NEWS FLASH!!

[catbirdseat]

That was well said fleblebleb.

 

Pagetops on pages 10 and 12. Not bad.

[Thinker]

On top of that, add the millions or billions of dollars Bush's and Cheney's pals will make developing, equiping, operating, and maintaining the oil fields....because, as the whole world knows, Iraqi's don't have the capability to do it themselves. (said in a very sarcastic tone)

[adventuregal]

tomcat said:

And someone tell me how this war is about Oil.

 

 

Haven't contracts already been given to US Oil companies to rebuild the wells, etc. after Bush is done blowing them up? In the current administration's eyes, US control of oil=more money=more power. Also, Much of Europe and Japan get a high perecentage of their oil from the Middle East. Controlling the majority of the world's oil sources is just another tool our government can use to manipulate other countries. It's not about oil for the US. We have enough. It's about staying in the position as the dominant world power. So although the war is not completely about oil, it seems to be a definite factor in determining our government's actions. Then again... What do I know? I'm just another one of those uneducated college students. Let's just hope it's all over soon...

[jon]

WELL FUCK IF THIS IS ABOUT OIL WHY DIDN'T WE SEND ALL OF THE SUBURBAN DRIVING SOCCER MOMS OVER THERE?

[Dru]

"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

[catbirdseat]

I had heard on NPR that the Bush cabinet contacted a bunch of the largest construction firms to bid on the reconstruction. But they didn't notify any of the smaller ones and they didn't even tell congress about it before it was published in the Wall Street Journal . These are going to be big fat, lucrative contracts.

[aint_this_great]

I'm the last one to heap shit on those poor suburban soccer moms, underrepresented in our political system, spending their days ferrying one child after another to games that they would probably watch, too, if only the other kids didn't have to be somewhere else...but damn I wish they would realize the irony of them sticking those american flags on their antennas after 9-11. maybe they're the voting demographic bush is after here...

[fleblebleb]

catbirdseat said:

I had heard on NPR that the Bush cabinet contacted a bunch of the largest construction firms to bid on the reconstruction. But they didn't notify any of the smaller ones and they didn't even tell congress about it before it was published in the Wall Street Journal . These are going to be big fat, lucrative contracts.

 

So, sounds like they're going in to stay and rebuild and stuff. Should be a great opportunity to reunite the international community and possibly even stabilize the region. Why would you contact small contractors for a giant job?

[catbirdseat]

Because they could do it a lot cheaper. Small firms form partnerships to get the job done. And why not allow foreign firms to bid? This is our tax money we're talking about here. The more firms that are allowed to bid the more cost effective it will be.

[Fairweather]

"I heard on NPR"

...then it must be true!

[erik]

tomcat said:

allison said:

US invading Iraq=untenable

 

I hope Bush has to go the Hague and explain himself. It's been said here, this is bullshit.

 

Read my bit about uneducated folks asserting their opinions on this matter.

 

hey tom,

 

this shows your absolute bullheadedness. part of the reason you 'served' was so that these 'uneducated' 'weaker' people could spout of their opinion.

 

from what i gather you were a grunt in the army. blah blah blah

 

[erik]

tom on your quest to quote facts and teach everyone why dont you toss in a few links or cite a publication or too?? just for posterity you know.

 

 

[PullinFool]

catbirdseat said:

Because they could do it a lot cheaper. The more firms that are allowed to bid the more cost effective it will be.

 

And since WHEN has the federal government been concerned about cost-effectiveness?????

 

[lummox]

Chretien says:

Ease up on criticizing the "American bastards" and their "moron" President.

 

I say "Thanks Jean-jean the dancing machine."

[Wopper]

Catbird Seat - Do you or have you spent a lot of time in the construction industry? If so you would surely know in the overall picture there are very few construction companies that have the resources, i.e. manpower, contacts, money, expertise, legal advice, equipment etc., to perform work in foreign countries. Do you think you just load all your tools in the back of your Ford and go to foreign nations to rebuild them? Erik - Give me a call when you can put together a comprehensible sentence.

[Off_White]

Fairweather said:

"I heard on NPR"

...then it must be true!

 

Well, better than coming from some biased news source.

 

I run a small construction firm, but it would take an amazingly lucrative contract to get me to touch any project over there. Of course, they're probably not looking for residential remodel firms. Maybe I'll nab some of Bechtel's market share while they're distracted by big bucks in far away lands.

[AlpineK]

Off_White said:

Fairweather said:

"I heard on NPR"

...then it must be true!

 

Well, better than coming from some biased news source.

 

I run a small construction firm, but it would take an amazingly lucrative contract to get me to touch any project over there. Of course, they're probably not looking for residential remodel firms. Maybe I'll nab some of Bechtel's market share while they're distracted by big bucks in far away lands.

 

Hmm, I wonder if there will be any contracts for tree services in Iraq after the war.

[Necronomicon]

Good mourning...

 

You've all been rather busy in my absence. Good work!!

 

As our "Wave of Steel" drives deeper into Iraq, I'm sitting here wondering: "Where are to 400,000 members of the Iraqi regular army? Where are the mass defections?

 

I'm really looking forward to this weekend, though, there are going to be some serious "fuck shit up" "protests". San Fran has been having some good times, I bet Shitattle is going to have some good times.

 

It doesn't really matter if Sodom is dead, injured, maimed, stunned, or evaporated. People are still dying, and dying people is a shitty thing to have to be responsible for, as I sip my latte.

 

Support our troops as your leaders cast them into battle. They're only doing their job, but you're paying for it. Let's all hope they are okay.

 

Bush is a shitter. He's really fucked things up this time. We're going to occupy this land for years to come, don't be fooled.

 

I talked to my mom last night on the phone. She has a pretty retarded political mind, so I was profoundly effected when she said "I think it's all about oil." Yup.

 

 

 

[tomcat]

erik said:

tom on your quest to quote facts and teach everyone why dont you toss in a few links or cite a publication or too?? just for posterity you know.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[RobBob]

I more I read Necro's posts, the more I understand the Caveman...

[tomcat]

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]

tom i dont really circle debate.

 

routes

wimmin

and food is all i am interested!!\

i would like to see your sources, so i can read and critical think for myself, i could really give a shit about your personal opinion.

 

whopper, i will need your #

 

have a nice day guys

 

[tomcat]

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.

[Szyjakowski]

trask said:

The new army

whooooooaaaa...if she is my captain, sign me up!

[iain]

tomcat said:

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.

 

Hmm not quite patronizing enough for this bbs yet Tom, but you're getting there.