h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Suggesting you are a boring person is hardly extremism. so 'spitting' (typing) 'extremist' (an opinion) 'blood' (words?) at whatever you say is a tad disinginious, dontcha think?"

It was a dull entry, I'll grant you that. But "deconstructing" what I said is a bit pointless after posting to accuse me of "vomiting bile" or whatever it was.

"Is this thread still going round in circles?"

Has it been doing anything else?

It seems to go - Oil! - Weapons! - Iraqi's suffering - not our business - will be killed if war - killed without war! - oil! - Dubya not elected - no UN approval - Zagreb is a nazi - no *you* are Nazi - *scrap* - Hi I'm new and I think Dubya is silly and it's all about oil! - what about weapons? - No UN approval!.....

Zagreb... Frogbit... personally I've grown to expect better from both of you

Here's an idea...
Western society depends on oil. Never mind the arguments about alternative energy, the fact is that nothing and nobody travels far without oil. Period. Fact. Full stop. Oil is fundamental to our way of life, and protecting the supply could be argued as a national security issue.
Saudi Arabis is unstable, and could collapse into a fundamentalist state at any time. This is a potential threat to the oil supply. To counter this threat, the ousting of Saddam and the creation of democracy within Iraq seems reasonable. It's good for the Iraqi people (en masse; not for the ones who get killed, obviously. Sadly, Saddam has shown that he is quite willing to stomach the deaths of ordinary Iraqis in order to build his 49th palace.). It's good for the region, because an unstable element gets removed. And it's good for us, because the oil supply is preserved for the forseeable future.

"It's all about oil", people whine. Damn straight it is. The question is...is your entire way of life worth fighting a pre-emptive war over?

"Zagreb... Frogbit... personally I've grown to expect better from both of you "

so have I

"Here's an idea...
Western society depends on oil. Never mind the arguments about alternative energy, the fact is that nothing and nobody travels far without oil. Period. Fact. Full stop. Oil is fundamental to our way of life, and protecting the supply could be argued as a national security issue."

Good point, although I keep trying to explain that I think oil is not the priority with Iraq

"Saudi Arabis is unstable, and could collapse into a fundamentalist state at any time. This is a potential threat to the oil supply. To counter this threat, the ousting of Saddam and the creation of democracy within Iraq seems reasonable. It's good for the Iraqi people (en masse; not for the ones who get killed, obviously. Sadly, Saddam has shown that he is quite willing to stomach the deaths of ordinary Iraqis in order to build his 49th palace.). It's good for the region, because an unstable element gets removed. And it's good for us, because the oil supply is preserved for the forseeable future."

First off, if the West did lose Saudi oil it would be a disaster. Saudi Arabia has enormous oil reserves, twice that of Iraq and (I think) more than Iraq and Kuwait put together. If we did lose that oil, Iraqi oil would barely cover it. The Saudi regime is unpopular but very strong, equipped with Western weapons and backed with American troops. They even tell the Americans where to go if they like. They obviously feel pretty secure.

I agree about the whole Iraq thing, that's what I've been trying to say here. I just wish Bush Sr hadn't been a f**kwit and had dealt with Saddam in 1991 when he had the opportunity and the Arab world was with him. Exactly what was containment supposed to achieve? I dunno, except that Bush Sr will go down in history as a terrible President and, if Bush Jr doesn't take some good advice post-saddam, his son could go the same route.

"if Bush Jr doesn't take some good advice post-saddam, his son could go the same route."

by "his son" I meant George Bush Sr's son - Dubya himself. I wasn't accusing whatever kids Dubya has of being potential bad presidents (and, besides, there's one political dynasty no one needs)

"It was a dull entry, I'll grant you that. But "deconstructing" what I said is a bit pointless after posting to accuse me of "vomiting bile" or whatever it was."

Ahem. It was:

"You have a truly revolting way with words Zagreb, and a truly, truly revolting way of making your insidious bacteria-infested filth stick to those at whom you spew it."

And I rather enjoyed typing it. Cutting and pasting wasn't nearly as satisfying. Look, sorry if I've disappointed anyone, but I, like many here, have been with this thread a long time. Throughout it all there have been repetitions, yes, but also valid points and healthy - if sometimes heated - debate. We've all disagreed over *this* or discussed the various merits of *that* and all, with the occasional digression, in quite a mature and informed manner, usually treading carefully around each other's sensetive spots.
But this morning I just felt 'What the hell. Take that, you scoundrel'.
It's all part of being human, I'm sure. And there's not a lot I can do about that. So have an olive branch Zagreb. You can strike me with it if you want. I'm sure it must be tempting...

"So have an olive branch Zagreb"

Accepted.

Now, as Jack Nicholson says in Mars Attacks "Can't we all just........ get along?"

"Good point, although I keep trying to explain that I think oil is not the priority with Iraq" - That just shows that you haven't read any recent links posted.

--------------

Frogbit " Look, sorry if I've disappointed anyone" Actually, like neugen, I was entertained.

--------------

1.Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?

Hopefuly I'm not the only one who doesn't trust any of the nations that have them. If we go by who's used them...

2. Would you support a war against Iraq with the support of the UN Security council?

You're asking wether to trust countries like the US Russia China and France (France commited a terrorist act in the 80's, for example). Short answer, No, not just because the security council says so.

3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?

Yes, that's what the UN's there for. The thing is, it's also there to prevent the kind of rampaging the US is doing. US Britan and Australia - Hmmm Axis powers of of the 1930s anyone? (before someone says Australia isn't a power. Neither was Italy)

4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?

Like Nugen said, what about Turkey? It was brought up before that the enforced no fly zone was actualy assisting Turkey

5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?

It was (deliberatly?) misinterperted by Zagreb. Frogbit brought up a good point. If Iraq was able to inflict substantial damage to US forces. It would be a good thing because it would mean a ground war and much less civilan casualties. Instead of the detestable cowardly high altitude bombing with it high civilian casulty rate.

However I haven't seen anything to suggest peace no being an option.

----------

"I was unsure about including it, as I was worried people might think I was insinuating something, but I wanted to understand where people were coming from."

People have been expressing where "they're comming from" for along time. It looks more like you want to keep asking until you get a different answer.

"4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?

Like Nugen said, what about Turkey? It was brought up before that the enforced no fly zone was actualy assisting Turkey"


Actually, what about the no-fly zones? The Kurds in the north (as Apparition stated) are protected by the no-fly zones. So much so, that recently there was a meeting between the Kurdish leadershiop and US military in IRAQ! i.e. in northern Iraq where Saddam has virtually no power these days.

The southern no-fly zone aside from protecting Kuwait from invasion, also protects the lateral oil drilling operations in Kuwait from attack.


Sorry, but I have forgotten who posted the statement regaring the *need* for oil, but I definatelly agree. What's more, if the likes of Bush and Blair talked straight and said:

"Look, our economy needs oil. If we don't get a steady supply at a reasonable price then the price of food, clothing etc., will go up and your standard of living will go down. Now we know that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are ruthless dictatorships, but we need their oil and they cooperate. Iraq does not cooperate and as such is a threat to the supply and stability of oil."


If they said something to that effect, then apart from being believable, it may also win them some support points for logic and honesty.

On honesty. Do we really need oil that much or do the people with the finantial and legislative ability have a vested interest in continuing total oil dependancy. Who's idea was it to make a vehicle that get the mileage of american vehicles (I always thought that mileage was an exageration until I did some reading)

Not to worry. Would you believe I have invented an engine with about six moving parts made of metal. This engine is powered by water yes water. I plan to show this at a major European fair soon. When it gets accepted the oil industry will disappear and with it hopefully the carpet baggers who control it. As with so many more "commodities" that made fortunes for the controllers of same (Nutmeg springs to mind). A commodity which also disappeared! The lack of oil will make our world a better and safer place. No more pollution no more environmental damage and thankfully no more of the likes of Dubya! No more Saddams and the Saudis will go back to doing what they always did before oil, they made it on the Pilgrims going to the Haj. So watch this space and enjoy the moment.

1. Would you support a war against Iraq if it was proved Saddam had WMD?
No.Proof would also be almost impossible.America also has WMD should the EU attack them on the theory that they could be used?

2. Would you support a war against Iraq with the support of the UN Security council?
No

3. Would you support a war against Iraq if they attacked another country within the next few months?
This has not happened. nor is there evidence it will happen What we are talking about now is a pre emptive strike. Is a pre emptive strike the best way to maintain a peaceful world?

4. Would you support a war against Iraq if Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds again?
No, this would not guarantee safety to the Kurds, as it did not last time we had a Gulf War. You can't save people by bombing them in my opinion. the Kurdish people can be a victim of Western bombing as well as Saddams' gas attacks.

5. If war does break out between the US and Iraq and peace stops becoming an option, who would you rather won?

I'd rather it didn't , but having said that America will win because it has superior military powers. War with Iraq would be like shooting fish in a barrel. The fish being the population of Iraq. already weakened by previous war and sanctions.
But what comes from a beaten third world opponent is generally a will to avenge through terrorism (even if this is a minority choice)
So a question back would be are you prepared to endure more terrorist attacks for the sake of an easy military win in Iraq?
Well for oil really.
Certainly nobody 'won' the last conflict.

I am not sure that oil is *the* sole reason for the current Iraq crisis, but it plays an important part in many ways.

*sorry if any of this has been said already*

1. Someone mentioned that Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq and Kuwait put together. That's not quite true: Saudi Arabia *produces* more oil. In fact, Iraq has huge amounts of oil that is not being fully exploited because it lacks the equipment and know-how.

2. The two Security Council members with serious reservations about war in Iraq are France and Russia. The two countries who have lucrative oil contracts in Iraq are France and Russia. Clearly, in order to bring them round, deals will have to be done behind closed doors and those deals will be about oil contracts, not about moral obligations.

3. Further, whichever regime is put in place after a war will be obliged to be very generous to America in terms of oil contracts. Chalabi has already said that if his lot gain power, all existing oil contracts (with Russia and France) will be void, and he'll give massive concessions to America as a nice thank you.

4. Which will enable Dubya to reward the oil barons who got him into power in the first place and will ensure him a second term.

I honestly think that the Bush administration always intended to go to war in Iraq, even before September 11th. It really is a win-win situation for them: rid the world of evil dictator (moral justification), ensure lots of oil contracts (economic justification), and change the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of the US (political justification).

The whole WMD/terrorism thing is a sideline. I'm not saying its not important to many people, but it doesn't affect the status quo ante bellum.

Oh, and I know it's off-topic but what's the betting that the CIA are swarming around in Venezuela stirring the s**t?

Della-sorry I just thought African-American would be pretty much an American only term...it sounded a bit weird that you would call a black person in New Zealand African-American if they were citizens of New Zealand (to be honest I think the term African-American is a little silly on it's own..as most people here in the US that are called that have never even been to Africa ..they were born in the US and live in the US now...they are just plain Americans)


as I am not really the intended answer person for Z's questions I will just go ahead and prob restate a few opinions

1. WMD...yes very dangerous...bad thing for people to have including the US...but the main point is...According to the disarm agreement there shouldn't be any in Iraq...if there are then he violated the whole thing...ah but like you say who cares what the UN says right...heck the UN doesn't even care...personally I think if we are going to have a UN and it is going to actually do anything then if it says don't do this and you do it something should happen...or if they say you had better do that then you had better do it...and that goes for the US, Russia, Israel, New Zealand, Iraq and the other 186 or so countries that make up the UN...if the UN isn't willing to back up it's own views that who is going to care what it says...if no one cares what it says then what is the point in having it...

"Like Nugen said, what about Turkey?"...I again don't think that's a good debate point (I know that it's not really what you mean to say, or anyone else on this bord, so I just think it needs to be worded better by anyone that uses it mabye *not trying to pick on App becase it was said a couple of times on the last few pages just needed a quote to bring it up*)...the point it sounds like you guys are makeing on this topic and a couple of others is...well the this person does it too...so it shouldn't matter...that's not where you guys are going with it but that's what it sounds like...Look it needs to be delt with in Turkey and Iraq...it should be something the UN should look into in both contries and any others that are doing simler things...we can't let one county off the hook for this kind of thing just because another has been overlooked...hmm not sure exactly how the rewording should be but...ya we need to do something about the Kurd hunting in Iraq and while we are at it see about that same thing happening in Turkey...Does that make any sense?

()

"1. Someone mentioned that Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq and Kuwait put together. That's not quite true: Saudi Arabia *produces* more oil. In fact, Iraq has huge amounts of oil that is not being fully exploited because it lacks the equipment and know-how."

Not true, all the reources I've read (including the anti-war newspaper The Guardian) say Saudi has twice the *oil reserves* of Iraq.

"2. The two Security Council members with serious reservations about war in Iraq are France and Russia. The two countries who have lucrative oil contracts in Iraq are France and Russia. Clearly, in order to bring them round, deals will have to be done behind closed doors and those deals will be about oil contracts, not about moral obligations."

It certainly true about Russia (who certainly have no moral stand to take - everything Iraq has done Russia has done tenfold in the last ten years), but France was willing to back the war until recently, and their oil holdings in Iraq are very small compared to Russia's. I assumed they were going to join the war to protect them, but they seem to have squandered that opportunity. Never been much good at the international opportunities thing, the French.

"3. Further, whichever regime is put in place after a war will be obliged to be very generous to America in terms of oil contracts. Chalabi has already said that if his lot gain power, all existing oil contracts (with Russia and France) will be void, and he'll give massive concessions to America as a nice thank you."

Absolutely, but as long as Iraq sells the oil and makes the profit, who cares? Serves Russia and France right for dealing with Saddam.

"4. Which will enable Dubya to reward the oil barons who got him into power in the first place and will ensure him a second term."

I doubt he's insured a second term. The oil barons aren't the one's who vote and Dubya didn't even win the popular vote last time.

"I honestly think that the Bush administration always intended to go to war in Iraq, even before September 11th. It really is a win-win situation for them: rid the world of evil dictator (moral justification), ensure lots of oil contracts (economic justification), and change the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of the US (political justification)."

There's plenty of evidence Bush planned on sticking to the Bush Sr/Clinton plan of "contain Iraq and wait until Saddam's dead to get the oil flowing again" - American oil needs were, and are, secured by Saudi Arabia (the Saudi's would never stop selling oil to America, it's like chucking your best customer out the shop, Kuwait and dozens of other countries. Also, the Saudi regime needs it's wealth to provide a strong State so it can survive). Bush, lest we forget, promised a more "isolationist" US after his election and a "scaled down" US presence in the world, promising to concentrate on American issues. Only after 9/11 did Saddam come on the agenda. Incidentally, the balance of power in the Middle East has been in favour of the US since 1991, that was why they forced Saddam's armies into Iraq and away from those precious Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields. Saddam has been politically isolated since 1991 and has, militarily done nothing. those of you who are convinced oil is the only reason for the war should reflect on this, as well as the fact that Iraq only became an official "threat" to the US after 9/11. The US was shocked by that attack and they are paranoid about terrorism. To be honest, it's no great leap of imagination to think that the isolated, unpredictable leader of Iraq might have been involved.

"secured by Saudi Arabia (the Saudi's would never stop selling oil to America, it's like chucking your best customer out the shop. Also, the Saudi regime needs it's wealth to provide a strong State so it can survive), Kuwait and dozens of other countries."

That should have read, sorry

"Oh, and I know it's off-topic but what's the betting that the CIA are swarming around in Venezuela stirring the s**t?"

Didn't the US end up with egg on it's face after an aborted coup in Venezuela that was widely believed to be CIA-backed. Since the CIA are more incompetent lunkheads than evil genuises I wouldn't worry too much. If the US wants to make an ass of itself and further isolate South America over an unpopular Venezuelan President who has failed to deliver on his promises and will be out by next elections anyway, let them.

I was reading a news/opinion article on MSN the other day...it was titled "Why the French hate us?" in the article it called the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys"....hmmm now I just don't see any reason why the French might not like us


()