Another reason for Iraq added to list.

[Back]

But some people knew it all along.


CORONADO, Calif. - President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050831/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_32)

[ElanthianSiren]

Nice to be right some of the time.

-M

[Hulkein]

Right about what? It being in everyones best interests to help protect their only source of federal income, enabling the country to get back on its feet?

What a pointless thread.

[Gan]

I can understand the protection of said resources. I believe the earlier debate was about blaming Bush for wanting to CONTROL said resources.

Perhaps protection and control mean the same thing Politik-ese.

[weasel82]

It seems many have tried to claim that we were only there for oil in the first place...which frankly I don't believe.

Even if it was a secondary/tertiary reason, it's not a bad one...we got rid of an asshole dictator who liked to kill off his own people...helped to gain women's rights and are working to help Iraq get off it's feet as more of a democratic society.

sounds good to me.

One thing I like to look at as well, is that we gain a better foothold in the Middle East and terrorism. We're in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we've got Iran and Syria nervous, and coaxed Libya to giving up it's nukes...I think that's all pretty damn nice.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Right about what? It being in everyones best interests to help protect their only source of federal income, enabling the country to get back on its feet?

No, let me clarify what I meant:

That the continued presence of our military is required in a country that we never had justification for invading.

It's amusing to me that we are taking the focus off of our 'righteousness' to invade after those attempts failed and shifting to our righteousness to stay. IMO, for that, history will repeat itself.

Ganalon, it will be interesting to watch, for certain.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by weasel82

we got rid of an asshole dictator who liked to kill off his own people...helped to gain women's rights and are working to help Iraq get off it's feet as more of a democratic society.

Wrong. Sunni muslims are the most liberal when it comes to women's rights. Their women are permitted to inherit property and have economic station.

Besides being persecuted, one of the things that the Kurds and Shiites disagreed with Saddam about was his view on women.

-M

[weasel82]

-------------------------------------------
Wrong. Sunni muslims are the most liberal when it comes to women's rights. Their women are permitted to inherit property and have economic station.

Besides being persecuted, one of the things that the Kurds and Shiites disagreed with Saddam about was his view on women.
---------------------------------------

Wrong what? I think I didn't clarify well, WE helped to gain women's rights in Iraq...that's what I mean

After everything else I said, why would I perclude that Saddam achieved that? lol

[Edited on 8-31-2005 by weasel82]

[Edited on 8-31-2005 by weasel82]

[Hulkein]

He still wasn't wrong.

[ElanthianSiren]

He was still mistaken on women's rights. Of the three sects, the Sunni muslims, the sect endorsed by Hussein, is the most liberal. Women's rights is one of the things holding up the constitution process (among many other higher flash issues). I was just making a relative point. Many people in our country aren't aware of that. Shiite and Kurdish women still cannot own property or inherit property, so with a Shiite and Kurdish office majority, it stands to reason that Sunni women will lose rights.

-M

[Edited on Wed, August st, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[weasel82]

Not particularly, to quote myself:

"helped to gain women's rights" - in reference to the US

Iraq may be one of the middle eastern countries with the most women's rights, however, that's solely in comparing the middle east against itself.

the US has been pushing to give Iraqi women a lot more rights then they have been previously granted. The Iraqi government...in the creation of the new constitution (as you said), are potentially leaving women under Islamic Law, but is not being encouraged by us.

In fact, Paul Wolfowitz in the Washington Post states that he wants women to have an equal role and should be included in Iraq governing bodies.

Frankly, I think they're far better off now and since this is just the beginning, I'm optimistic it will increase.

[ElanthianSiren]

I would be more optomistic if there were more women involved in government. When you have a government based on a male dominated religion, it makes me nervous. I'm hopeful though.

-M

[weasel82]

I completely agree with you.

[DeV]

:yeahthat: What ES said.

It's great that we helped put an idea in their head that women should have increased as well as equal rights. As far as the Constitution of Iraq paralleled with the rights of women... we'll see how that goes.

Religion is still the biggest influence in the region, not the US.

[weasel82]

and perhaps it wouldn't be that bad, if the religion promoted things like equality and goodness...

::shrug::

[xtc]

We invaded Iraq for oil, that isn't news it is history. Only the most stubborn and blind supporters of Bush would say otherwise.

The first war was about oil but at least we had a reasonable excuse that time. It certainly wasn't about keeping democracy in Kuwait as Bush Snr claimed because there wasn't/isn't any.

The first time around Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. He had a historical precedence as Kuwait was once part of the Ottoman Empire and was promised to the people of Iraq for their help in WW1. However Saddam attacked another sovereign nation, a nation that was recognised by the U.N. The decision to invade was a U.N. one.

By comparison the U.N. voted not to invade Iraq this time around. Iraq didn't invade another nation and there are no weapons of mass destruction. This was clearly a war about oil.

As far as women's rights go. The Sunni's are the most liberal of all Islamic sects. I could have told you three years ago that women's rights in Iraq would decline after an invasion and I don't have a Master's or PhD in International Affairs. Christians will also suffer under this new regime, they were free to practice their religion under Saddam but under this new Government I predict they will be persecuted. The Shiites now control Iraq, Shiites also control Iran. There will soon be a new Iraq/Iran alliance. The world is not safer, quite the opposite. Thank you President Bush.

[Skirmisher]

It is interesting/noteable simply because for so long it was stated that this was not about oil.

I have to say i was surprised to hear him make the statement and have to wonder if he is trying a new approach with his approval ratings sinking every day.

I don't see how anything could hurt at this point. Perhaps the truth shall set him free.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
The Shiites now control IraqThey can't pass the Constitution without Sunni approval. I reckon that would fall under "not controlling".

[Warriorbird]

"Even if it was a secondary/tertiary reason, it's not a bad one...we got rid of an asshole dictator who liked to kill off his own people...helped to gain women's rights and are working to help Iraq get off it's feet as more of a democratic society. "

So they can go hand everything over to Iran when we leave. People seem to forget that violent Islamic extremists are generally Shiites. The Wahabi are not the standard Sunni.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
The Shiites now control IraqThey can't pass the Constitution without Sunni approval. I reckon that would fall under "not controlling".

Actually, they can. They are reluctant to force a vote, recognizing that a large sum of the opposition in Iraq comes from Sunnis. They fear riling them up further.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

If three provinces don't ok the constitution, it's a no go. Four provinces are heavily Sunni.

[ElanthianSiren]

True, yet they may bank on the idea that Sunnis get so frustrated that they throw the vote.

-M

the only reason I bring this up is because succession is such a major issue there; though it's among the Kurds, not the Sunnis, it's not a stretch to think if they can't get their way, they may try for that IMO.

[Edited on Thu, September st, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

Doesn't matter, that means the Sunni population still has a say.

[Viridian]

Originally posted by weasel82
It seems many have tried to claim that we were only there for oil in the first place...which frankly I don't believe.

Even if it was a secondary/tertiary reason, it's not a bad one...we got rid of an asshole dictator who liked to kill off his own people...helped to gain women's rights and are working to help Iraq get off it's feet as more of a democratic society.

sounds good to me.

One thing I like to look at as well, is that we gain a better foothold in the Middle East and terrorism. We're in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we've got Iran and Syria nervous, and coaxed Libya to giving up it's nukes...I think that's all pretty damn nice.

Agreed, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Terminator X]

If everyone bought a foreign hybrid-car, the president would have to eat out of a trash can. JK, he would not. But at least it would hurt him in the only place where he seems to have a keen sense of consciousness: Currency.

[Hulkein]

I don't think Bush is that invested in it.

He lives in a ranch in Texas... I'm sure he could live comfortably and happy with the money he earns excluding whatever oil income he still has.

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

I doubt it'd hurt him that much... but the family and family connections would be quite unhappy and they're a big part of him becoming who he is today.

[weasel82]

----------------------------------------
"We invaded Iraq for oil, that isn't news it is history. Only the most stubborn and blind supporters of Bush would say otherwise. "
----------------------------------------

That's funny considering I thought you'd say we invaded for weapons of mass destruction and since we found none have we moved to simply invading Iraq for oil? To say that's the sole reason, really makes this a dubious statement.

We had numerous reasons for invading Iraq and to claim that self-interest and national interest as not being one of them would be false.

However, relaying back to my first email, getting rid of Husayn was good for a multitude of reasons.

----------------------------------------
"The first war was about oil but at least we had a reasonable excuse that time. It certainly wasn't about keeping democracy in Kuwait as Bush Snr claimed because there wasn't/isn't any."
----------------------------------------

Yeah? uhm...so?

As for women's rights...again, we'll see, everything comes with time, we need not be so pessimistic as I feel this gives women the opportunity to spread there wings a little. It took our country quite awhile to start to get equality for females and we're still not completely there yet, but we are making good strides towards it.

Everyone wants things done in the timespan of a month, or a year. It just doesn't work that way. Societal change does not occur overnight and war does not end even when the physical fighting is over...change always seems like it should be easy, but it is anything but...

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by weasel82]

[Warriorbird]

"I thought you'd say we invaded for weapons of mass destruction"

I really doubt anyone against the war would say that. They'd say that that was the pretext for the invasion.

"We had numerous reasons for invading Iraq and to claim that self-interest and national interest as not being one of them would be false."

So... all the wrong reasons are okay as long as we got rid of Saddam. Why didn't we just bump him off? Republicans say the Geneva Convention is pointless... why not make it really be so?

"Yeah? uhm...so? "

So... pretexts for a war aren't wrong?

"we need not be so pessimistic as I feel this gives women the opportunity to spread there wings a little."

Shiite Muslims... allowing women to spread their wings... you are aware that the Shiites and Kurds opposed Saddam for the liberties he gave women, right?

"Everyone wants things done in the timespan of a month, or a year."

Here I thought most people felt the war was being handled badly and wanted lower gas prices. Least, that's what national polling says.

"Societal change does not occur overnight and war does not end even when the physical fighting is over...change always seems like it should be easy, but it is anything but... "

Yep. We're slowly losing our national standing and slowly losing our gas driven economy.

[weasel82]

------------------------------------
I really doubt anyone against the war would say that. They'd say that that was the pretext for the invasion.
------------------------------------

Well those against the war feel lied to, among other things, because they think the war was initially only about weapons of mass destruction, clearly to them, if that’s not why we’re really there -it must be oil…

------------------------------------
"We had numerous reasons for invading Iraq and to claim that self-interest and national interest as not being one of them would be false."

So... all the wrong reasons are okay as long as we got rid of Saddam. Why didn't we just bump him off? Republicans say the Geneva Convention is pointless... why not make it really be so?
------------------------------------

Who said anything about wrong reasons? If you can kill two birds with one stone wouldn’t you? If you could remove a dictator that intentionally kills his own people for whatever reason he deems necessary and at the same time get a foothold in the middle east, help create a democracy, and other “good” things I think that’s good enough.

And are we bringing republicans and democrats into this? Because I don’t think I was…

------------------------------------
So... pretexts for a war aren't wrong?
------------------------------------

That was meant to state that we’re comparing apples and oranges with his point.

------------------------------------
"we need not be so pessimistic as I feel this gives women the opportunity to spread there wings a little."

Shiite Muslims... allowing women to spread their wings... you are aware that the Shiites and Kurds opposed Saddam for the liberties he gave women, right?
------------------------------------

You’re taking women’s freedoms in Iraq and comparing it to women’s freedoms in the middle east, I’m looking at the bigger picture and looking at their role in the world, not just in Iraq. Women’s rights will grow beyond that of typical middle eastern culture with a country that allows women to make laws and be part of their government and take an active role in their community

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by weasel82]

[Keller]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Right about what? It being in everyones best interests to help protect their only source of federal income, enabling the country to get back on its feet?

What a pointless thread.

I think, in context of the tragedy concurrent to his statement, he meant protecting the oil reserves for America and her allies.

I am not denouncing this reason only putting forward that your explaination doesn't fully articulate the implications.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by weasel82

Who said anything about wrong reasons? If you can kill two birds with one stone wouldn’t you? If you could remove a dictator that intentionally kills his own people for whatever reason he deems necessary and at the same time get a foothold in the middle east, help create a democracy, and other “good” things I think that’s good enough.


You’re taking women’s freedoms in Iraq and comparing it to women’s freedoms in the middle east, I’m looking at the bigger picture and looking at their role in the world, not just in Iraq. Women’s rights will grow beyond that of typical middle eastern culture with a country that allows women to make laws and be part of their government and take an active role in their community

Argh....quotes ... WB, you know I love you, but please for the love of God, if you're gonna quote, do it so it makes sense when I respond!

Point1: More Iraqi citizens have died since the foreign-led invasion (two years ago) than in the last 10 years of Saddam's dictatorship according to Bodycount and Wikopedia. There's another thread about recruitment levels being low where I give exact numbers, and the sources, but I'm too lazy to do that right now. Should be a pretty easy thread to find if you're interested, though.

Point2: As for creating a democracy, I would rather have seen the US help out during a unified uprising. The US fought very dearly for its democracy, as did other democratic nations. Other nations aided us, and we grew our wings. I don't think you can militarily force democracy on people's laps and expect them to appreciate how great it is, hence the turmoil we're seeing in Iraq now.

Opinion: The Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni's never had to band together to form unifying theories of utopian government, so they are very unwilling to compromise their principles currently. I actually felt bad for Bush because people actually expected 3 factions with such deep divisions to draft a working Constitution by that deadline. It's just unrealistic. A catalyst in Iraq needs to occurr that prompts those inviduals to compromise with each other.

Point3: How can you expect women's rights to grow if the seed for them to grow is squashed in the referendums repealing the rights that Sunni women had (under Hussein) by the new constitution, rather than expanding them?

Iraq is also, not the first middle-eastern nation to have elements of democracy. Check out Jordan sometime :) Further, its democracy was established by a military coup, which is nothing new for middle eastern regime change. We know that we are the good guys, but how do the Iraqis know that we are not the next Saddam? Historically, evidence suggests that governmental structures in the middle east do not spread from country to country, so historically, the idea of "spreading" democracy is not supported.

Even if it were, who is one entity to decree that one governmental structure is best over the heads of the people that live in that country? I find that idea a bit arrogant, though I will say that definitely I would rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship.

As it stands, the war itself presently hinges on a few questions for my support: Were there any weapons of Mass destruction? Was the Iraqi government involved with Bin Laden and Al Quaida? Were differing schools of thought ignored or punished by people connected to George Bush's administration (ie the Niger documents)? What does this mistaken pre-emptive attack do for the US credibility in the long run? Are the troops necessary to maintain order or would Iraq fall to chaos without them?

No, IMO
No, IMO
Yes, IMO and that should, and is being looked into.
It damages very severely our credibility as a peace keeping nation IMO.
Yes, absolutely on both accounts.

As we can't go back and change the past, it is more a question, for me, of looking to the future. Lessons need to be learned about pre-emptive acts of war in moments of panic, and someone needs to consider what we need to do to regain our image as honest stewards. I don't think later admitting that oil was a major factor is a good way, and I don't think hiding behind our hands, refusing to apologize, and saying we didn't make a mistake is a good way either. At least admit that the majority of the factions should have had a recent, unified uprising of their own for us to fuel. I could get behind that, wholeheartedly and would in a future confrontation.

-M

[weasel82]

----------------------------------------------
Point1: More Iraqi citizens have died since the foreign-led invasion (two years ago) than in the last 10 years of Saddam's dictatorship according to Bodycount and Wikopedia. There's another thread about recruitment levels being low where I give exact numbers, and the sources, but I'm too lazy to do that right now. Should be a pretty easy thread to find if you're interested, though.
----------------------------------------------

**By who, by what? If you’re planning to make a point based off the idea we have killed more people in Iraq liberating it, than Saddam has maliciously, you should at least expound upon it. ARE you claiming that WE have killed more than Saddam has, or insurgents have?

Or even if Saddam HAS killed let’s say 200,000 to 300,000 thousand people in his own country AND that is less than we have AND it’s taken him longer, does that make him a more moral man? Does that make it better if we left him to do that?

In my opinion, not quite…

Make note that we also have a military policy against targeting civilians…I know liberals (at least the ones I know), like to make fun of it…they like to think the military doesn’t care and will happily kill random people with their eager trigger fingers. But it does exist and it is enforced and does it always work? No…I wish it did, but it doesn’t.(Can’t control everyone…there are bad people out there) Luckily we still have a justice system which prosecutes those who break it.

----------------------------------------------
Point2: As for creating a democracy, I would rather have seen the US help out during a unified uprising. The US fought very dearly for its democracy, as did other democratic nations. Other nations aided us, and we grew our wings. I don't think you can militarily force democracy on people's laps and expect them to appreciate how great it is, hence the turmoil we're seeing in Iraq now.
----------------------------------------------

**Fair enough about democracy being “force”d on people’s laps. Should we, or shouldn’t we and why is definitely debatable. Whether democracy is a better form of government, where the regular person’s freedoms are greater than any other form of government currently out there is not debatable.

And saying how the turmoil over in Iraq is something horrific and sad and ugly and bad, yeah, it’s horrific, I hate seeing it, but quite frankly, that’s what happens. If you’re bringing up our country and it’s fight for freedom too…bear in mind, it did not end when the Revolutionary War was over…it continued, we, as you may recall, had a Civil War within less than 100 years later because of great difference we still had with one another. Forming a democracy is hard as hell, but worthwhile to form.

----------------------------------------------
Point3: How can you expect women's rights to grow if the seed for them to grow is squashed in the referendums repealing the rights that Sunni women had (under Hussein) by the new constitution, rather than expanding them?
-------------------------------------------------

You’re making assumptions about the outcome of the constitution before it has been finished.

Remember that women’s suffrage came about in the US in the early 1900s, pretty much over 100 years after we were born as a nation. Not everything happens immediately…But the greatest thing about democracy was the fact that it left room for change…and that’s the great thing about democracies in general…you can change things with the legislature and with your voting power. All things in time…

Aside from that, you can re-read my previous posts on women’s rights in Iraq, we were already there in a previous discussion madam…please refer back.

------------------------------------------------------
Iraq is also, not the first middle-eastern nation to have elements of democracy. Check out Jordan sometime Further, its democracy was established by a military coup, which is nothing new for middle eastern regime change. We know that we are the good guys, but how do the Iraqis know that we are not the next Saddam? Historically, evidence suggests that governmental structures in the middle east do not spread from country to country, so historically, the idea of "spreading" democracy is not supported.
------------------------------------------------------

**I don’t recall thinking, or saying (but maybe I did) it was the first middle-eastern nation to have elements of democracy and I’m not sure what you’re getting at with those first couple sentences, but I definitely agree with your question. It’s definitely hard to answer. We’ll see…reality comes to pass with hopes and dreams and vision.

------------------------------------------------------
Even if it were, who is one entity to decree that one governmental structure is best over the heads of the people that live in that country? I find that idea a bit arrogant, though I will say that definitely I would rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship.
------------------------------------------------------

**Agreed about rather living in a democracy than a dictatorship…

------------------------------------------------------As it stands, the war itself presently hinges on a few questions for my support: Were there any weapons of Mass destruction? Was the Iraqi government involved with Bin Laden and Al Quaida? Were differing schools of thought ignored or punished by people connected to George Bush's administration (ie the Niger documents)? What does this mistaken pre-emptive attack do for the US credibility in the long run? Are the troops necessary to maintain order or would Iraq fall to chaos without them?
------------------------------------------------------
I wish I knew the answer to a lot of those questions. It seems all to easy to take people’s opinions about those topics and turn them into facts, when in actuality we all have no freakin’ idea. I assume and hope a lot of answer the government is at least somewhat aware of and the others only time can tell…

I’m afraid I’m done with this topic guys…I love discussing, but it gives my head a frightful tizzy. (did that sound girly?)

Hmm…::shrug::

[weasel82]

Oh and don't think I'm this HUGE Bush/Republican supporter either...I'm very willing to criticize him...especially when it comes to immigration among a few other things.

But I think it's pretty safe to say I'm pretty conservative. :wink: