mccains implication that the war is about oil

[Gypsiyee]

curious as to what those of you who are planning on voting for him and are in support of the war think of it - do you agree with the implication, especially coming from someone who is an avid supporter of our occupation in iraq? i mean of course, it could be interpreted as poor wording, but im not sure how else to interpret the words as they don't leave a whole lot up to interpretation.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/02/mcc ... about-oil/

and his response, so that im fair in showing both sides of the fence.. though i don't think his response really clears it up

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... ks-of.html

[Minrott]

His position seems clear to me. We started a war, on a false premise, now that we've started it, we need to see it through to the end. In the future when oil becomes irrelevant to our economy, so will that region of the world. That's not going to happen in our lifetime, but it seems simple enough.

Is going to war to occupy and steal a countries natural resource the moral equivalent of going to war to occupy a country so that they can become a stable nation producing it's natural resource for it's own benefit? Generally I think the Lefties believe we did the former, while I believe we did the latter. Either one could be "war for oil." One is a blatantly aggressive crime, the other is dubious but benefits both in the long run. Of course it's about oil. It certainly isn't about terrorism.

Whichever it was/is, pulling out on Obamaday 2009 is going to leave Iraq in a worse position than when Saddam was in power. Then it was all for nothing, as their country is in shambles, oil is skyrocketing, balance is not restored, and another tinpot replaces Saddam in <5 years.

Of course, it's perfectly plausible that the region will never be stabilized by American Military prowess. However, staying gives it a chance, while leaving doesn't.

[Gypsiyee]

His position seems clear to me. We started a war, on a false premise, now that we've started it, we need to see it through to the end. In the future when oil becomes irrelevant to our economy, so will that region of the world. That's not going to happen in our lifetime, but it seems simple enough.

Well I'll have to respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree that we should finish something we started under false pretenses. If I start beating the shit out of a guy who I was told hit my sister and found out he didn't do it, I wouldn't keep on hitting the guy just because I feel like I should finish what I start.. that's bizarre logic to me.

Is going to war to occupy and steal a countries natural resource the moral equivalent of going to war to occupy a country so that they can become a stable nation producing it's natural resource for it's own benefit? Generally I think the Lefties believe we did the former, while I believe we did the latter. Either one could be "war for oil." One is a blatantly aggressive crime, the other is dubious but benefits both in the long run. Of course it's about oil. It certainly isn't about terrorism.

Whether we did the former as being hostile or the latter to be the superhero, the fact remains the same. Fear mongering was used to portray an image of war for one reason, when it is a war for completely another and if the real reason was represented, there would've been far less support in the initial engagement. I believe the former, but I'll play the other side and say its the latter - it is still the case that it is their country and not ours to decide for and run. We have enough problems of our own without forcing our fixes on someone else. If we want to do things for the greater good, fine - but we need to start with the greater good at home.

Of course it's about oil, most people know that - but my question more lies with how you feel about someone who's been in support of the war and representing an entirely different reason for his support all the sudden saying it is, in fact, about oil. And how do you feel about him backtracking and saying 'oh no not this war I wasn't talking about this war.' So, you think his stance is clear, but it sounds to me like he isn't even sure what his stance is.

Whichever it was/is, pulling out on Obamaday 2009 is going to leave Iraq in a worse position than when Saddam was in power. Then it was all for nothing, as their country is in shambles, oil is skyrocketing, balance is not restored, and another tinpot replaces Saddam in <5 years.

Its all for nothing anyhow. We've hurt ourselves, we've hurt them, and staying there longer is only going to make it worse. It's not worth it to me to expend more lives just for our own self empowerment and desire to control resources, but maybe my priorities are off.

[Kramer]

i think staying to make sure it is done right is a line of thinking that will justify our involvement for years/decades longer than we should there. we cannot solve a civil war. there is some balance, though i do not presume to know what it is.

[Lueyen]

Gypsiyee what do you think would happen to Iraq if tomorrow all US troops were pulled out of Iraq? To be more specific, what would happen in regards to the stability of it's government, it's borders and levels of civil unrest? To use your analogy, would you leave the guy you had just beat up lying barely conscious on the street with people standing around eyeballing his possessions?

[Tikker]

Gypsiyee what do you think would happen to Iraq if tomorrow all US troops were pulled out of Iraq? To be more specific, what would happen in regards to the stability of it's government, it's borders and levels of civil unrest? To use your analogy, would you leave the guy you had just beat up lying barely conscious on the street with people standing around eyeballing his possessions?

if you honestly think you are being altruistic in why you're in iraq (ie that you actually give a fuck about the peoples of iraq) why are you not in Africa? there are many countries there in desperate need of an outside force to step in and help out (and have actually requested it)



seriously, the US forces are in iraq to make sure the oil flows. bringing democracy to the region, or a stable government or whatever, is just one of the weakest cover stories in history. yet the right wing wingnuts can't see thru it

[Gypsiyee]

if we pulled out, i think *WE* would be a lot safer for one. it's like poking a cornered dog in the eye with a stick, they're only going to lash out. at what point do we realize that it's not our problem? we're not here to govern the world. i'm not going to go tell someone how to clean their house when my own is full of cockroaches. no doubt they have serious troubles over there, but imo we've hindered more than helped. at some point they need to clean up their own mess, and we need to mind our own business before we cause WW3 over some damn oil.

we are not the envy of the world right now - the US is a joke in the eyes of the majority, and it's because of this war and the leadership representing us. you poll anyone in the world right now and ask them how they view america, and i guarantee it'll be majority ruling negative. if our occupation is so justified and such a worthy cause, why on earth are we the laughing stock of the world right now?

it's because we're wrong.

[Lueyen]

Gypsiyee what do you think would happen to Iraq if tomorrow all US troops were pulled out of Iraq? To be more specific, what would happen in regards to the stability of it's government, it's borders and levels of civil unrest? To use your analogy, would you leave the guy you had just beat up lying barely conscious on the street with people standing around eyeballing his possessions?

if you honestly think you are being altruistic in why you're in iraq (ie that you actually give a fuck about the peoples of iraq) why are you not in Africa? there are many countries there in desperate need of an outside force to step in and help out (and have actually requested it)

seriously, the US forces are in iraq to make sure the oil flows. bringing democracy to the region, or a stable government or whatever, is just one of the weakest cover stories in history. yet the right wing wingnuts can't see thru it

During the first Gulf War, the US encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Sadam... and then left him in power to take revenge on those who listened. We should have either removed him from power at that time or not asked his people to rise up against him, this is perhaps my biggest criticisms of Bush Sr. So no I don't want to see us a second time abandon the people of Iraq to whichever group has the most firepower and is the most willing to use it to obtain power, not after toppling their government and helping them hold elections, again making an unspoken promise and not keeping it.

There has been throughout history with little exception always been at least two reasons for every war, an economic one and an altruistic one. That some may place great importance on the economic reason does not mean I can't place great importance on the altruistic reasons, and base my support for it on such. Just like I didn't need justifications of WMD's as a reason to go after Sadam, firing on US aircraft in violation of a cease fire agreement was enough for me.

Gypsiyee you didn't really answer my question as to what you thought might happen if we packed up and left, which I suspect is because you haven't given it much thought, which is somewhat understandable as I get the impression that it's not a major concern for you... or perhaps I should say your concern about issues at home dwarfs any concern for the future of Iraq. If however one of your major concerns is how the US is viewed by the rest of the world, do you think we will be viewed in a better light or worse if we leave a huge mess behind?

[Arlos]

There is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq that is worth anything close to the costs we incur, monetarily, societally, or in our reputation and world position. That country will *NEVER* be "calm and stable" as long as we are there, not in 20 years.

Their society is fundamentally different than ours. Most Iraqis feel no connection whatsoever to the American-imposed government, it's not even comparable to the situation with us and our government. Iraq, fundamentally, is still at heart a factionalized and tribally organized society. Do you honestly think the average Sunni has any confidence in the government, when there are people IN that government who are behind Shiite militias that were and ARE torturing and slaughtering sunnis simply because they happened to live int he wrong neighborhood? You think a shiite follower of Al-Sadr gives 2 shits for the rights of northern Kurds? You think the Kurds want anything to do with having either Sunnis OR Shiites in charge of their welfare, given past history?

They are not in any way a "nation". They are a loose aggregation of competing interests that were held together by a strongman, and now by US troops and dollars. Tribes and extended familial groups are vastly more important than the "Government" we imposed. (and make no mistake, we imposed it, "elections" or no. Just look at what we did when Hamas won legal and fair elections in Palestine if you want an idea of what we would have done if elections hadn't have gone how we wanted them).

All our presence there now is doing is enriching the owners of particularly large companies that are part of the military-industrial complex (including companies like Halliburton, etc), and Big Oil. Furthermore, it provides basis and proof of the extremists' assertion that the true goal of the west is to attack Islam, and to engage in a new colonialism, permanently occupying and controlling a poorer nation because we want access to their resources. The idea of the US setting up permanent bases, or staying indefinitely just further proves that assertion.

You think Al-Qaida in Iraq actually WANTS us to leave? Don't make me laugh. A) we provide their reason for existence, B) they were never there until we went there, C) our presence draws foreign fighters that otherwise would not be joining their movement, D) we provide endless fodder for their recruiting propaganda, the moreso with every Abu Gharib-type atrocity.

Pulling out ASAP would actually give them a chance to solve their OWN problems, and for the will of the people to actually be heard. (And yes, that will might not be to the US's liking. Tough.) It will also save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and allow us to actually concentrate on where really IS a foreign front for the war on Terror: Afghanistan. You know, the country that really *DID* attack us?

Iraq is an utter debacle that never should have happened. It is a constant never-ending drain on our lives, our economy, and our world standing. We will see nothing but benefits from pulling out, both in the short term and the long term. I find it mind-boggling that anyone at this point could still think that invading Iraq was, in an way, a GOOD idea.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Gypsiyee you didn't really answer my question as to what you thought might happen if we packed up and left, which I suspect is because you haven't given it much thought, which is somewhat understandable as I get the impression that it's not a major concern for you... or perhaps I should say your concern about issues at home dwarfs any concern for the future of Iraq. If however one of your major concerns is how the US is viewed by the rest of the world, do you think we will be viewed in a better light or worse if we leave a huge mess behind?

They'll continue to have similar struggles, but what we view as troublesome is their nature. Their struggles are far more severe with our intervention - they don't like us, they want us gone. What isn't understood about that? They aren't grateful for our presence, we're not helping them. If we leave now, at least our hand in the damage inflicted can be lessened. If they continue to do what we view as damage to themselves, that is their perogative to run their country that way. If someone invaded us and said 'our way is better, you'll take it and like it' how would you respond? I'm sorry that you think american lives and civilian lives are worth forcing our ways upon other people so that we can tell people how to run their country and gain power over oil.

We can't be viewed in any worse light than we are now unless we keep on pounding into the ground our current actions. The rest of the world would breathe a collective sigh of relief and say 'finally' if we pulled out now. The mess is one WE made, and we're only making it worse by staying - I know it, a majority of americans know it, Bush's 21% approval ratings know it, everyone but the die hard right wingers know it. If you honestly think that us hanging around and 'cleaning up the mess' is going to aid in our reputation, you're incredibly naive and I would say that you're likely one of the americans who is so 'patriotic' that you honestly believe that we're currently the greatest country in the world and that everyone else in the world believes it right along with you. I'm very sorry to inform you that we're not - we're in better shape than some countries, granted, but the truth is we're the overzealous donkey country that keeps patting itself on the back but just doesn't get it. Everyone looks at us in awe wondering how much dumber we're going to get.

I've given it plenty of thought, thanks.

[Naethyn]

I will be embarrassed if McCain gets elected.

[Evermore]

Gypsiyee what do you think would happen to Iraq if tomorrow all US troops were pulled out of Iraq? To be more specific, what would happen in regards to the stability of it's government, it's borders and levels of civil unrest? To use your analogy, would you leave the guy you had just beat up lying barely conscious on the street with people standing around eyeballing his possessions?

if you honestly think you are being altruistic in why you're in iraq (ie that you actually give a fuck about the peoples of iraq) why are you not in Africa? there are many countries there in desperate need of an outside force to step in and help out (and have actually requested it)



seriously, the US forces are in iraq to make sure the oil flows. bringing democracy to the region, or a stable government or whatever, is just one of the weakest cover stories in history. yet the right wing wingnuts can't see thru it

well said tikker

[Lueyen]

Gypsiyee, Arlos, you might want to check out this poll on the GPF's website taken last month:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2008/0308opinion.pdf

The results of the poll might seem contradictory at first glance, but it really makes a lot of sense. I suspect if you asked most people around the world they would not want foreign troops on their soil, and it's clear from the poll that a majority of Iraqi's don't like the fact that American troops are there. However Question 22 in particular points out that a majority of those polled don't want US troop withdrawal at this time, but at some time in the future when certain conditions pertaining to security and government stability are met. 63 percent want us there for the time being as opposed to 38 percent who want us to leave now.

In short, no they don't like it, but they do want us to see it through. What this poll really indicates to me more then anything else however is that the people of Iraq feel we need to do a better job. Arlos it's also important to note that 89 percent want to see a unified country with some form of government that includes a federal base in Baghdad. Only 9 percent want to see the country broken up.

[ClakarEQ]

Leu, Min, I actually agree with you both to a point. Leaving now could make things worse and we'll likely find our way back there before too long.

However , the military and our GOV do not "report" to the people of Iraq. If the majority of the US wants out, then sorry to say, we should leave, and yes it should be that simple to make the choice, putting it into action is obviously more difficult.

I didn't check your link Leu but exactly how long is the "time" in question 22 you mentioned? is that 5yrs, 10, 20 perhaps? How long is too long? How can we not set a time table or a drop dead date (even though we all know what this would do)?

They want "us" to do more, how about "they" do more. What exactly have they done, from what I can tell, read, listen to, not much. They are so far from where we thought they would be, so far from where they need to be, and we've been there how long?

If you were to lay all this out on a timeline and forcast where things should be, I suspect that timeline would reach another 5-10years EASILY into the future and they STILL wouldn't be where they need to be.

[Gypsiyee]

That's the thing, Lue - it's not up to them. It's not something that we should be forceful about with 'oh, yeah, well I really don't like you guys here and I want you to leave but maybe it's kind of necessary, because really I think we kind of want a change.' unless there is a resounding PLEASE HELP US AND STAY, which there certainly isn't, why in god's name are we staying there despite the american peoplescreaming a resounding "FUCK, PULL OUT ALREADY"

what matters more to you, Lue? People who are on the fence about whether they hate us or only kind of hate us as a necessary evil, or the safety, welfare, and wants of the majority of citizens in your own country?