This "War for Oil" shit

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#1
I don't know if it's too complicated for the average anti-war activist or in-activist to comprehend, but the potential war with Iraq is not as simple as Bush wants oil.

The "war for oil" argument lacks any serious analysis—historical, political or social.

It seems in their haste to be anti-war they cannot be bothered with such matters as the driving forces of the coming war, the history of US intervention in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, the policies and political character of the Bush administration, the social situation in the US, or the economic context within which the war drive is unfolding.

Ok i vented. It just bothers me that people trivialize this to something as simple as oil. To me an anti-war movement will be worthless if it is based around the idea that this war is just because Iraq has lots of oil.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#2
^^^^ do you know how many billions the u.s. or saudis have made while sanctions were placed on iraqs oil during the 90's? what about OPEC?

1.who gave iraq these "weapons of mass destruction"?

"A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could
open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished
from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia,
France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum
markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi
opposition."

"Although senior Bush administration officials say they have
not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq,
American and foreign oil companies have already begun
maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves
of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world
outside Saudi Arabia."

"The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of
the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to
win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies
for President Bush's call for tough international action against
Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -
the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - have
international oil companies with major stakes in a change of
leadership in Baghdad."

"'It's pretty straightforward,' said former CIA director R.
James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of
forcing Hussein from power. 'France and Russia have oil
companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if
they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent
government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new
government and American companies
work closely with them.'"~Washington post newspaper, 15 Sep 2002


what does the CFR have to say about american/iraq conflict?

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5314.xml

click *complete text*


***LEGALLY*** how can america attack iraq?

1.there is no emergency or humanitarian crisis.

2.america has not been attacked (so that rules out self defense)

3.war has not been mandated by the UN security council.


:H:
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#3
ColdBlooded said:
I don't know if it's too complicated for the average anti-war activist or in-activist to comprehend, but the potential war with Iraq is not as simple as Bush wants oil.

The "war for oil" argument lacks any serious analysis—historical, political or social.

It seems in their haste to be anti-war they cannot be bothered with such matters as the driving forces of the coming war, the history of US intervention in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, the policies and political character of the Bush administration, the social situation in the US, or the economic context within which the war drive is unfolding.

Ok i vented. It just bothers me that people trivialize this to something as simple as oil. To me an anti-war movement will be worthless if it is based around the idea that this war is just because Iraq has lots of oil.
we agree