Are All Cultures Created Equal & Endowed With Inalienable Rights?

[Open_Minded]

<snip>So to come back to education... I think them being a part of a global society has exposed them to a world at their door they were ill-equipped to respond to at the pace it was hitting them and bringing change to their socites within their own borders. There's no easy solution, but education, the rise of intellectuals within their own borders will begin change.

Yes ... in the end ... education will make the biggest difference. But, in the west, we must be willing to tend to our own problems with fundamentalism and give other countries the space they need to deal with their problems.

 

I do believe that the industrialized nations huge demands for oil, out of the mideast, provokes violent tendancies as well. From the mideastern perspective, the industrialized nations are invading thier lands for oil. And - this perception - feeds the fundamentalist/literalist mindset.

 

I honestly believe there will be no peace in the mideast until the west finds other sources of energy. We do not belong in their land and until we get ourselves out (and that includes out of their oil fields) - there will be violence. The fundamentalists will use our presence to encourage extremism within thier political systems. It's a defense - and this form of defense can be seen time and again throughout history. Part of our responsibility to the rest of the world, is to find other sources of energy and get ourselves out of other countries and cultures.

 

So.... on a personal level.... we can contribute to peace in the larger context by paying attention to the amount of energy we use. We can contribute to peace in the larger context by paying attention to issues of energy when we go to the poll and vote. These are very concrete things that we can do. And - they do make a difference - maybe not in the immediate sense, but long-term the more people who pay attention to these issues, the faster the industrialized nations will find other sources of energy and get themselves out of other countries oil fields.

[The Sage Nabooru]

You know, it kinda reminds me of this one time I was watching NG Channel with my mom.

 

There were a group of Hindus performing a ceremony with purification by walking around fire.

 

"Look at those weirdos and their goofy sheet clothes," my mom said. "They worship FIRE. That's so weird. What a bunch of goofballs."

 

And I thought to myself, What's weirder, worshipping fire (which is after all a purifying agent and a useful tool for mankind), or gathering each Sunday to lament your unworthiness with others in a meeting that climaxes with a symbolic cannibalistic feast on your tortured God's corpse, finished off with drinking his blood?

 

I think a lot of Americans believe that anything is not American is innately bizarre, weird, and must be stopped. We assume all people who wear saris and listen to sitar music are poor and ignorant and need to be taught how to wear blue jeans, buy Bon Jovi and regard divorce as the norm.

 

When we see a society where women are being treated differently than they are here, we assume that different = bad and that they need to be educated in acting like Americans. Same thing with clothing, language, religion, all of that. We're not satisfied to live and let live.

[Antlerman]

Yes ... in the end ... education will make the biggest difference. But, in the west, we must be willing to tend to our own problems with fundamentalism and give other countries the space they need to deal with their problems.

Yes and no. Our relations with those countries goes a long, long way towards their perception of us and gets that center bulge of the bell curve in their society upset towards us, which allows the extremists to exploit their dissatisfaction. The extremist will always be there to exploit what they can, but it’s the middle that we’re offending through our arrogance.

 

The purchase of oil from them is not what upsets them, it’s our policies towards favoring Israel being in their land, it’s the insensitivity to their values and traditions, etc, etc. Whatever good will that may have been available to us post 9/11, has been totally wasted and destroyed by this current administration. The effects of this will be felt through the rest of our lifetimes at least, I believe.

 

One thought that occurred to me to mention after my previous post here, was that that bell curve of society applies not only to those within this country and those within the Middle East, but to the entire world itself as part of a global society. They are our neighbors, like it our not. They have a responsibility to the society as well, but neighbors who puff their chests at each other and exchange insults will never enjoy the benefits afforded to themselves through peace.

 

You are correct; we are and need to be responsible for ourselves. Then with this, we need to foster attitudes that are conciliatory towards those who claim offense against us. In my view, our society is made up of individuals. If individuals adopt an attitude of “us”, and not “us and them”, then that will trickle its way into our representative government. I think the last elections show the power that individuals have. We make this country, not Bush and fools.

 

I honestly believe there will be no peace in the mideast until the west finds other sources of energy.

I think it lies more in our double-standards in regards to Israel. The U.S. not being “over there”, would only really happen if we withdrew support for Israel. They view Israel and the U.S. as one and the same. It's not likely that's ever going to happen.

 

So.... on a personal level.... we can contribute to peace in the larger context by paying attention to the amount of energy we use. We can contribute to peace in the larger context by paying attention to issues of energy when we go to the poll and vote. These are very concrete things that we can do.

You certainly have my support on this. I’ve owned a hybrid vehicle for the last 2 years. I love getting 48 mpg. It’s economically smart, and is a move in a better direction than unnecessary over-sized gas hogs for those who just drive alone back and forth to work in them. Makes no sense, and is a waste of resources for some illusionary status symbol. (I’m not criticizing those who actually use them for hauling large loads all the time).

 

I see everyone assuming an attitude of responsibility towards our energy consumption and environment will help lead to peace, not so much by depending less on the Middle East, but by individuals becoming aware of something besides themselves!! That goes a long way towards paying attention to things that affect everyone.

 

Greed is bad for a society, either locally or globally. Cooperation is what made humanity as successful as it is. Cooperation comes only by considering others. That’s where peace will be found.

[Dave]

....I think it lies more in our double-standards in regards to Israel. The U.S. not being “over there”, would only really happen if we withdrew support for Israel. They view Israel and the U.S. as one and the same. It's not likely that's ever going to happen....

 

I was thinking what I was going to comment on this was off topic, but then I realized that it IS the topic; The troubles in the Middle East go deeper and further back than Israel. The troubles go back to when Europeans ignored the rights of the people and governments in the Middle East and started carving up the land for themselves. What right did any European have to just go down there and claim that the land they were standing on now belongs to another country? Then they carved it up along lines that suited them and not along the cultural lines that had already been drawn. The same thing in Africa and South America. The imposition of Israel upon an already existing population just made things worse.

[Vigile]

I was thinking what I was going to comment on this was off topic, but then I realized that it IS the topic; The troubles in the Middle East go deeper and further back than Israel. The troubles go back to when Europeans ignored the rights of the people and governments in the Middle East and started carving up the land for themselves. What right did any European have to just go down there and claim that the land they were standing on now belongs to another country? Then they carved it up along lines that suited them and not along the cultural lines that had already been drawn. The same thing in Africa and South America. The imposition of Israel upon an already existing population just made things worse.

 

And even further back than that with the crusades. Add to that games that the CIA has played with the Shah, US military bases in SA, and a US president who has used crusade type language when describing our relationship with the ME (i.e. battle of civilizations, etc...) and it's easy to understand why they feel threatened by the west. When you feel threatened, you develop an anti sentiment.

 

BTW, it is interesting that SA and Africa haven't developed the same sort of backlash toward the policies of colonialism and CIA influence. It's probably because they adopted xianity and feel more of a kinship with the west than the ME muslim states. Dunno.

 

Guess you could call it Stockholm syndrome.

[Lycorth]

Frankly, I think the Abrahamic cults are to blame for igniting the problems in the Middle-east. All three of them contains mandates towards violence towards non-believers, and Xianity and Is-lame contain mandates requiring the forced evangelization of non-believers.

 

Other problems, such as ethnic hatreds, land-grabs, oil, etc, all stem from this. The oil problem could certainly have existed independently of the overall religious element, but the added strains caused by the prejudices that the Big Three Cults inspire only serve to exacerbate the tensions.

[Dave]

And even further back than that with the crusades. Add to that games that the CIA has played with the Shah, US military bases in SA, and a US president who has used crusade type language when describing our relationship with the ME (i.e. battle of civilizations, etc...) and it's easy to understand why they feel threatened by the west. When you feel threatened, you develop an anti sentiment.

 

And that whole mess has it's roots in a self labeled "superior race" (and religion) taking away the inalienable rights that the inhabitants should have had.

 

BTW, it is interesting that SA and Africa haven't developed the same sort of backlash toward the policies of colonialism and CIA influence. It's probably because they adopted xianity and feel more of a kinship with the west than the ME muslim states. Dunno.

 

Guess you could call it Stockholm syndrome.

 

They have had a backlash, but they don't have the oil so we don't hear (care?) about those countries. Zaire comes to mind?

[Open_Minded]

The purchase of oil from them is not what upsets them, it’s our policies towards favoring Israel being in their land, it’s the insensitivity to their values and traditions, etc, etc. Whatever good will that may have been available to us post 9/11, has been totally wasted and destroyed by this current administration. The effects of this will be felt through the rest of our lifetimes at least, I believe.

Antlerman - I agree our policies towards Israel have a huge impact on our relationship with the Middle East. I also agree with Dave - that it goes back even further to European colonialization. And recognize that the three tribal religions exasperate all of it. Although I would say that the tribal religions are a reflection of the human cultures they grew out of.

 

Having acknowledged all of that - it is important to recognize the impact our oil consumption has on the situation. I never really gave it a lot of thought until I talked to a young man who came home from Iraq. He is angry that we are there and feels it is (and always has been) about oil. He tells us that he spent a lot of time guarding oil fields, watching money go to rebuilding oil infrastructure while hospitals, schools, community infrastructure like electricity and water were left unbuilt or were poorly rebuilt. He was angry at the amount of financial and military resources that were sunk into protecting and rebuilding oil fields. And he doesn't blame the Iraqi's for being angry at us. He tells us that in their eyes we're invaders, there for one thing - OIL. And I'm retelling his story without all his anger and passion. I'm telling his story without all the details of civilians who were dying and living in horrid conditions because we are spending our money and resources on oil fields.

 

Now - I don't doubt that hospitals are being rebuilt, that schools are being rebuilt, that roads and electricity and water is being re-established is SOME places. I don't doubt that there are men and women who have served in Iraq who have wonderful stories to tell of how they helped civilians. What I am telling here is one story that I heard from someone who was there. One story that says a lot about our priorities and why Iraqi's view us the way they do.

 

Does anyone here believe George Bush would have gone into Iraq if it wasn't for oil?

[NotBlinded]

Does anyone here believe George Bush would have gone into Iraq if it wasn't for oil?

Why yes, Sadam spanked his daddy. Well, the president would have gone with that alone if he could have. The rest of the government probably did indeed think of the oil. But, what problems were there with us getting the oil that required invasion? I really am asking sincerely.

[Open_Minded]

Does anyone here believe George Bush would have gone into Iraq if it wasn't for oil?

Why yes, Sadam spanked his daddy. Well, the president would have gone with that alone if he could have. The rest of the government probably did indeed think of the oil. But, what problems were there with us getting the oil that required invasion? I really am asking sincerely.

Well - you're right about one thing - George was acting like a school-yard bully because of history with his father and Sadam.

 

But - let's look at the bigger picture. The reality is that the United States will run out of its own oil resources. We are already extremely dependent upon foriegn oil. The huge oil interests in this country want to prolong the reality of moving to other sources of energy as long as possible. They make lots and lots and lots of money off of oil - moving to other sources of energy doesn't "fit" with their business plan. That's why they're willing to dig up the Pristine Artic Tundra - for money.

 

Bottom line - they're willing to do anything to keep the oil flowing. If they can't get to foriegn oil reserves through buying out other governments, diplomacy, etc.... do you really think they'll stop at invading another country? We went in there for oil, nothing more, nothing less. Bush has been an oil puppet from the get-go. He's used (or Karl Rove has used) religion like a master manipulator. But, bottom line, the fundies don't line their pockets as heavily as the oil industry. The fundies just turn out the base and put the votes on the ballots.

 

Like Dave said in an earlier post:

 

BTW, it is interesting that SA and Africa haven't developed the same sort of backlash toward the policies of colonialism and CIA influence. It's probably because they adopted xianity and feel more of a kinship with the west than the ME muslim states. Dunno.

 

Guess you could call it Stockholm syndrome.

They have had a backlash, but they don't have the oil so we don't hear (care?) about those countries. Zaire comes to mind?

[NotBlinded]

Thanks O_M,

 

I can understand that, but I guess I am missing the initial prompting of the act. Was there a threat that the oil would stop flowing? We already had Kuwait.

[Open_Minded]

Thanks O_M,

 

I can understand that, but I guess I am missing the initial prompting of the act. Was there a threat that the oil would stop flowing? We already had Kuwait.

I don't know that there was a threat of oil stopping. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there are people sitting around cooking up plans to invade other countries for oil.

 

I just think that oil (and the money it brings them) is so thick in their way of thinking that it colors every decision they make. I think Bush convinced himself that there really were weapons of mass destruction. I think he convinced himself that it had nothing to do with the oil and all the money he's tied into over oil. I also think he was lying to himself.

 

We don't pay this much attention to extremist countries without oil. He thinks our national interests are tied up in the region because of oil and he'll do anything to protect those interests. And in a way he's right. As dependent as we are on foreign oil if the Mid East blows up - we're sunk. In his sick mind - he went in their to keep the place from turning into a powder keg - and in the process exasperated the problem. He fed right into the hands of Osama and the Taliban. Afganastan is a mess because we're not focusing our resources on stopping the Taliban. Iraq has turned into a haven for terrorists - all because Bush couldn't get his head out of his A...... and think with any other lens than his version of "U.S. interests (oil) in the region".

 

What a fricken idiot.....

[Antlerman]

He is angry that we are there and feels it is (and always has been) about oil. He tells us that he spent a lot of time guarding oil fields, watching money go to rebuilding oil infrastructure while hospitals, schools, community infrastructure like electricity and water were left unbuilt or were poorly rebuilt. He was angry at the amount of financial and military resources that were sunk into protecting and rebuilding oil fields.

In the eyes of the Iraqi people who are suffering though wanting for basic social infrasture needs, I'm sure the appearence of spending all that money on the oil industry seems misplaced. But how I'm hearing this story is that oil revenues go to pay for all that stuff. If the insurgency can destroy the cash flow by disrupting oil exports, it will only serve to weaken any hopes of a government that people can support - a government that will put an end to their activities.

 

If the cash flow from oil stops over there, where is the money to rebuild the infrastructure going to come from? Yet even more of our tax dollars here at home?

 

Do I think Bush went in their for oil? I wouldn't venture to guess what goes on inside his brain.

[Dave]

Does anyone here believe George Bush would have gone into Iraq if it wasn't for oil?

Yes. I honestly, and sincerely, believe he did it for the sole purpose of becoming a "war time hero president." When he was governor of Texas he stated, in those exact words, that that is what he was going to do. He honestly, and psychotically, believed that our troupes could just waltz in and we'd be thrown parades and everything would be perfect.

[Open_Minded]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/visitctr/about/introduction.htm

 

Mission

Global Policy Forum’s mission is to monitor policy making at the United Nations, promote accountability of global decisions, educate and mobilize for global citizen participation, and advocate on vital issues of international peace and justice.

GPF responds to a globalizing world, where officials, diplomats and corporate leaders take important policy decisions affecting all humanity, with little democratic oversight and accountability. GPF addresses this democratic deficit by monitoring the policy process, informing the public, analyzing the issues, and urging citizen action. GPF focuses on the United Nations – the most inclusive international institution, offering the best hope for a humane and sustainable future.

Basic Facts

GPF is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, with consultative status at the UN. Founded in 1993 by an international group of concerned citizens, GPF works to strengthen international law and create a more equitable and sustainable global society. We place a heavy emphasis on networking to build broad coalitions for research, action and advocacy. GPF’s main office is strategically located across the street from UN headquarters in New York. GPF also has a European office, located in Bonn, Germany.

From The Global Policy Forum:

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2...aniesiniraq.htm

 

I strongly suggest reading the WHOLE article. The fact that this war was about oil (and nothing else) has successfully been hidden under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, 9/11 and patriotism, and religion.

 

The United States and the United Kingdom did not wage war on Iraq for the officially stated reasons. That much is obvious. The world’s superpower and its key ally were not acting because they feared the Iraqi government’s weapons of mass destruction or its ties with the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Nor were they fighting to bring democracy to the Middle East, a region where the two governments had long supported reactionary monarchs and odious dictators, including Iraqi president Saddam Hussein himself. <snip>

Several elements contribute to make the case for an oil war: the enormous, long-term political influence of the oil companies, the close personal ties between the companies and their host governments, the long history of prior conflicts and wars over Iraqi oil, and the enormous potential profitability of the Iraqi fields. To consider the evidence, and answer the questions of skeptics, we must begin by reviewing the companies’ power and influence over a period of many decades. Later, we will turn to the immediate events leading up to the 2003 war itself.

 

The administration of President George W. Bush represents an especially close set of personal ties between the oil companies and the government – at the very highest level. The president and his father were both longtime industry insiders from Texas and chief executives of their own oil companies. Other oil figures at the top of the administration include Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, the nation’s largest oil-services company, and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice, a former director of Chevron Texaco, after whom the company named one of its supertankers. These very visible figures give the administration its peculiarly strong oil flavor. In the earliest days of the administration, they promoted a number of striking industry-favorable policy decisions, such as the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, the ouster of the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the elaboration of a strongly pro-oil national energy plan.

 

In the UK, close ties likewise bind companies and successive governments together, The government even held a majority stake in BP, with seats on the board, until 1987. By contrast to the United States, where the oil companies are first among such peers as General Motors, Walmart and Citigroup, in the UK, oil giants Shell and BP tower far above the next tier firms like British Telecom, Unilever and ICI.23 From such heights, UK oil executives speak almost as unofficial members of government. In recent years, a number of personal ties stand out, especially the close friendship between Prime Minister Tony Blair and BP CEO John Browne (Lord Browne of Maddingley). The Blair-Browne relationship was so close that wags in the press called the company “Blair Petroleum,” though it would have been more accurate to say that Blair was the BP Prime Minister. At least a dozen BP executives held government posts or sat on official advisory committees, including Browne’s immediate predecessor David Simon (Lord Simon of Highbury). Simon had stepped down as BP CEO to serve as Blair’s unelected Minister for European Trade and Competitiveness from May 1997 to July 1999.24 Later on, Tony Blair’s longtime friend and personal assistant Anjl Hunter, director of government relations and known as “the gatekeeper” in Downing Street, joined BP as head of public relations in the summer of 2002, just as the war was actively brewing.

 

Seven Oil Wars to Control Iraq

Before coming to the Iraq war of 2003, we will review the modern history of conflicts over Iraq. There have been a total of seven wars in the past ninety years, all closely related to oil. What follows is a thumbnail sketch of those conflicts, to suggest the constant military struggle over this oil-rich territory.

see link above for further details

 

The Exceptional Lure of Iraqi Oil

 

Constant wars hint at the exceptional lure of Iraq’s oil fields. Iraq’s oil is of good quality, it exists in great quantity, and it is very cheap to produce, offering the world’s most extraordinary and profitable oil rents.

 

Officially, Iraq’s reserves are stated as 112 billion barrels, the world’s second largest after Saudi Arabia….

As the world’s other oilfields seriously deplete during the next two decades, global production will increasingly depend on the enormous reserves of the Persian Gulf region. Iraq will then represent a large and increasing percentage of the world’s supplies – perhaps over thirty percent. An international company must hold a serious stake in Iraq if it is to retain its status as a major player in the world’s oil industry. The Anglo-American giants know they must gain the lion’s share in Iraq or decline irrevocably.

 

Shortly before the war, industry experts described Iraq as a future “gold rush,” where the companies would battle to gain control of key reserves.38 At that time, a well-informed diplomat at the UN commented bluntly: “Exxon wants Majnoun and they are determined to get it.”39 And a longtime industry observer said: “There is not an oil company in the world that doesn‘t have its eye on Iraq.”

Preceding the War:

 

New Iraq Contracts and Moves toward War

 

The big US-UK companies made no secret of their strong desire for Iraqi oil. BP and Shell conducted secret negotiations with Saddam Hussein, while Exxon and Chevron took a harder line and waited for Washington to eliminate Saddam covertly. In 1997, as the sanctions lost international support, Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total, China National and other companies struck deals with the government of Iraq for production sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields.

For further details – feel free to read the link because this isn’t limited to the Bush administration. I’m focusing on Bush because that is the discussion here.

 

The Bush Administration Heads for War

 

The new Bush administration came into office in January 2001 at this critical juncture. Revelations by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill inform us that the new administration started planning for an invasion of Iraq almost immediately. According to O’Neill, Iraq was “Topic A” at the very first meeting of the Bush National Security Council, just ten days after the inauguration. “It was about finding a way to do it,” reports O’Neill, “That was the tone of the President, saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” Meanwhile, the President ordered stepped-up overflights and provocative attacks on Iraqi targets under a plan, evidently known as Operation Desert Badger. On February 16, US aircraft bombed Iraqi radar installations north of the no-fly zone and very close to southern limits of Baghdad. Readily audible from the Iraqi capital, this attack drew wide media comment.

 

Just a few weeks later, the hastily-organized National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice President Cheney, studied the challenge posed by French, Russian and other companies. One of the documents produced by the Cheney group, made public after a long court case, is a map of Iraq showing its major oil fields and a two-page list of “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The list showed more than 40 companies from 30 countries with projects agreed or under discussion, but not a single US or UK deal.50 The list included agreements or discussions with companies from Germany, India, Italy, Canada, Indonesia, Japan and other nations, along with the well-known French, Russian and Chinese deals. The Cheney Group’s report, released in May, warned ominously of US oil shortfalls that might “undermine our economy, our standard of living, our national security.”

 

The War and After

US-UK forces invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, seizing the major oilfields and refineries almost immediately. When coalition forces later entered Baghdad, they set a protective cordon around the Oil Ministry, while leaving all other institutions unguarded, allowing looting and burning of other government ministries, hospitals and cultural institutions. Looters sacked the National Museum and burned a wing of the National Library, but the Oil Ministry stood relatively unscathed, with its thousands of valuable seismic maps safe for future oil exploration.

 

President Bush quickly appointed Phil Carroll, a former high-ranking US oil executive, to assume control of Iraq’s oil industry and on May 22, Bush issued Executive Order 13303 giving immunity to oil companies for all activities in Iraq and deals involving Iraqi oil. On the same day, under pressure from the US and the UK, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1483 which lifted the former sanctions and allowed the occupation authorities to sell Iraqi oil and put the proceeds in an account they controlled. Every step in the early post-war period confirmed the centrality of oil, not as an Iraqi national resource to be protected, but as a spoil of war to be controlled. Now, many months after the war, the picture remains the same.

 

The companies, it should be said, are not in a great hurry. They plan and act on decades-long time horizons. They can wait out the insecurity of the present if the precious Iraqi oil fields fall dependably into their hands sometime in the next few years. But it is by no means certain that the Anglo-American giants will get their way as easily in Iraq as they did in Washington. As they wait, the violence of pacification and resistance engulfs the country. War number eight gets under way.

Bush and company got what they wanted - as long as they can maintain a presence in Iraq to control those fields - they'll maintain the ability to profit.

[Vigile]

And OM shows up with the research. You go girl!

[Dave]

....as long as they can maintain a presence in Iraq to control those fields - they'll maintain the ability to profit.

You make a good case there.... I just wish I could find that quote from bush saying he wanted to be a wartime hero. The profit part was just side benefit.

 

The important thing is that we get out of there as soon as possible.

[Ouroboros]

Looking at the situation Bush should be considered a war criminal.

[Open_Minded]

And OM shows up with the research. You go girl!

 

Thanks Vig

 

I must confess there was the little devil part of me that wanted to take a bow after posting all that information.

 

_________________________

 

You make a good case there.... I just wish I could find that quote from bush saying he wanted to be a

wartime hero. The profit part was just side benefit.

 

The important thing is that we get out of there as soon as possible.

Dave - I don't doubt Bush said that he wanted to be a wartime hero. As I mentioned in an earlier post to NotBlinded - I think he lies to himself.

 

His ego is huge - he is (most-likely) totally clueless as to the damage his actions have caused. And I really believe that he is convinced within himself that Iraq is "evil", that Iran is "evil".

 

But - and you've mentioned this yourself - we don't care about "evil" rulers in countries without oil. Bush could have fullfilled his ego's need to be a wartime hero by invading a lot of other countries besides Iraq and with more justification. Hell, he could have stopped with Afghanastan - and the real war on terror. He really could have been a wartime hero if he'd focused our resources in Afghanastan and caught Bin Laden and stopped the Taliban. That war - no one was questioning.

 

If it was just about fullfilling his ego desire to be a wartime hero - it would have stopped with Afghanastan. But it didn't - it went into Iraq under the quise of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, post 9/11 patriotism and religion. And all of it - so that his need for power and money through oil could be satisfied.

 

Sure there were side issues. I'm sure his desire to get Sadam back for going after his Daddy was part of it too. But, bottom line, when all is said and done - Iraq is about oil. He can justify it anyway he wants - but it's where the money goes and comes from that tells the story.

 

Looking at the situation Bush should be considered a war criminal.

Damned right - him and a lot of other people. Read the article - Tony Blair isn't an innocent in all of this either. Neither are the oil company executives. Neither are a lot of other politicians.

[Vigile]

Looking at the situation Bush should be considered a war criminal.

 

Now you're talking my language. And while we're at it, let's exhume Grandpa Bush and then send all three Daddy, son and grandpa to the Hague.

[Dave]

Looking at the situation Bush should be considered a war criminal.

That's right, whether for oil or ego, he's a war criminal.

 

(I will admit that oil did play a role in the whole thing.)

[Dave]

His ego is huge - he is (most-likely) totally clueless as to the damage his actions have caused. And I really believe that he is convinced within himself that Iraq is "evil", that Iran is "evil".

 

No question, the guy is psycho.

 

But - and you've mentioned this yourself - we don't care about "evil" rulers in countries without oil. Bush could have fullfilled his ego's need to be a wartime hero by invading a lot of other countries besides Iraq and with more justification. Hell, he could have stopped with Afghanastan - and the real war on terror. He really could have been a wartime hero if he'd focused our resources in Afghanastan and caught Bin Laden and stopped the Taliban. That war - no one was questioning.

 

If it was just about fullfilling his ego desire to be a wartime hero - it would have stopped with Afghanastan. But it didn't - it went into Iraq under the quise of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, post 9/11 patriotism and religion. And all of it - so that his need for power and money through oil could be satisfied.

 

In thinking a bit more, along with your info, I think it was a combination of the two. Just Afghanistan wouldn't have been a big enough war to make him a hero. He did want to control the oil, and thus have the power to control the world as in the Project for a New American Century, and his ego brought him to war, to control the oil, sooner than others would have. He had no interest in diplomacy which might have solved the problem before he could get into a war. Oil does/did have a lot to do with it.

 

Is it really the oil supplies he's protecting, or the power that goes along with controlling the oil?

[The Sage Nabooru]

If Bush and his cronies truly had the welfare of the free world as their primary concern, he would have entered three countries:

 

1. North Korea. There are three kinds of North Koreans: Those experiencing unbelievable pain and torture in government prisoner camps; those that are starving to death; and the last, a very few well-off government folks in Pyongyang. But North Korea doesn't have any vast mineral or energy resources.

 

2. Saudi Arabia. You wanna talk about supporting terrorism, here's your No. 1 guilty party. An absolute monarchy run by religious fundamentalist freaks and with an opinion of women and "guest workers" as virtual chattel, a spoiled-rotten royal family whose princely "diplomats" are good for nothing but making fools out of themselves, and a hard-nosed intolerance of pretty much anything besides Wahhabism. But they have oil, and oil is more important than human rights, so there remains a policy of pretending that none of that stuff ever happens and we're best friends.

 

3. Sudan. This one's obvious. But again, no resources, just long-suffering people.

[Dave]

If Bush and his cronies truly had the welfare of the free world as their primary concern, he would have entered three countries:....

(snip for brevity)

You're right. One of those countries would have fought back though, the second is our buddy because they sell us lots of oil, and the third, no oil.

 

I have no doubt the money for the 9/11 attack came from Saudi Arabia.

 

Just a general question.... what's going to happen when the oil runs out? What will we have to fight over then?

[Open_Minded]

Just a general question.... what's going to happen when the oil runs out? What will we have to fight over then?

Who knows???

 

The real issue right now - is the fight Bush and Company will put up in pulling out of Iraq. Remember - if we pull out and leave those oil fields behind - Bush and Company will have lost what they've been fighting for. They're not going to give up so easily.

 

Why do you think he's in such a hurry to put a surge of troops into the middle of all this. Once we have more troops on the frontlines of this mess - congress won't deny him any money.

 

And - as I'm writing this the following came into my email box from MoveOn.org...

On Tuesday, a second US aircraft carrier arrived in the Sea of Oman off the southern coast of Iran1 giving a whole new meaning to the term "escalation." The Bush administration is hell-bent on sending 21,000 troops to Iraq against the wishes of most Americans, but now it seems like they might not stop there.

 

While the war in Iraq grows worse by the day, the White House seems to be turning its sights toward neighboring Iran which could escalate the current conflict into a regional one. This reckless move comes despite the fact that most experts believe diplomacy is the way to go with Iran.

 

 

See the following link for a history of Iranian conflicts and the connection to oil.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/interve...y/histindex.htm

 

All of this information sort of puts the original post in a new light....

 

She said this early on in her talk: All people are created equal, but all cultures are not created equal.

 

This statement and some other things* that I've read lately have made me realize that I'm in the process of loosing my belief in pluralism, cultural diversity, and some dedication to live and let live.

 

As much as I despise the hypocrisies and evils of my own culture, it appears, when I check my own conscience, that there are cultures that are more evil than mine.

I wonder if the average citizen of Iraq thinks America and Britian are more "evil" than their culture.

 

They look around at the long history of industrialized nations attacking them and setting up puppet governments to control their oil.

 

They look around at the long history of industrialized nations attacking them and changing borders to nations all for the control of oil.

 

I wonder what they think of us???????

 

Certainly we're not the saviors Bush told us we'd be seen as while marching into Bagdad.