MrMacphisto said:
Ok... where to start?... Motive #1 "Securing wealth for Bush's fat-cat oil buddies."
You are correct in assessing that these guys already have a lot of money. You're also correct in saying that logic would dictate that attacking Iraq for such a purpose as oil would seem ludicrous. However, since when were these people logical? Tell me... What is the logic behind jumping into a war that both most of the world is against and you're not properly prepared for? If you can explain that as logical, then maybe we can say that Bush is logical.
Personally, I don't see any logic in making a decision based on what's popular or simply doing what everyone says. The vast majority of the world thinks most of what we talk about on this board is quite sick. Doesn't change my favorable view of it. With regard to foreign policy, I believe that doing what's right and doing what's popular are two very different things. From the sending of the Abraham Lincoln brigades to fight the fascists in Spain to defending the Kosovars in former Yugoslavia, the one thing you used to be able to count on from the left was that they opposed fascism. And it didn't matter if there weapons of mass destruction or a UN resolution. This former leftist now, along with Christopher Hitchens, feels that Bush has the moral highground. History will judge.
MrMacphisto said:
Motive #2 Yep... Oil is limited, and yes, we are up a creek without a paddle if we don't find an energy alternative soon. As Knox mentioned, the current situation we're in is not exactly stable. Does Iraq look more stable now that Saddam is gone? I don't think so, and neither does most of the world outside of the U.S. Take a few looks at NPR, the BBC, or any international news source not run by Israel or an Arabic nation. You might just find that Iraq is indeed less stable than before Saddam got his ass kicked. Don't get me wrong; the only people who miss Saddam are Ba'ath Party idiots, but I'm sure plenty of Americans miss the surplus we had, and even a few have the privilege of missing family members due to their deaths in a questionable war..
The irony of this part of your argument is that it seems to acknowledge the energy crisis we will soon face if we continue to live decadently. Do you really think the same President that backed out of the Kyoto Protocol, loosened clean air and water standards, and whose V.P. was the CEO of Halliburton is going to support a conservation platform? I don't think so. The tax-break specifically targeting SUV purchases should be enough proof alone that Bush doesn't give a damn about oil conservation...
The reason that the price of oil is rising has nothing to do with a shortage of reserves. It has to do with untapped capacity that hasn't yet been reached in Russia, and, more immediately, China's surge as a consumer of commodities.
But the entire 'war for oil' argument is inherantly flawed. For the sake of argument, let's say that Bush's endgame was to aid Halliburton and other oil companies. In terms of ROI (return on investment), it would have been far more profitable to invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Quatar, or the UAE. Their oil reserves are far more ready to go online, the invasion would have been quicker, and while there is already some American oil presence in most of those countries while there was none in Iraq, to not have to share the profits would have been greatly more lucrative than the overall expenditures sunk into invading Iraq. And finally, with 1 percent of the effort exerted in invading Iraq, Bush could have sent a bill through the Congress that would have greatly increased the net income of oil companies. And net income, not revenue, is ultimately what drives share price.
MrMacphisto said:
"Securing the future stability for the US and Western Civilization. I don't mind that at all, even if it's not presented truthfully."
I'm a little confused at this part of your argument, because again, it would seem that you're hinting at the validity of my own argument. This was, indeed, a cover story for the war, and now that multiple resignees of Bush's administration have come forth with evidence that Bush planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11, logic would support the notion that this was a war for oil. Ever since policies were made that established "pre-emptive strikes" as an American foreign policy, the world is far less stable than it used to be.
Sure, Libya let in arms inspectors. Big fucking deal... Wouldn't the state of the world economy be more important? You know... that whole foreign investment thing? You see, when we pissed off most of the world by entering this war, a lot of countries withdrew or lessened their funds for our assets. Given that our trade deficit is awfully large (we import a lot more than we export), foreign investment is incredibly important for sustaining economic growth. It may not be spoken of much on the news, but that's probably because it's a terribly boring subject, and it requires a little economic education to understand its impact. Either way, we not only destabilized our own economy from this war, but we also hurt the world's economy. Shaky relations with Europe have left a bad taste in the mouths of countries like Spain, Germany, France, Russia, and even Britain somewhat. Granted, France brought a lot of this mess on themselves.......
The growth we experienced in the 90s, and the subsequent crash, had little to do with who was in office. Volker and Greenspan, not Reagen, Clinton, or Bush, drive this economy. But to your point, with the way GDP is expanding, it's hard to make a case that GDP growth has been hurt. China and India continue to expand rapidly, and, the UK aside, Europe has been moving along slowly for structural reasons that are unrelated to Iraq.
As for foreign investment, the reason that most foreign investment is heading to other places has more to do with higher interest rates offered in the European debt market and opportunites available in China and India than it does our own economy.
And as for shaky relations with European countries, I don't live my life trying to please others. I do what I think is right. It sometimes costs me friends, but in the end it's always the right thing to do. I think this administration feels the same way.
MrMacphisto said:
"Motive #3 "Some credible terrorist threats did exsist in Iraq. Probably not."
Again... we agree. Although I don't buy this stability or future problem argument you're using. You know why? Clinton had 8 years to decide this was important. He didn't seem to care much about Iraq those years, and given that most governments throughout the world that have had dealings with both Clinton and Bush would seem to agree that Clinton was better at foreign policy than Bush has been so far, I'd bet there was probably a good reason for it.
The Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Clinton in 1998. It clearly stated that, at that time, they felt regime change was necessary and inevitable. The clear rejoinder to asking why we waited so long is that it only proves that Saddam should have been removed after the first Gulf War, and that both Clinton and Bush I made foolish decision by not supporting the numerous attempts by Shias, Kurds, and Iraqi military personnel to remove Saddam.
Moreover, it's worth remembering that the World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993. If it had been successfully destroyed, these challenges would have presented themselves far sooner. Clinton, and that economy, wouldn't be remembered with anywhere near as much love.
MrMacphisto said:
Doesn't it seem odd that Bush went into this war relatively late in his first term? It would have been awfully convenient if Iraq turned out to be as easily restructured as Afghanistan has been. Sure, there have been a few turf wars here and there, but we've got Afghanistan covered. Bush made a good choice in fighting a nation that was indisputably connected to Al Quida and with U.N. support. Heck, he might've been even able to ride smoothly into re-election as a result. But, of course, like so many other things, he fucked up
I recently read an exerpt from Life Magazine, written in 1945 according to the accounts of American soldiers who recently returned from the European theater after WWII. They describe it as a terrible disaster, one from which Europe would never recover, and that it was a great mistake to fight a war which caused so much damage, no matter what the ideological remifications were of not fighting it.
The point is, it's too soon to say how Iraq will turn out. It may be a fiasco, but I feel that 5 years from now, Iraq will be a far better place. Making a judgement based on today's headlines is a short-sighted mistake.
MrMacphisto said:
He thought Iraq would be as easy to defeat and nation-build as Afghanistan. Heck, since he did it without U.N. help, I'd figure he maybe thought it would be even easier. Whatever the case, he (in his own terms) "misunderestimated." I don't think even the Democrats thought it would be this much of a fuck up, but boy has it been. Al Franken and Michael Moore are probably orgasming from the amount of material they'll have for books to come.
If there's an under-reported story, it's how wrong the anti-war crowd got it. Typical forcastes called for 1) 10% of the Iraqi population killed, which would be 2.7 million people; 2) total destruction of Iraq's oil producing capacity, which is currently pumping out a shade under 2 million barrels a day; 3) Total civil war. This may happen, but it hasn't yet. Personally, I don't think it will.
MrMacphisto said:
The timing of this war was politically motivated. There are simply too many coincidences for it to be otherwise. It's like how Saddam was "found" right after Halliburton was discovered overcharging the military for oil. A lot of people claimed that Clinton was Wagging the Dog because of his timing of the Bosnian War, but if this Iraq War isn't Wagging the Dog, I don't know what is... Why else would he do it late in his term, and during a time when people started figuring out his tax cut plan was a sham designed to mostly benefit the ultra-rich? Lemme tell ya... that estate tax repeal really saved me a lot of money. Oops... wait a minute, I don't have a multi-million dollar estate.
Anyway... All conspiracy theory aside, the timing is really the center of my argument. Also, Cheney's history with Halliburton, Halliburton's significance in the Middle East, and finally, Bush's connections with Saudi Arabia all point to something more than what we're seeing from Peter Jennings & co.
From the day that Clinton's impeachment hearings began, until the day they ended, Clinton ordered Baghdad to be bombed. And as for who was paying off who, if the charges made before the Senate last Tuesday are true, and are now currently being investigated by the UN are true, it would appear that vast sums of money in the 'oil-for-food' scam went into the pockets of French, Russian, and UN officials. Anyone who is upset about corruption and the suffering of people should show total outrage over this scandal, which dwarfs the tenuous allegations made towards Halliburton, both in terms of scale and evidence.
