Hypocricy over Iraq war

I apologise if this thread already exists. I’m new here and haven’t seen this topic currently listed.

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of hypocricy surrounding a possible war with Iraq?

Why was it fine and dandy for Bill Clinton to lob 450 cruise missiles (more than were used during the entire Gulf War) into Iraq in December of 1998 without UN or NATO approval?

Why did Bill Clinton consider Iraq to be a credible threat in 1998, but not so much anymore–5 years after the last inspections occurred?

Why didn’t the “hollywood elite” and ivory tower liberals protest Clinton’s UNILATERAL bombing of Iraq?

Why do liberals label our possible current action “unilateral” despite the fact that we have 18 other countries supporting our decision?

Why doesn’t the “anti-war” crowd, instead of protesting the United States, instead protest Hussein’s violation of 17 separate UN resolutions and his continued harsh, tyrannical dictatorship?

How can people still claim a possible war with Iraq is about oil? Afterall, if the only thing we were interested in was oil, we’d simply lift the restrictions against Iraqi oil production and allow them to produce as much as they wanted. Also, the “no blood for oil” crowd must have limited knowledge of economics. Iraq’s oil infrastructure is inefficient and outdated. It would cost billions of dollars to modernize their industries, on top of billions of dollars due to the cost of a possible war. We wouldn’t see a profit for many, many years, and even then, it would be minimal. The “this war is about oil” argument is the lamest one I’ve ever heard.

It appears as if many of these protesters are not against war, but rather simpy despise the Bush administration. There was nary a peep from these individuals when our military was involved in actions against Iraq in '98, Haiti in '93, and Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia in '97-'99. Just as a side note: I have absolutely no qualms with pacifists who are adamently opposed to war for strict humanitarian reasons. Yet I do have a problem with those who profess to be against a possible war with Iraq when it is abundantly clear that they are anti-Bush, not anti-war.

Why do all “pro war” people think this is a black or white issue? (There might be sarcasm in that last sentence, be careful!)
The fact is, that all of the people and countries I know of that are opposed to a war on Iraq, also agree that Sadam Hussein must be stopped. The debate is about the means, not about the goal.

Err, huh? You mean that if the war would be about oil, the US would unilateraly lift the UN restrictions against Iraqi oil exports?

The US can’t lift UN restrictions all by itself. The US is the country willing to go to war. This potential war is about a lot of things, but don’t buy everything your administration tells you. It most definitely is about oil as well.

… and welcome aboard. :slight_smile:

Think oil. Think N. Korea. Think Iraq. Obviously different situations, but it’s easy to see how people (especially student pan-radical types) could draw a tie between oil and warmongering.

It’s a point of view I happen to agree with.

Add this to my list of pet peeves, too: “knee-jerk liberals”, “ivory tower liberals”, “_____ _____ liberals”.

How about “trite, unironic republicans”?

How about “trite, unironic republicans”

I suppose that works; afterall, this is the BBQ pit. Flame away, right? :slight_smile:

As far as “pro-war” goes, I’m not “pro-war,” I’m anti-Saddam. We’ve had 12 years to fix this situation, and no amount of diplomacy has worked. How much diplomacy should we use before we say “enough is enough.”? I figure 17 UN resolutions and 12 years should have been enough. Yet, I understand that that is my opinion, and it differs from the opinions of others.

Okay, I will concede that oil may be a part of the decision to go to war, but I don’t think in statistical terms that it carries any significance. The costs are too great. And no, the US could not lift the oil production restrictions alone, but I do believe we carry enough weight to get at least 8 other countries on our side and lift them if we really wanted to do so (especially since it looks as if we could get 8 countries on our side to go to war). Once again, JMHO.

…And yet there are no responses to the hypocricy of many of the “anti-Bush”…oops…I mean “anti-war” demonstrators. :slight_smile:

I’m not in the “it’s all about oil” camp, but …

According to the pro-war camp, Saddam is a suicidal madman who just may lob WMD at us at the first opportunity. If Saddam is crazy enough to hit us with WMD, then surely he is crazy enough to destroy his own oil fields, or otherwise use oil as an economic weapon. Why is Saddam a suicidal madman in one context, but a rational economic thinker in another?

See “suicidal madman” point above.

The question is who pays the cost and who reaps the benefits. Don’t be surprised if the cost is bourne by US taxpayers, under “infrastructure rebuilding” or some noble-sounding term, while the profits of rebuilding go to a select group of companies such as Halliburton, ExxonMobile, etc.

Again, if you mean the US taxpayers, I agree. But somebody has to modernize Iraq’s oil infrastructure. They don’t have the knowlege or equipment themselves.

Welcome to the Board, ShaneVA. You are entirely correct IMHO. However, a majority of the active posters here may disagree with you. I hope you will not let them get you down. Please stick around.

Coldfire – I am unclear what you meant by, “Why do all 'pro war’people think this is a black or white issue? (There might be sarcasm in that last sentence, be careful!)”

Certainly war or no war is a black and white issue.

The world has been trying unsuccessfully for 13 years to disarm Saddam without war. It seems reasonable to conclude that peaceful means have been proved to not work. Also, we do not have unlimited time available. Once Saddam acquires nuclear weapons, it may no long be possible to disarm him. So, it’s fair to argue that another black and white issue is leave Saddam in power or disarm Saddam by force.

The obvious answer for why Clinton could bomb Iraq without protest and Bush can’t, is because Clinton was a Democrat. There is a natural tendency for people to lay off when one of ‘their own’ does something.

To be fair, many Republicans complained about Clinton’s bombing, but now support Bush.

It’s also why Clinton could pass welfare reform that would have gotten a Republican strung up by the left, and why Bush can propose huge increases in funding for the Department of Education without a peep from Republicans, when those same Republicans wanted to entirely abolish the DoE when Clinton was president.

And it’s also why only Nixon can go to China, and why the first Black or female president will probably be a Republican.

That’s just the way the world works.

Oops, I apologise–allow me to clarify what I meant. Many of the “anti-war” protestors state that our interest in Iraq is solely about maintaining hegemony over Iraq’s oil fields. Many, including myself, believe this is pure drivel. I don’t believe Saddam is a rational economic thinker; I was merely pointing to the “anti-war” crowd’s position that the Iraqi oil fields were our interest. Obviously, if we wanted control of the oil (for economic reasons), we wouldn’t want to start a war with Iraq due to the fact that we know he may set fires to his oil fields. The fact that we still may possibly go to war thus underscores the notion that this war is NOT about oil.

Good point. Noted. :slight_smile:

You also reminded me of another hypocricy within the “anti-war” crowd. Some have stated that we have no proof that Saddam has WMD, yet they also say that they fear if we go to war, our soldiers and the Iraqi citizens will be exposed to chemical weapons. Seems like there is a kink in their logic. So, does Iraq have or not have WMD? The “anti-war” crowd cannot continue to claim both positions.

No, it’s not, but that’s not what I meant.

The OP said:

I submit that the matter isn’t that polarised: the parties opposing war do not by definition support Sadam. Au contraire.

Other examples of hypocrisy from both sides:

If a Republican had been in the White House during the Waco standoff, Republicans would have been championing the action for being ‘tough on crime’. And Democrats and other liberals would have been screaming about a new police state.

But because it was a Democrat in power, the Republicans screamed foul, and the left was silent.

Republicans screamed about ‘Nation Building’ when Clinton took action in Somalia, and now those same Republicans are calling for a total re-shaping of the middle east by the U.S.

When Clarence Thomas made a joke about a pubic hair on a coke can, the left wanted his head. When Bob Packwood made advances to his interns, the left forced him out of office on the grounds that it was an abuse of power to take advantage of doe-eyed interns. When Clinton got a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office, his privately life was off limits and no one brought up the issue of disparity of power, even though he was President of the United States and she was clearly a silly, young, star-struck intern.

And the list goes on. Such is the world.

Coldfire, I didn’t mean to give the impression that “anti-war” protesters are supporters of Saddam’s regime; I’m only questioning why they aren’t protesting the fact that a tyrannical dictator who continues to oppress and torture his people won’t abide by 17 separate UN resolutions calling for his disarmament. Why are they silent on that issue?

Thanks for welcoming me to the boards. I hope to post whenever possible–I love a good debate. I’ll be back later; it’s time for The Simpsons. :slight_smile:

This war is about oil, in part. Oil is what makes this war possible at all. Iraqi oil is how the US is going to pay for part of the war, by taking Iraqi oil assets into trust to pay for Iraq’s own reconstruction.

Judging by America’s track record on trust holding, Iraqi oil will likely be paying for a lot more than that. Like, perhaps, paying off its allies with cheap oil thanks to overproduction. And don’t forget that if we really “democratize” Iraq they’re just as likely to hate our guts–and show it–as much as they do now, particularly after we rip 'em off for a few billion barrels.

Oh, and by the way, just what do you think the Americans are going to do once they take over Iraq? Inspect for fucking weapons. But Iraq will still be the size of California and there will only be a couple of hundred thousand reliable troops in-country, and a great many of them will be occupied with… occupying. Remember also that another card-carrying Evil Nation shares a large border with Iraq.

Since the Iraqis who are holding on to those theoretical weapons know they will be found sooner or later, just what do you think they’re going to do with them? I suspect they’ll give 'em to someone who can use them on the US, if they don’t use them all in battle.

Those are some of the issues that give me pause.

I have to disagree here, on a bit of a tangent. The Iraqis are a brilliant bunch of people and getting their oil industry back on track would be a snap, if they had the money. Unfortunately, with all the sanctions, Iraq’s currency became all but worthless, and the oil became a means of simply surviving instead of economic prosperity, which means that not only is there no money coming in to expand oil production, there’s no money to even keep it up to date. I doubt very sincerely that even an economic genius can maintain and upgrade a factory, when the product he’s making can only be traded for food and medical supplies.

Not aimed at you specifically, but anyone that thinks the Iraqis are a bunch of backwards, ignorant peasents, running around trading “liquid black magic” for baubles and food, should be shot in the foot.

Sofa King, that seems like a rather cynical view to take. I know America doesn’t have a great track record in these matters, but I doubt even if the Bush administration wanted to exercise hegemony over Iraqi oil (which I believe they don’t) that they would be able to in the current political environment. I believe a possible war is about MUCH MORE than oil. It is about a hope to democratize the ME. Your view, as I mentioned earlier, is a bit cynical in that regard because you claim they will hate our guts. I’m not so sure about that. Defectors and others have stated that they WANT the US to liberate Iraq. I’ve heard that statement made MANY times. Any possible war will also be about ending Hussein’s ties with terrorism. I personally believe the ties to Al Queda are tenuous; however, Hussein’s ties to Abu Sayyef are very strong. And we also know he sends money to the families of homicide bombers in Israel, thus encouraging such action.

I also understand your concern about WMD getting through the porous Iraqi borders and into the hands of terrorists. However, I still feel that the cost of doing nothing is greater than toppling Hussein’s regime. (By “doing nothing,” I mean that if we simply continue inspections and impose sanctions, we will still continue down the same road of Iraqi non-compliance. Hussein has had 17 last chances; how many more should we grant before “doing something”?)

Gosh, ShaneVA, your faith is so charming, so utterly unsullied by information, it seems churlish and cruel to disabuse you, like telling the child in line at Wal-Mart that Santa is a wino, which is why he smells like your grandfather.

Yes, indeed, we have any number of reliable defectors, whose word is unquestioned in the halls of power. But, dear heart, see, the truth is that defectors tell you what you want to hear. I know thats hard to accept, really, I do. And it may very well be true that the Iraqi people don’t love Saddam. I don’t love GeeDubya either, but I’m not willing to get killed in order to get rid of his sorry ass. You see, sweetheart? Some people are just selfish like that.

And yes, Saddams ties to Al Queda can be described as “tenuous”, rather like Aunty Hazel’s grip on reality could be described as “tenuous”. I know we told you that coat with all the belts is very fashionable, but really, its to keep her from eating the hamster. Saddams connection to Al Queda is pretty close to David Koresh’s connection to the Amish. “Tenuous”.

And, yes, he gives money to people who blow people up. We give money to people who blow up the houses of people who are related to people who blow people up. We also give them tanks, guns, and airplanes. This annoys the people who’s houses get blown up. They are very cross with us about this, and I don’t think buying them a Coke is going to fix it. Really.

Now about all these “resolutions”. Now, thats a mighty big word, but here’s what it means: diddly-squat. Unless we say otherwise. Remember those nice Israeli people? They could paper thier houses with resolutions passed against them, and still have some left over to wipe the baby with. Some people think its not very nice to kill some people because of “resolutions” and not others. Remember when you and Billy from next door stole some money from Mommy’s purse? Remember how you were grounded for a week and we nailed Billy to the door? It’s kind of like that, dear. No fair. Of course, we like you much better than Billy, but that’s kinda the point.

Remember when the puppy pooped on the carpet? Silly puppy! But the thing to do is whack him with a rolled up newspaper, and say “No! Bad puppy!”. Not take out the shotgun and paint the wall with his brains. Thats called “over-reacting”. And that can be a bad thing.

Now, run along and give Aunty Hazel her pills. Remember, two blue, one red. If you get it mixed up again, be sure and hide the chainsaw.

This is the sort of thing one has to put up with on this board, ShaneVA. But, elucidator is actually pleasant and harmless, even though he believes that after the first Gulf War, the US took over Kuwait and secretly installed Jenna Bush to run that country. He will explain that you never see Jenna Bush and the Emir of Kuwait in a room together. :stuck_out_tongue:

Last time I checked, Saddam Hussein is not one of elected representatives, therefore it would be a waste of time to protest him. Actually, since George Bush is not one of our elected representatives either, it is a waste of time to protest him as well. But I still do it…I still have some faith in that dying form of government known as american democracy…as the old Italian guy said in Catch-22, “It is better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.”

Geez, elucidator! You keep that up and your sarcasm is going to be called a Weapon of Mass Destruction. The Homelanders will be all over you like Republican lawyers at a vote recount.

Seriously, Shane, I suppose it’s a little bit cynical not to trust my government and its motivations, but I feel I’ve been given a rather healthy dose of nondisclosure and drum-beating instead of actual evidence. And I really do have those concerns listed above because I care very much about what happens to my country and its people. They’re not directly born of my antipathy for this administration, but they are amplified by this administration’s predisposition toward secretiveness and its apparent willingness to pay close attention to the desires of a few select and influential interests.

It’s about oil for France. They stand to make billions if they can get the sanctions lifted. Bush’s connections with oil are well documented.

I think Bush is an idealist. He thinks that if the most oppressive regime in the Middle East can be toppled it might help fledgling quasi-democracies in Iran and Bahrain, while simultaneously providing impetus for democratic reforms in other nations in the region. And the oil thing.

Some people have claimed recently that a nation cannot be forced into democracy. That’s just ridiculous on its face, historically. So there is a practical side to it as well.

You should fit in fine around here, Shane.