ShaneVA, it isn’t necessarily “oil as cash”, that is, controlling the oil in the way of owning it. “Big Oil” (Exxon, etc.) is not directly relevent because they are oil merchants, middlemen, the don’t particularly want to possess the oil directly. They get thier money from marketing the oil, it makes no difference to them whether it comes from Saudi, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
What does matter, what really matters, is the stability of that supply. The lodestar of the modern capitalist is stable growth, and above all, predictability. Access to capital at desireable rates of interest depends on being able to assure the lender of the lowest possible risk.
The US grasp for hegemony is not about owning the oil as such, but about controlling the political situation for the sake of stability. The Saudis are little more than a terrifed plutocracy, paying bribes to everybody, hoping to keep their grip. They ride the tiger and dare not dismount. They’re doomed.
So, yes, its all about the oil. But no, its not about owning the oil.
(PS: I admire the grace with which you responded when I opened a whole can of snide on you. It is a quality I admire enough to compliment, but not enough to emulate.)
It’s a debating forum; that’s why my little rant about spelling was attached at the bottom of my post, as an afterthought. It was actually intended as a rather flippant comment rather than a pissing contest, but as you’ve apparently taken it to heart, here goes:
First, “hypocricy” is not correct just because Microsoft says so. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word has had numerous spelling variations since the 13th century (none of which were “hypocricy”), but the only one that survived past the 18th century was “hypocrisy.” And if you don’t happen to have the 20-odd volumes of the OED on hand to check my claim, you could always try one of the following online dictionaries:
None of these list “hypocricy,” and all say something like “Maybe you meant ‘hypocrisy’?”
Actually, it is being tagged in just that way by many people across the country, and those people often ignore the fact that anti-war people are against the war for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with GWB specifically. Also, given the fact that Bush is the President, and is the one very firmly in charge of what goes on in his administration (if you believe recent books by Bob Woodward and David Frum, for example), it is perfectly logical that anti-war people direct some of their hostility towards him.
Bush is the President, and the buck stops with him when it comes to issues like the Administration’s foreign policy. Many Americans were quite happy to praise Bush when they felt he was leading the country well in the period after 9-11, and Bush himself was quite happy to bask in the glory. Now that there are plenty of people who oppose his foreign policy, you think it’s unfair for those people to single out Bush for criticism?
I didn’t expect any sort of apology. And i was less concerned with your particular generalization than i was over the fact that it is part of a broader pattern of generalization being perpetrated nationwide by those who are critical of anti-war demonstrators. I’ve conceded that there is often a connection between people’s anti-war feelings and their anti-Bush feelings, but the key issue is that this does not generally constitute some unreflective, knee-jerk reaction, but is the product of deeply help political beliefs.
You’re right when you say, in a more recent post, that my “left-wing bias” is evident. I’ve never hidden it. To do so would be hypocritical, and it would also be pointless because my left-wing inclinations inform the way i think about many issues. It’s interesting that, for many conservatives, the term is “left-wing bias” rather than, say, “left-wing political view.” Yet, these same people never use the term “conservative bias” when talking about themselves. I realise that, as a “lefty,” the way i examine and analyse evidence is coloured by my political persuasion. Whether we like it or not, this is unavoidable. But, unlike some conservatives and liberals and lefties, i don’t claim that my position is politically neutral while claiming that those who disagree with me are “biased.” If you’ll look at my critique of your earlier post, you’ll see that it was not your political leanings per se that i was criticising; it was, rather, the way you painted yourself as the arbiter of objectivity while painting those who disagreed with you as biased or politically partisan.
Well, given your concern about condescension, your first sentence here is another example of hypocrisy. But, as that sort of thing doesn’t worry me, i’ll let it slide.
See, this paragraph is somewhat more detailed than the one in your last post. It asks what appear to be genuine questions and implies a range of possible solutions. But, when i accused you of implying “that those who oppose war are supporting Saddam Hussein,” i was reacting to a passage that was much less nuanced. If you’ll recall, you asked:
This implies, or at least i inferred (quite reasonably i think, given the way it was worded), that there are only two options available:
that we “pack it in, throw our hands in the air, and leave Saddam alone”
that we “actually enforce a resolution” (by which i assume you meant go to war, given that this is what you are arguing for in this thread)
Now, i don’t see the situation as anywhere near that dichotomous. I, and many others on these Boards, have, on numerous threads, outlined a desire for further inspections under UN auspices. I would also support, for example, a UN armed force within Iraq to oversee weapons inspections and to monitor and prevent human rights violations. I could go on about other alternatives to bombing, including the fact that a US/UK-led strike, without the sanction of the UN, would be a violation of the UN Charter, to which the US and UK are both signatories.
Also, your “leave Saddam alone” remark implied that this was what anti-war people are calling for, when this is not the case. While you may not have meant to suggest that “those who oppose war are supporting Saddam Hussein,” such a suggestion was certainly implicit in your wording.
I don’t believe that i have twisted your arguments. The way i have interpreted them may not conform with what you wanted to say, but if that is the case it seems to me that your wording bears just as much of the blame as my interpretation. Your argument might well be valid where you live - although i’ll bet i could find some Virginian anti-war people to dispute even that claim - yet you mention nothing of the fact that many Republicans seem to be supporting war just because the President says it’s the right thing to do, and not because they are actually informed about the situation in the Middle East. You said yourself in an earlier post:
Well, surely at least some of these Republicans were simply taking the attitude that if the President says it’s what we need to do, then i support him? Do you not think that blind political support for a President is just as hypocritical as the blind opposition of which you are accusing some anti-war protestors?
Well, i’ll just finish up with a general observation or two regarding these message boards.
If you’re going to hang around here, you might need to develop a slightly thicker skin. While i might sometimes appear condescending or patronizing or whatever you felt i was being, it is a far cry from the direct abuse you are likely to get from some members of this forum, especially here in the Pit.
And let’s review whether or not my attitude in this thread was unwarranted. You did the following:
a) started a thread in which the very title itself accused those you disagree with of hypcrisy
b) spent most of your OP on a party-political rant and a series of unsubstantiated generalizations, which you later conceded were ill-advised
c) addressed an issue which has been debated time and again on these Boards
d) started your thread in the one forum on the SDMB that is often devoted to flaming and abuse rather than to rational debate (why not start it in Great Debates?)
And, having done all this, you get all offended when someone gets a bit patronizing towards you. Like i said, a thicker skin might help you out a bit.
I’m not one of the Dopers who feels that new members should be abused just for the fun of it; i welcome you to the Boards and hope you enjoy your stay here. But if you’re going to dive straight it an the deep end you shouldn’t be too suprised when people expect that you know how to swim.
Oh, and i was about to respond to your post regarding the oil issue, but on preview i saw that elucidator had clearly and concisely stated my position on the issue.
mhendo: Again, thanks for responding. I like the idea you proposed about monitoring human rights violations:
originally posted by mhendo
** I, and many others on these Boards, have, on numerous threads, outlined a desire for further inspections under UN auspices. I would also support, for example, a UN armed force within Iraq to oversee weapons inspections and to monitor and prevent human rights violations.**
Those violations serve as my primary interest in regime change. To be honest, I’m not too worried about Saddam giving WMD to terrorists, especially as long as inspectors are in his country. I’ve gone to several “speak out” events, and at each one the majority of Iraqi’s who spoke have been in favor of ousting Saddam. They’ve related stories about his regime and how their families have been suffering for many years under his dictatorship.
As for the spelling of the word “hypocricy,” I’ll give that one to you. I’m not sure why MS Word did not pick up on the mistake. Anyway, I’ll make certain to never make fun of anyone’s spelling because to do so would be “hypocritical.”
I am also fairly satisfied with your explanation of linking the anti-war movement with anti-Bush sentiments. Yes, the buck indeed stops with Bush. It is only my hope that those in Washington would quit changing their positions for political reasons. In 1998, when President Clinton lobbed more cruise missiles into Iraq than had been used during the entire Gulf War. Bob Dole stood on the Senate floor and said partisanship had to be put aside, and the country must stand by the decision of the President. Now, you have politicos such as Tom Daschle, who supported Clinton’s decision in 1998, saying that Bush is being too heavy-handed. I remember December of 1998 very well, and I remember that we were on the path to regime change in Iraq at the time, just as we are now. It fell through in the end, but the same speeches made in favor of regime change at that time are the same ones being offered today. If Tom Daschle could put his partisanship aside and support President Bush as Bob Dole supported President Clinton, I would not be so enraged over the whole “hypocricy issue.” (NOTE: This does not mean I believe everyone should goose step behind the President; I am only saying that Tom Daschle and other Democrats should be CONSISTENT with their remarks. If President Clinton’s speech convinced Daschle to support the President in 1998, then the same speech given in 2003 by President Bush should also convince him to support the current President).
originally posted by mhendo Well, given your concern about condescension, your first sentence here is another example of hypocrisy. But, as that sort of thing doesn’t worry me, i’ll let it slide.
That was actually my intention. It is supposed to be a form of “ironic hypocricy,” if there is such a thing.
originally posted by mhendo If you’ll look at my critique of your earlier post, you’ll see that it was not your political leanings per se that i was criticising; it was, rather, the way you painted yourself as the arbiter of objectivity while painting those who disagreed with you as biased or politically partisan.
I don’t remember “painting [myself] as the arbiter of objectivity.” If I did so, it was not my intention. Just as you realize you are a “lefty,” I realize I am a “righty,” and therefore have no reason to attempt to hide my political affiliation. However, I’m not as conservative as you may believe. I’m fairly libertarian in many instances, except for my belief that health care should be nationalized in some form (not a very popular conservative position). In any case, I’m sure we could find many instances where we agree on certain issues.
originally posted by mhendo yet you mention nothing of the fact that many Republicans seem to be supporting war just because the President says it’s the right thing to do, and not because they are actually informed about the situation in the Middle East.
Good point; I should have mentioned that. Okay, so my bias does shine through on that example.
Thanks for the advice regarding “growing a thicker skin” around the boards. I will take that into consideration, along with the fact that this is The BBQ Pit, afterall, and caustic criticism can sometimes be a part of the debate in here.
elucidator & mhendo: Since you both share the same position regarding the oil situation, I will address this to both of you. elucidator originally posted The US grasp for hegemony is not about owning the oil as such, but about controlling the political situation for the sake of stability.
Good point. I may have been taking a too literal interpretation of “owning” the oil fields, as has been refuted in articles within The Economist and The Wall Street Journal. I should have also considered the strategic advantage of a stable and “friendly” political situation in Iraq following any possible war. I appreciate the clarification of the issue.
You’ll get no argument from me that Iraq would be better off without Saddam Hussein (or one of his cronies, for that matter) running the country. And i’m also quite willing to believe that many Iraqis want him out of there. His human rights abuses are well documented, not only by governments, but by NGOs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, etc. I’m just not sure a full-scale war, based on rather meagre national-security justifications, is the way to go about making things better for the Iraqi people
Hey, the whole spelling thing is a dead issue for me. I’m not usually in the habit of correcting people on issues of spelling and grammar, except to make a humorous point. I realize that we don’t all know everything (me included, believe it or not), and that we also make typos when we’re in a rush.
Well, if you’re hoping that people in Washington (Dem or GOP) will stop playing politics, you’ll have a long wait, i’m afraid.
The only issue that i really disagree with here is your characterization of Daschle as not standing by Bush. This, of course, reflects our different political points of view. I, and many liberals and leftists, believe that the Democrats have been far too easy on the Republicans over this whole issue. The Democratic leadership has pretty much rubber-stamped everything Bush has asked for since the WTC came down. We are hoping for a bit more backbone from Nancy Pelosi, but it’s a little early yet to tell what will happen. I think the issue of domestic civil liberties is the one that the Dems have really gone to sleep on. The shredding of the Bill of Rights over the last 18 months has been depressing to watch, especially from a party that so often sets itself up as the defender of the Constitution.
You better be careful or you’ll be kicked out of the conservative club.
I certainly agree with you about universal health care - having been brought up in Australia, and having lived considerable stretches in both Canada and the UK, i firmly believe in a single payer health system. I, also, tend to consider myself something of a libertarian. I’m an absolute defender of freedom of speech, whether i like the speech or not. I’m not a big fan, for example, of hate speech legislation, even though i personally have no time for hate speech itself nor for the people who perpetrate it.
I tend to adopt a position that some call libertarian socialism, and that others refer to as anarchism. But that is largely an idealist vision, and on the practical political front i often find myself taking the exact opposite position, supporting government intervention rather than opposing it because i believe that in a modern society it is one of the few things that can protect the people from corporate abuse of power. I have a lot of time for the libertarian position in many ways, but i draw the line at those who use such a position as a front for protecting corporate malfeasance, and for those who seem to believe that the only tyranny we have to worry about is government tyranny.
This is all probably TMI, but i’m sure we’ll cross swords again on this message board, so at least you will know where i’m coming from.
