Ok, ok. Anti-war folks your claims hold water. But what about this?

racekari, without any evidence of a direct threat, and no consistent record of supporting similar action against the numerous other governments who have human rights records similar to Saddam’s, an invasion of Iraq by the United States looks like unprovoked aggression designed only to enrich ourselves. You know, much like the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 12 years ago that we’re using as justification. You can say it’s only to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people, even though current war plans include hitting Baghdad with more cruise missles in 72 hours than were fired during the entire first Gulf war which will likely kill many Iraqis AND even though the sanctions we’ve imposed have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the last decade, but don’t be surprised if no one believes you.

Or, to modify your far superior analogy, imagine the big burly guy is also heavily armed and an expert in martial arts. He was socked in the nuts about 18 months ago by some guy, known to live three blocks away. So he wants to break into the house of a different guy three doors down from him who he’s had problems with in the past and shoot him in the head, because he’s sure that this guy is also planning to sock him in the nuts at some point in the future. He can’t get the police to help him because he hasn’t produced any evidence of a plot to sock him in the nuts, although they’re willing to search the guy’s house and look for evidence or illegal materials, once there’s been a hearing to show probable cause. Big burly guy insists that he must shoot the guy in the head today, because the last time they had problems, the police investigation didn’t end up putting the guy in jail. Generally, that’s not considered a reasonable way to solve problems. Just because you got kicked in the nuts doesn’t give you carte blanche to rampage around like a psycho.

Hi, my names’ Tars Tarkas,
Whos life is worth no more than a ass dead carcas.
Can’t you understand that I’m not in on it for the oil?
Or are you too old, that all my words do is make your brain boil?
It seems to me you already lost the battle
cuz’ after every reason I give, you resort to name callin’.
Well bitch, I’m callin’ you out.
So if all you gonna to is pout, then bitch, just stay the fuck out.

wring: It seems pretty self evident that’s what’s going on. Not the UN directly of course, but France and Russia certainly stand a lot to gain financially from Iraq if the current regime remains in power.

-from the LA Times

Russia is also still owed about $9 billion from weapons sales they made to Saddam. They have basically no chance to collect if SH is ousted.

France and Russia are Iraq’s two largest trading partners, do you seriously believe they are not motivated by their own financial interests?

It’s disingenous to claim that the US is motivated by oil but that France and Russia are motivated by world peace and harmony. (not that I’m saying you did that, just that I find that argument lacking)

self evident to you perhaps, but it doesn’t = proof. Certainly some nations may profit from the war (as in the US), you wouldn’t want to admit that the same kind of spin could be used there, now would you.

What are you talking about? There is evidence indicating a direct threat (not enough justification on it’s own yet, but is a good supporting reason). The US has a reasonably conistant record of supporting similar action against other governments.

Completely different situation. Not much like it at all.

Your logic doesn’t follow. “We’re launching hundreds of missiles into Iraq in the first 72 hours, so we can’t be trying to liberate the Iraqis”. What?!? What correlation does launching missiles have to do with the reasons for the war? Are you saying it would be better to start with invading Baghdad with ground forces, forgoing missile attacks?

And the sanctions: THE US DID NOT IMPOSE THE SANCTIONS ON IRAQ. The culprit for those would be the Holy UN (ultimately Saddam is the one responsible, but let’s forget about him because he’s not relevant, the US is the bad guy here :rolleyes: )

Too bad your analogy is not remotely comparable to the actual situation at hand, but it was a good show of your ignorance of the overall situation.

[sub]Um, yme, are you rapping?[/sub]

Whoops, amendment: The US has a reasonably conistant record of supporting similar action against other governments with similar human rights records (just to distinguish from other actions that are not comparable to this situation with Iraq).

So what? Our government is constantly turning over, so what previous admistrations have done does not dictate what current or future ones do. In fact, I would argue that it is partly the inaction of the previous administration that have landed us where we are today.

That is complete and utter bullshit and you know it. The sanctions imposed after the Gulf War specifically allowed Saddam to trade oil for humanitarian aid. What did he do? He turned off the pump. No one is responsible for those deaths but Saddam himself. To claim otherwise is disgusting. And besides the “we” in your statement is your beloved UN anyway, not the US.

Any why would those bombs kill civilians? (If they do) Because Saddam will pile “his” people around military targets. You imply that the US and its allies would indiscriminatly bomb civilians, which, again, is pure BS and you know it.

Saddam is the madman here, and your attempts to dance around that fact and pin his crimes on others are truly pathetic.

wring you’re missing the point. Of course the US might profit from a war, no one is disputing that. (Although given what it will cost us, it seems highly unlikely we’d ever profit) As Clint pointed out, money is not the only reason, nor even a very good one to topple Saddam, but if it’s there, so what? It doesn’t make any of the other reasons less valid. By the same token, the fact that France and Russia will profit from Saddam in power doesn’t make their other reasons for opposing war any less valid. The problem is that they don’t seem to have any others.

Either way, the point of this thread is to dispute the idea that the only reason to attack Iraq is oil, which I think is easily done.

Issues aside … that is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever read anywhere on this board.

I think I’ve busted a gut laughing.

Are you serious?

What the hell does “ass dead” mean?
and i think your lymerick stanza is off some. Maybe when we invade Iraq they’ll find you a clue there hidden among the oil.

race - let’s backtrack here - you posted what you thought was an ‘apt’ analogy, in which the ‘police’ were being bribed by the bad guys. I suggested that you didn’t have evidence for that leg of your analogy (the police/bribe), and you replied by posting stuff involving France etc (who’re threatening veto of the resolution) having some monetary interests in IRaq. To which I respond, well, so does the US, and since you don’t want to concede that the financial interest is sufficient as proof of 'its only ‘cause of the oil’, then you really shouldn’t be attempting to suggest that a similar financial interest on the part of another nation is sufficient proof that their interests are mainly of a pecuniary nature.


What evidence is there that Iraq is planning to attack the United States in the near future? There may be evidence that Iraq still has some chemical weapons, but that’s not the same thing.

Also, what other governments have we overthrown due to their human rights records? (We have overthrown a couple to install dictators , but that was decades ago, so it doesn’t count.)

It may be different, but the way we’re handling it makes it look like an invasion of a sovereign nation because we want their resources. Just because you’re confident we have good intentions doesn’t fix that. If we don’t work with other nations toward a peaceful solution, we look like dangerous aggressors. There is no need to handle the situation like this.

Launching hundreds of cruise missles into Baghdad is going to cause large numbers of civilian casualties. It may be good tactics, but it doesn’t really mesh with the concept that our primary concern is for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

There was support from the UN, but we introduced the resolutions and worked hard to pass them. We almost exclusively took charge of enforcing them. Saddam is absolutely responsible for not caring about the welfare of his people. That does not absolve us of the responsibility for blocking access to food and medicine for several years, and then after that only allowing food and medicine to go through Saddam, a man we knew full well doesn’t care about the welfare of his people. We are partially responsible for all the deaths caused by the sanctions. Food and medicine should never have been restricted in the first place.

wring the bribe part was not central to the point of my analogy, which was that the US has no obligation to topple everyone that pisses it off, and if it picks someone that will benefit it the most, what’s the big deal. I put in the police part to illustrate that the police (UN) were not willing to help. The fact that part of the reason is that they were bribed is not central to the point, but nevertheless it does parrallel the real world situation.

I guess what I forgot to explicitly include in my analogy is what was in Giraffe’s: that the car dealership owner goes after the criminals who are hurting his business most, rather than the ones attacking his competitor.

I disagree - the essential part of your analogy was that the big law abiding nice guy car lot had no other choice to defend himself, since the folks who are **charged w/the obligation ** to defend and protect (the police) were on the take from the bad guys.

Read my previous post to Monster104. We knew how Saddam treated his people, and yet we set up the sanctions so that food and medicine could only get to the Iraqi people through him. Of course he’s to blame for not caring about his people, but that doesn’t absolve us of all responsibility. We set up the sanctions, and enforced them. The UN also bears responsibility for supporting them.

Well, they’ll kill civilians, because Baghdad is a city and civilians live in cities. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate cost of any war. Because of that, war should always be the absolute last resort. The current war plan will have very high civilian casualties, just by the magnitude of the bombing. Those lives are a cost that should be justified beforehand. Justifying it by our concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people doesn’t seem consistent.

And no, we are not responsible for the deaths of civilians who are forced to remain in military targets. Those people will be killed by Saddam. But we are responsible for deaths caused by bombing a populated city.


Listen carefully you dumb fuck: I think Saddam is a sick bastard and would love to see him removed from power. But we are also responsible for the actions of our own country. Saddam’s actions do not justify being careless with the lives of innocent Iraqis.

Here’s a link about the proposed U.S. battle plan to hit Baghdad with 600-800 cruise missles in 48 hours.

Where the hell have you been for the last 4-5 years? We had that whole Serbia/Kosovo conflict SPECIFICALLY because of human rights abuses!

Here is an article I found that was an interesting read about respecting sovereignty over human rights or not.

Motives are all-important. Say a person is hit by a car, it’s pretty damn important to find out if the driver did it on purpose or if it was an accident. Similarly, if a country were building up their military and even developing weapons of mass destruction for the express purpose of defense(like the US and USSR claimed during the cold war) this raises less eyebrows than buildup and development for aggressive reasons.

I refuse to go to war for cleaper oil. I’d rather find a way to power my vehicle with natural gas or electricity. If action against Iraq is, even in part, motivated by concerns over the US’s oil supply then I, as a voter in a democracy, want to know so I can vote the bastards who think oil is so important right the fuck out of office.

You want to claim humanitarian reasons? I’m ok with that, but you better have a damn good motive before you start killing people in the name of the US. Last I heard we have a government by consent, and I don’t give the government consent to kill people unless they have a damn good reason and share it with me.



the “we” involved there was the UN (of course w/US troops) but since the US has promised that ‘we’ will do this w/o the backing of the UN, the question is still unanswered. when was the last time “We” (the US, without the sanction of the UN) did this?