Iraq validate their beliefs with poignant arguments. One cannot help but stop to reflect when confronted with the assertion that the looming war puts American lives at risk only to ensure access to cheap oil. More pragmatic objectors contend that an American invasion of Iraq will distract from and even set back the War on Terror, as well as the crisis on the Korean peninsula. These are inflammatory arguments indeed, but they are misleading and largely inaccurate. If the Middle East were bereft of oil, dictators like Saddam would not wield the power they do, and we would not be going to war. But in reality, where the Middle East has bountiful oil reserves that fund tyrants and terrorists, it is incorrect to assume causality between Iraqi oil and an American attack. Were America motivated exclusively by the desire for inexpensive oil, a decade of sanctions and the threat of war would not be reasonable policies. Stifling Iraqi oil production for twelve years, and introducing into the oil market the uncertainly of war only increases the price of oil. Furthermore, once America liberates Iraq, ownership of Iraqi oil reserves does not thereby transfer to our nation. Rather, the administration has repeatedly said that oil revenue will be used to rebuild Iraq. Conspiracy theories about an American desire to control the world oil market are as much nonsense as the accusation that the Afghan war served to ensure construction of a gas pipeline. It is much less of a stretch to say that France, Germany, and Russia -- all heavily invested in Iraq -- oppose the war for economic reasons than to accuse America of supporting war for the same reason. More powerful than the oil controversy is the possibility that a war with Iraq will undermine America’s war on terror. It is often said that we are attacking Saddam simply because he is easier to find than Osama and his cronies. The recent arrest of top al-Qaida leaders, however, contradicts the notion that America cannot concurrently wage war against terrorists and tyrants in the Middle East. Opponents insist that an attack on Iraq has little to do with the war on terror, for it fails to address the root causes of resentment and anger among Muslim populations -- namely, the absence of freedom, and American support of dictatorships. If those are indeed the goals, then a liberation and democratization of Iraq will do a great deal to attain them, by bringing a real Muslim democracy to the Middle East, and lessening American reliance upon the region’s unscrupulous regimes. It is easy to point out the flaws in others’ arguments, especially when said arguments are so intrinsically flawed, but it is more important to identify what this war is about, rather than what it is not. This war should be carried out for two reasons: one noble, both necessary. The liberation of Iraq will result in the creation of the first liberal, secular democracy in the Middle East besides Israel, and it will send a message to those who fund and foment terror that the consequences of continuing such actions are severe. Although post-modernism tells us that no government is “better” than another, I nonetheless declare that Western democracy is a superior system to any endemic to the Middle East. The citizens of Iraq, and of the world, would be far better off with a secular, liberal democracy than a dictatorship. In a police state, however, it is virtually impossible for a popular rebellion to manifest, much less to succeed. The men and women who could become an Iraqi Washington or Jefferson are jailed or murdered well before they can pose a threat to the tyrannical government. Thus, without the chance for an internal impetus, a revolution in Iraq must come not from within, but from without, and the only nations willing to risk their sons and daughters for the freedom of others are America and her allies. Be proud! The Bush administration sees the liberation of Iraq as the fulfillment of America’s commitment to protect and extend democracy throughout the world, and as the beginning of a global revolution whereby the nations that subjugate their own citizens and threaten their neighbors will no longer be permitted to do so with impunity. This is a daunting task of immeasurable magnitude, but one that is necessary if the inalienable rights guaranteed to Americans are to be returned to people worldwide whose leaders have taken them away. More immediate concerns also underlie the defeat of Saddam Hussein. Weakness and strength, defeat and victory are far different in the Middle East than in the West. At the conclusion of the Gulf War, Saddam declared himself a victor despite his shattered armies and decimated nation. The same is true of Yasser Arafat, who emerges from a leveled presidential compound without an ounce of legitimacy in the eyes of his own people and world, yet nonetheless flashes the “V” for victory sign (note: that’s not a peace sign). Anything less than absolute victory is the Middle East is taken a sign of weakness on the part of the enemy, as an invitation to continue defiance. The last two years of suicide bombings began when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, an act interpreted as weak rather than strategic or conciliatory. America’s failure to respond to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11 sent the message that we were unable and unwilling to address the threat terrorists posed. Carter’s botched attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran, Clinton’s failure to adequately punish the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center attack, the assault on the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings emboldened terrorists to continue their assault. The liberation of Iraq and destruction of Saddam Hussein will send a clear message that America will no longer tolerate individuals, organizations, and nations threatening us, and that the consequences of doing so will be severe. Until I see some counter-arguments that specifically address the arguments I've made, I'm done with this thread (oh, I'll still be reading your "replies"). Peace and love!

Erik, let's not get mad because you're feeling the frustration that my hard-to-argue points have created. I can see your frustration building as we speak. You are quick to throw out personal attacks (you must have been a grunt), but you haven't offered an opinion .. just like the rest of the peace lovers. If your reading comprehension was adequate, you'd already know that I wasn't a grunt, I was in the 2nd Cav (CAVALRY). As for the oil business, let's see some sources that say definitively that we are taking control of Iraq's oil. So far, all I have seen is people throwing out weak discourse about it, and personal insults -- no intelligent arguments about how we are supposedly fighting a war for oil. Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat. First, if the United States felt compelled to increase its access to oil from Iraq, it could do so by getting the U.N. Security Council to lift the economic sanctions that restrict Iraqi output -- no bloodshed necessary. Iraq's oil would flow freely into the global market, contracts already signed with Russian and European companies would increase Iraqi production and, as a beneficial side effect, prices would decline as supplies increased. Then assume the worst in Saudi Arabia: Militant anti-American extremists seize control of the government. Such rulers might refuse to sell oil directly to the American customers, but it's highly unlikely they would refuse to sell oil to anyone, because the country's other sources of income are negligible. Because the worldwide oil flow -- about 67 million barrels a day -- is fungible in a global market, the effect of such a move by Saudi Arabia against the United States would be minimal. To the extent that the Saudis shifted oil sales to customers in Europe or Asia, those customers would stop buying oil from wherever they get it now, and the United States could shift its Saudi purchases to those other suppliers. Moreover, the record shows that even countries whose rulers are hostile to us are willing to sell us oil because they need the money. Saddam Hussein's Iraq itself sells oil to American consumers under the "oil for food" program. If the United States buys no oil from Iran or from Moammar Gaddafi's Libya, it is because we cut them off -- not because they cut us off. Libya would welcome the return of a petroleum relationship with the United States. Finally, an American takeover of Iraq would not, in the long run, give the United States guaranteed access to Iraqi oil. A democratic Iraq might well decide that its future prosperity would be best served by a supply relationship with, say, China, now an importer of oil with rapidly growing demand. The days when industrialized countries acquired ownership of oil in producing countries are decades in the past. Conversely, a fragmented Iraq, breaking up along ethnic lines, might produce less oil than currently, rather than more. So let's see it .. let's hear an argument against this. Respond & discuss, but let's not strictly call people names and offer no arguments like Erik has been doing.

fleblebleb?

Hey, I resent that! I don't need no stinking attention .. If I did need attention I'd be making a bunch of posts one after the other trying to pull people into an unnecessary argument about war. Err umm ...

Yeah what about you? Just like a liberal, no facts just talk. YAP YAP YAP. Dude take a pill. You've missed my point. Pill taken .. what was the point? Notice I'm doing the quote thing to piss off catbirdseat.

Yeah what about you? Just like a liberal, no facts just talk. YAP YAP YAP. Dude take a pill. You've missed my point. Pill taken .. what was the point?

Well, I sure do hope I stirred the shit tonight. My how I love to do just that. Some of you sound like you need a wake up call (or a history lesson). Get to "informing" yourselves and quit listening to your dumb friends when they say, "no war for oil". There's a legitimate reason why we're at war right now .. and that's to protect you and your loved ones from an immense, imminent threat. You may never know this threat thanks to your armed forces who are risking their necks to protect you whiners. LONG LIVE THE SPRAY FORUM FOR TIMES LIKE THESE!

Yeah what about you? Just like a liberal, no facts just talk. YAP YAP YAP.

Guess what, the US (as part of a true multinational force not the current 'coalition of oh you can use our airspace if you bribe us' didnt invade Iraq in 91, they stopped at the Kuwaiti border cause the UN mandate did not extend to invasion, only repulsing the Iraqi invasion. You better check your history! I've got friends who were personally in Iraq in 1991 sending 120mm smooth bore SABOs down range! If that's not an invasion, I don't know what is.

What about me? ME ME ME! Round 7!

So you're basing your entire argument on a "probably" (don't shoot the messenger, you're the one who typed it). We "probably" want to get out of Kuwait? What event in history has led you to believe that the US wants out of Kuwait and needs a base in Iraq? This seems contrived. I know you can do better. Consolidate? Last time I checked it was a whole lot better to have bases in different places than having all your eggs in one basket so to speak. So how is it that the strategy is to consolidate all of a sudden?

If we wanted Iraq's oil, we would have added it to the world's reserves in 1991 when we invaded Iraq the first time. People came up with the same lousy argument back in 1991 .. they said that was one of the reasons we were invading then. But we don't have control of Iraq's reserves now do we? Round 6!

How about pick one?

Do you really think we'd invade a country and alienate ourselves from Russia, Germany, and France because we need a base in Iraq? Come on! We have bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel .. why would we need a base in Iraq? How would that help us?

But HOW is oil a reason behind the war? What circumstances lead you to believe we are going after Iraq's oil? Was it the statement by the US that all riches seized in this conflict will be returned to the Iraqi people? I could see how that could be confusing .. how about the fact that we didn't take their oil in the 1991 Gulf War? Yeah, all signs point to oil.

Fleblebleb, You told me how you think I'm being condescending, so now offer me a factual argument for how this war is about oil. That is if you have one?

And someone tell me how this war is about Oil. Fleblebleb -- condescend me please. I'm not hip to the oil argument.

You don't have to read it.

Boy, you really put value on education. I have heard of arrogant academics but this is something else! You must be really upset about decreased educational spending, war budget or no. But then again you're not talking about that kind of education are you? I mean, the vast majority of protesters I have seen are UW students, hundreds just today, and quite a few of them waving the no-war-for-oil signs. Maybe they deserve a little condescension, or a lot, since they haven't completed their degrees yet? Hmm, unfortunately that doesn't fly though, because the perceived general opinion in academia is not exactly pro-war, not exactly pro-Bush. So, you're hardly talking about academic education. Which puts me back where I started, I can't seem to figure out what you mean by educated other than people who agree with me. Did you meet an educated person that disagrees with the war yet? What kind of education are we talking about? Since you're going to dispute any dissenting opinion with facts, presumably ones previously unknown to the dissenter, I guess I have to conclude that it appears you consider it impossible to be well informed yet against the war. That's the fallacy .. just because you're a UW student, that doesn't make you educated. You can fake your way through an education -- no problem. Most of the war protesters are college students .. this doesn't make them smart. If they actually had some intelligent arguments for their cause, I'd listen to them. But they don't. To answer your question, I've met several people who disagree with the war that are educated .. educated NOT because they agree with me (because they don't), but educated because they take the time to figure things out on their own .. and not take someone else's word for it. Had you read my prior posts in this thread, you'd understand that that's how I see it. It is not impossible to be informed and at the same time disagree with the war. But come with some factual arguments against the war then, don't keep shoving these ignorant arguments in my face and tell me they're fact .. just because your buddy said it's a fact doesn't make it so. Now, let's hear your rebuttals to my argument. You seem like you want some of this discussion, but I haven't seen any rebuttals -- just idle drivel. Prove me wrong.

The only hole around here is your big fat piehole.

Yeah quite a hole Allison.