GameBanshee Forums

This 'Iraq potential' war is getting confusing. There is now the 'moral question' of killing a few people in war as opposed to leaving sadam to kill many (what a great choice!)

So if you think your a bit confused just see this 'devils advocate' and the video will play automatically.


http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html

It would be funny if it wasnt true!

(thats not to say people who want a war are any smarter though.)

I find his educated accent so compelling that I cannot bring myself to question the accuracy of his assumptions.

Check out what the Onion has to say.

I can't open EITHER links!

(I'm at work, we block most sites)


I guess I won't be able to have my opinions formed for the day, darn it all!

You need help Viv.

Edit: I saw the link and well i refrain from politics.

The text of the link from the Onion:
----------------------------------------------------------------

Point-Counterpoint: The Iraq Invasion

No Blood for Oil!

By Susan Winger
President,
Democracy In Action

Contrary to what he would have you believe, President Bush's plans to invade Iraq have nothing to do with such high-minded goals as liberating the Iraqi people or saving the world from terrorism. His "principled" stand is actually just a thinly veiled attempt to gain control of the oil-rich Middle East at the cost of human lives. It is time for the people of the United States to rise up and say, "No blood for oil!"

Bush talks about freedom, but what kind? The freedom to drive gas-guzzling SUVs without worrying about the price of gas going above $2 a gallon? If we go to war, innocent lives will be lost to satisfy Generalissimo Bush's insatiable gaslust and line the bulging pockets of the corporate and oil interests that put him in office.

We've got to stand up and make our voices heard. This war is not what most Americans want. What's more, Bush is acting against not only the will of a majority of Americans, but also the will of the world. France and Germany have demanded to see more evidence of Iraq's attempts to conceal weapons of mass destruction, yet Bush continues to ram his warmongering agenda down everyone's throats, all for his precious black gold.

The president claims that Iraq is "a danger to the world," but it is the U.S. that represents the real danger. We are the ones who act like bullies, intimidating those who don't go along with our imperialist agenda with threats of invasion and worse. Unlike some countries I could name, Iraq never dropped an atomic bomb on anybody. The bottom line is, Bush has no right to wage a "preemptive" war against Iraq.

The White House continues to beat the war drum, frightening the American public into believing this war is necessary for the safety of the world. Bush is trying to scare up support for an invasion under the pretense that Saddam intends to unleash chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare on his enemies, but there is no real evidence that these are his plans. There is real evidence, on the other hand, that President Bush was put in office by Big Oil and would do anything to avoid having to develop responsible, earth-friendly alternative energy sources.

Most offensive of all, the tragic events of Sept. 11 are being manipulated by Bush to further his agenda. Under the guise of the "war on terrorism," Bush has declared that members of his "Axis of Evil" are a threat and subject to military attacks. Is it coincidence that the one Axis of Evil nation Bush has singled out for attack also holds the greatest opportunity for profit? I think not.

Let the U.N. inspections work. No blood for oil!

Exactly How Much Oil Are We Talking About?

By Kenneth W. Parton
Americans For Non-Alternative Energy

I keep hearing the anti-war protesters chant, "No blood for oil! No blood for oil!" But what they never seem to say is exactly how much oil we're talking about. Don't you think that's pertinent information? Are we talking a gallon of oil for every 10 gallons of blood? Or is it more like 30 gallons of oil for every pint of blood? Because if it's the latter, maybe a blood-oil exchange would be a good idea.

In the first Gulf War, roughly 300 brave Americans lost their lives. Assuming that each of these soldiers shed an average of eight pints of blood, that works out to roughly a pint of American blood shed per 60 million barrels of Kuwaiti crude saved from the clutches of Saddam. If you ask me, that's a pretty darn good deal. If we can manage to swing a similar trade this time around, then I say, "Bombs away."

We should also know what kind of blood we're giving up. Is it O-positive, the universal donor? I'd be more reluctant to part with that than some useless AB junk. If Bush and Rumsfeld spill, say, 100,000 gallons of B-negative or AB-positive soldier blood for an equivalent amount of primo Mideast oil, that may be well worth considering.

So, you see, you can't argue in the abstract like those naïve protesters on college campuses are doing. You've got to look at the hard numbers if you're going to make an informed decision about a potential blood-for-oil swap.

Sending innocent young men and women into battle to die is the most difficult decision a president can make. But it's that much easier when you know what you're getting in return. If I were Bush, I'd definitely do it if we could get the price of a gallon of Amoco Ultra Unleaded down to $1.19. Maybe even $1.21. Anything higher would give me pause. But $1.21 is a great price for a gallon. I would take a lot more weekend roadtrips if gas were that cheap. I might even upgrade to one of those Lincoln Navigators I've been seeing ads for on TV. That's a beautiful car.

Nobody wants to see brave young Americans sent off to die. Nobody wants to see blood spilled for oil. But if it comes to that, wouldn't we all feel better knowing that their blood was spilled for a great deal of oil? I know I sure would.

Originally posted by CM
You need help Viv.

Edit: I saw the link and well i refrain from politics.

*hug* I understand.


By the way...what *is* your avatar? It looks like it's dancing? Is this part of your ploy for fairmaiden, your way of sweeping her off her feet?



HLD:
Ah! Hmm...I've heard that opinion before actually!

The upcoming war is the biggest fight between my fiance and I currently.

Originally posted by Vivien
*hug* I understand.


By the way...what *is* your avatar? It looks like it's dancing? Is this part of your ploy for fairmaiden, your way of sweeping her off her feet?

Nothing of the sort Viv. Nothing of the sort. What my avator really is? Well there was a thread about, something to do with killing kittens if i remember correctly

Originally posted by Fairmaiden
@ Vivien

Alas, Fas and I are no more

Oh

I saw parts of the two of you together...I think you got him to say 'I wuv you'!! That was amazing! How did you do it?

*prepares to take notes*



Fas:

What did you do to her?

Ha! Kitten killer! Ha! It's a little singing and dancing box! Clearly it's all part of your ploy

Guys, this is an Iraq debate thread. Although the original poster didn't write "no spam" at the top, it's kind of understood, given the subject. Let's please respect his wishes. I think there are at least one or two other threads in SYM for spamming. Yes--in fact, maybe three.

I apologize for intruding and will leave this to those who are able to keep on topic.

That was great At99. While it may be questionable if the interviewer was 100% accurate this can also be said about the onion and any other opinion based protester. It is those ignorant statements like "Bush is like Hitler" that make protesters at least in my eye appear more on the wave length of trend followers. For example all the celebs that are vocally anti war, yet the amount of cash hollywood gives the gov' isn't what thier speaking on.

I did truly enjoy when he asked them why didnt we take the oil fields last time. Fable got an answer?

He he Hey all check out this website, Bush isn't Hitler hes the antichrist.

http://www.geocities.com/trebor_92627/Bush.htm

Originally posted by RandomThug
I did truly enjoy when he asked them why didnt we take the oil fields last time. Fable got an answer?

May I ask why you didnt free Iraq from sadam last time?

Also, if I remember correctly you did take the oil fields last time, only they happened to be placed in kuwait, not iraq.

@HLD: ROFL That second article is priceless.

Originally posted by RandomThug
I did truly enjoy when he asked them why didnt we take the oil fields last time. Fable got an answer?

You mean, why Bush Sr didn't approve toppling the Hussein regime at the end of the Gulf War? Several reasons. 1) There was no UN mandate to do so. Dubya is ignoring that, because of reason #3. 2) The US had experienced a propaganda windfall with the Arab nations as a result. Bush sadly didn't know how to capitalize on this, but he did know better than to muck it up by going after the Iraqi oil fields. 3) Bush Sr was a moderate Republican (with admittedly a personal manner like a pit viper, at times), while Dubya is a radical technocrat who believes the US' escalating requirements for world energy can only be met by increased access to cheap fossil fuels--remember, he's worked primarily as the corporate head of a multimillion dollar oil firm. Many of the first and second tier members of his administration have long experience working in the fossil fuel industry; some stepped down from jobs to take the positions he offered. And his administration has more people from that industry than all the top level execs in previous presidential administrations, combined.

There was also an understanding between Saddam Hussein and the Americans that if he didn't use chemical or biological weapons, he'd be allowed to retain control or Iraq once his forces were driven from Kuwait.

The Bottom Line on Iraq: It's the Bottom Line

By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet
February 19, 2003

Boys, boys, you're all right. Sure, it's Daddy, oil and imperialism, not to mention a messianic sense of righteous purpose, a deep-seated contempt for the peace movement and, to be fair, the irrefutable fact that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.


But there's also an overarching mentality feeding the administration's collective delusions, and it can be found by looking to corporate America's bottom line. The dots leading from Wall Street to the West Wing situation room are the ones that need connecting. There's money to be made in post-war Iraq, and the sooner we get the pesky war over with, the sooner we (by which I mean George Bush's corporate cronies) can start making it.


The nugget of truth that former Bush economic guru Lawrence Lindsey let slip last fall shortly before he was shoved out the oval office door says it all. Momentarily forgetting that he was talking to the press and not his buddies in the White House, he admitted: "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."


To hell with worldwide protests, an unsupportive Security Council, a diplomatically dubious Hans Blix, an Osama giddy at the prospect of a united Arab world and a panicked populace grasping at the very slender reed of duct tape and Saran Wrap to protect itself from the inevitable terrorist blow-back – the business of America is still business.


No one in the administration embodies this bottom line mentality more than **** Cheney. The vice president is one of those ideological purists who never let little things like logic, morality, or mass murder interfere with the single-minded pursuit of profits.


His on-again, off-again relationship with the Butcher of Baghdad is a textbook example of what modern moralists condemn as "situational ethics," an extremely convenient code that allows you to do what you want when you want and still feel good about it in the morning. In the Cheney White House (let's call it what it is), anything that can be rationalized is right.


The two were clearly on the outs back during the Gulf War, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, and the first President Bush dubbed Saddam "Hitler revisited."


Then Cheney moved to the private sector and suddenly things between him and Saddam warmed up considerably. With Cheney in the CEO's seat, Halliburton helped Iraq reconstruct its war-torn oil industry with $73 million worth of equipment and services – becoming Baghdad's biggest such supplier. Kinda nice how that worked out for the vice-president, really: Oversee the destruction of an industry that you then profit from by rebuilding.


When, during the 2000 campaign, Cheney was asked about his company's Iraqi escapades, he flat out denied them. But the truth remains: When it came to making a buck, Cheney apparently had no qualms about doing business with "Hitler revisited."


And make no mistake, this wasn't a case of hard-nosed realpolitik – the rationale for Rummy's cuddly overtures to Saddam back in '83 despite his almost daily habit of gassing Iranians. That, we were told, was all about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."


No, Cheney's company chose to do business with Saddam after the rape of Kuwait. After Scuds had been fired at Tel Aviv and Riyadh. After American soldiers had been sent home from Desert Storm in body bags.


And in 2000, just months before pocketing his $34 million Halliburton retirement package and joining the GOP ticket, Cheney was lobbying for an end to U.N. sanctions against Saddam.


Of course, American businessmen are nothing if not flexible. So his former cronies at Halliburton are now at the head of the line of companies expected to reap the estimated $2 billion it will take to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure following Saddam's ouster. This burn-and-build approach to business guarantees that there will be a market for Halliburton's services as long as it has a friend in high places to periodically carpet bomb a country for it.


In the meantime, Halliburton, among many other Pentagon contracts, has a lucrative 10-year deal to provide food services to the Army that comes with no lid on potential costs. Lenin once scoffed that "a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman." And, while the man got more than a few things wrong, he's been proven right on this one time and time again: From Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel helping arm Saddam back in the 80s, to the good folks at Boeing, Hughes Electronics, Lockheed Martin and Loral Space whose corporate greed helped China steal rocket and missile secrets – and point a few dozen long-range nukes our way.


Clearly, our national interest runs a distant second when pitted against the rapacious desires of special interests and the politicians they buy with massive campaign contributions. Oil and gas companies donated $26.7 million to Bush and his fellow Republicans during the 2000 election and another $18 million in 2002. So does it really come as any surprise that Cheney's staff held secret meetings in October with executives from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips – and yes, Halliburton – to discuss who would get what in a post-Saddam Iraq? As they say, to the victors – and the big buck donors – go the sp-oil-s.


Here's my bottom line: At a time of war, at what point does subverting our national security in the name of profitability turn from ugly business into high treason?

That's a surprising piece by Huffington since she's usually in the Republican's corner on most issues.

She has made an amazing change - I'm as surprised as you. Well, I guess it just goes to show that for all the people on here saying you can't change people's minds about anything - that's just not true. It's not surprising that she's so tight with Bill Maher - a libertarian. I don't know if she's a libertarian, but I've found them to be liberal on some issues, conservative on others, an interesting mix. In a way, she's sort of a populist, like Jim Hightower.

In an interview with Bill Maher, he said:
Arianna's one of my heroes because she changed her whole outlook over the years. When people say – it always makes me laugh – "Why don't you run for office?" Well, there are many reasons I couldn't nor would I want to. But one reason I'm glad I'm not a politician is politicians are not allowed to change their mind. If 30 years later you don't agree with what you said back in 1972 that is somehow taken as a lack of constancy on your part. "Can he be trusted?" And my point of view is, if you haven't changed in 30 years, you really can't be trusted. Boy, what a moron you are. I guess nothing in the world changed, you didn't read anything new, no information entered your head that might affect your thoughts on things. So I admire people who can make a change. And Arianna did.

By (Almost) Any Means Necessary: Arianna Huffington Gets Radical
By Christine Triano, AlterNet
April 1, 2000

She is an impassioned advocate of civil disobedience and a stalwart opponent of the drug war. Mention child poverty in the U.S., and she not only responds with an outpouring of startling statistics, but outrage over how in this era of trumped up prosperity, we could leave so many behind. She sees a system desperately in need of campaign finance reform, with little difference between the two major parties, which she dubs the "pro-choice corporate party" and the "anti-choice corporate party." And don't even get her started on mandatory sentencing.

If you had told me a year ago that all of the above would describe Arianna Huffington, the sharp-tongued, quick-witted diva of Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution, I would have laughed out loud. Huffington first splashed onto the media's radar in a big way during her ex-husband Michael Huffington's failed 1994 bid for the U.S. Senate. By the end of the race, the California businessman had spent $28 million out of his own pocket and Arianna had demonstrated her considerable political prowess. The former Cambridge University debate club president always had the knack for constructing the kind of cogent arguments that made you wish she were on your side.

Now, with her latest book, the inconceivable seems true. Proving that a good conservative can change her mind, "How to Overthrow the Government" (Regan Books/Harper Collins, Feb. 2000) lays out Huffington's incisive analysis of the U.S. political system and concluded with a rallying cry that a popular grassroots movement needs to be launched to reform the way the system operates. In the book, she comes across as something of a contrarian progressive, conveying the brand of populism-spiked independent thinking often found in her syndicated column. Her take on child poverty, for example, puts her firmly in the company of advocacy groups like the Children's Defense Fund; yet her skepticism about the growing use of anti-depressants carries a tinge of upright conservatism.

ALTERNET: In your new book, we get to hear from a very different Arianna Huffington than the public got to know when you first entered political life. How did writing this book change you?

HUFFINGTON: Part of it is that I had a lot of lives before my ex-husband ran for office, which is when a lot of people in politics got to hear about me. I have been writing about politics since I was 23 and I was living in England, studying economics at Cambridge, and then practiced journalism until 1980 when I moved to New York. And during that time I wrote a book about the crisis in political leadership in which I expressed many similar themes.

As I say in my book, I have to admit I really believed Newt Gingrich when he said he would make fighting poverty a higher priority than balancing the budget. I really believed that this would be a very different Republican majority that would take on corruption and the corporate interests and the pork, and as I saw within literally a few months that this was all talk and rhetoric and nothing but business as usual, my columns have really been bathed in criticism of the Republican and the Democratic parties – of the political class and the establishment really. So, I've been writing these things for a while, it's just that the book puts it all together between hard covers, and for a lot of people, you're right, it is surprising. For people who've been reading my column regularly, it's probably not so surprising.

ALTERNET: Do you see any great leaders in the world today?

HUFFINGTON: Right now, I'm really more interested in seeing a great movement. I really believe that it's going to take a movement, and that the movement will produce the leaders, like what happened with the civil rights movement. Right now, my emphasis is on helping build this movement. See: Overthrow the Government

I should have said (no spam).

I dont believe in this 'blood for oil' thing. It is a tired overdone arguement and I think it is a simplistic view of a complicated issue. No direct link can be made to 'only' do this for oil and it spits in face in all those suffering in Iraq.

The international community as a whole has not handled Iraq well and we are left now with a mess.
Also I believe the best chance for peace was for the UN to unite and threaten war on Iraq (call a bluff) and Iraq would have to comply but the anti-war movement did not see this and neither has the 'opportunists' France.

Thats just my 'two cents'.