As the “liberal” professor who is the object of this discussion I need to weigh in. I am not a leftist academic. I am a retired Army officer who participated in the invasion of Panama in ’89 and in Iraq in ’03. If you are in desperate denial about reality then I really can’t help you but if you stop to think for one minute you would clearly see an entire world order structured around relatively cheap energy. I am not saying that is a bad thing, petroleum products allow us to have a very decent standard of living compared to 200 years ago. We would be screwed without it. The Bush administration had multiple reasons for invading Iraq but the largest one that makes the most sense is that our invasion freed up Iraqi oil to go to the Chinese or Indians who make our remarkably cheap consumer goods. Iraq is the fifth largest producer of oil in the world and the US would never have allowed Saddam (who was a bastard who needed killing) to go back into full production. The answer is simple, eliminate Saddam. The question is how do we pursue that policy goal? Invasion? General Zinni, CENTCOM Commander from ’98 to 2000 believed containment was the best policy. Bush and company opted for invasion. Back to the point. Why are US forces in the Middle East in the first place? Because we love them? No silly, it is about defending the flow of oil and maintaining our lifestyle. The first article in the military’s code of conduct is “I am an American fighting man. I serve in the forces that guard our country and protect our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in that defense.” Or that is how I remember it 30 years ago when I went through infantry basic in Fort Benning Georgia. There are a lot of ruthless dictators in the world that should suffer the same fate as Saddam but you don’t see us invading every messed up country. Only the ones with oil (see Libya). Does Syria have oil? That is why we’re not there. Start thinking for yourself and stop letting the blowhards and the spin doctors do the thinking for you. You are right though, I am a Liberal but the world is best seen through the eyes of a Realist. If you are confused, pick up a book.
(Reply by Jack)
Crosby’s Point: “… but if you stop to think for one minute you would clearly see an entire world order structured around relatively cheap energy.”
Counterpoint: I have stopped to think about it. I understand how desperate nations are for oil. History tells us one the key reasons the Japanese jumped into WWII was because of oil or their lack thereof. They felt their national security was at risk because they were becoming too dependent on foreign oil and American resources. They had very limit energy production and natural resources. They gambled they could seize what they needed.
Crosby’s Point: “The Bush administration had multiple reasons for invading Iraq but the largest one that makes the most sense is that our invasion freed up Iraqi oil to go to the Chinese or Indians who make our remarkably cheap consumer goods.”
Counterpoint: I don’t buy into this for a second! We’re in competition with these two nations. What they gain in wealth often comes at our loss in wealth. Buying cheap goods from China or India only ADDS to our trade imbalance! You are being unrealistic. What government could be so united in stupidity as to want to do what you suggest? We would be helping two of the nations that are luring away huge chunks of America’s wealth and production ability, China being the main one of course. This would be treasonous and stupid. Yet you would have us believe that it is not only true, but that 435 men and women in the House of Representatives and a 100 more in the Senate, the President and his cabinet, the members of both parties, the governors of States, the Pentagon and the entire news media would play along, sell us out, cooperate and/or sit idly by while this diabolic plot was hatched? No way.
Crosby’s Point: “Why are US forces in the Middle East in the first place? Because we love them? No silly, it is about defending the flow of oil and maintaining our lifestyle.”
Counterpoint: We’re there for our national security and that involves many things. Preventing war in this area is a key reason for our involvement. A ground war in the Middle East could make the entire world suffer and become a much more dangerous place. It could lead to a much larger war, even nuclear war or WWIII. That’s a good reason to want this region to be stable and peaceful. The distant second reason is no doubt exactly what you said, but the irony of this without liberal obstructions America could be energy independent. We have all the low cost energy we need right here. But, your gang of liberals have put roadblocks and placed us at an energy disadvantage. Liberals have hurt our economy by doing it and caused many of the reasons for us to be involved in Middle East security in the first place! So right back at ya!
Crosby’s Point; “There are a lot of ruthless dictators in the world that should suffer the same fate as Saddam but you don’t see us invading every messed up country. Only the ones with oil (see Libya). Does Syria have oil? That is why we’re not there.”
Counterpoint: We can agree there are many ruthless dictators in the world and they should suffer the same fate as Saddam. But, we can’t be the world’s policeman or go around nation building. We don’t have money, time or manpower.
We pick and choose our wars based on many things other than just getting our bloody hands on somebody else’s oil. That’s a very narrow view you have and I can’t accept it.
terrorist dictator! We went into Grenada, no oil there either, but US citizens were at risk and Cuban soldiers and civilians were building an airfield for the Communist allied government and that threatened the security of the region. And we are in Afghanistan…where’s their oil?
How much oil are we getting from Iraq?
Did Vietnam have oilfields?
Who asked us to go into Kuwait and why? Let me refresh your memory: “Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait in early August 1990. Alarmed by these actions, fellow Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt called on the United States and other Western nations to intervene. Hussein defied United Nations Security Council demands to withdraw from Kuwait by mid-January 1991, and the Persian Gulf War began with a massive U.S.-led air offensive known as Operation Desert Storm. After 42 days of relentless attacks by the allied coalition in the air and on the ground, U.S. President George H.W. Bush declared a cease-fire on February 28; by that time, most Iraqi forces in Kuwait had either surrendered or fled. Though the Persian Gulf War was initially considered an unqualified success for the international coalition, simmering conflict in the troubled region led to a second Gulf War-known as the Iraq War-that began in 2003.” This war was not fought for only for oil, it was mostly fought over Iraq’s aggression and Kuwait’s sovereignty. The mass of responding nations (Arab nations) involved in this conflict ought to be testament enough to convince even the most extreme cynic. Sure, oil was a factor in the background…we can’t deny that, but it was FAR, FAR, from THE factor for war!
Crosby’s Point: You are right though, I am a Liberal but the world is best seen through the eyes of a Realist. If you are confused, pick up a book.
Counterpoint: I think I have pointed out who is the realist here.
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
― Ronald Reagan
Jack: “This war was not fought for only for oil, it was mostly fought over Iraq’s aggression and Kuwait’s sovereignty.”
You don’t actually believe this, do you?
Kuwait’s sovereignty was at best the third or fourth most common excuse used to invade Iraq, falling far below “Because they have WMDs” (they didn’t) and “Because they helped Al Qaeda on 9/11” (they didn’t). It was the “humanitarian” justification that people used whenever everything else fell apart: “Well, yeah, they don’t actually have WMDs, and they had no link to Al Qaeda, and they pose no real threat to us…but, um, Kuwait! Greeted as liberators!”
Chris, yes I really do believe that because it’s true. I lived through that period and at the time we viewed Iraq as a fairly progressive and modern nation that was far less sectarian than it’s neighbors. In 1989 the National Security Council was encouraging Bush to offer Hussein incentives to gain more US influence with Iraq. We were not optimistic, but since we didn’t have the Shaw of Iran as a powerful friend anymore Iraq was the next best bet. Remember we had issues with the new Iranian government, so we were happy to have Hussein at odds with them after the end of their war in 1988.
From Prelude to War: “The US government was aware of Iraqi programs to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But it hoped, through engagement, to dissuade Hussein from pursuing those initiatives. The State Department, for one, looked optimistically to the future. State believed that Hussein had significantly moderated his behavior over the past years, especially on the Middle East topic of greatest interest to Washington—the Arab-Israeli dispute. Hussein had softened his opposition to more moderate factions within the Palestinian movement, and he no longer rejected Yasser Arafat’s leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In addition, during the war Hussein had drawn closer to the “moderate” Arab states—Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf emirates. The State Department also noted with satisfaction that the war had weakened Hussein’s ties to the Soviet Union, while Iraqi purchases of European weapons and US grain had drawn Hussein closer to the West.”
We were not at all happy that Hussein invaded Kuwait. We did everything possible to get the Iraqi’s to back out, but Hussein was defiant and you know what happened after that. Of course whatever relationship we had with Iraq was completely ruined when we kicked them out of Kuwait.
Iraq signed a UN peace treaty and we were determined he would abide by it. He didn’t…repeatedly he didn’t. For the moment forget the alleged WMD’s, we had brokered a UN peace treaty and Hussein started violating it for his own personal reasons and that should have been enough to end the cease fire. He played a very dangerous game with us, and despite severe UN sanctions against his country! The UN issued resolution after resolution and stricter sanctions, but it didn’t do any good except to punish the Iraqi people. There were no end of reasons why Hussein needed to go, not the least of which was Kurdish genocide and other humanitarian reasons involving Iraqi people. Hussein was bloody ruthless SOB.
Of course when Gulf II was on hot and heavy, a majority of people around the world and almost every liberal in America wrongly assumed it was all about oil and conquest. They claimed we wanted to capture Iraqi oil fields before somebody else did. It never happened. If we recovered any oil during this war time it was near squat compared to pre-war times. The fact is we poured money by the billions into Iraq – We did not take money in the form of oil out of Iraq!!!!! How you could not know this or gloss over this is stunning.
Liberals want to re-write history now. They want to make it about our mistaken belief in WMD’s, or about 9/11 or the Bush family vendetta against Hussein. These are all deeply flawed reasons that don’t hold up when compared to the legal reasons we went in. But, because there is some shred of truth here liberals won’t let it go and we find ourselves constantly rehashing these red herrings. Mind you, I probably would not have gone in when we did, but that was a timing call, not a legal call. It was a matter of strategy and how we exited would have changed too, but again this has nothing to do with the UN peace treaty, the violations by Iraq and the criminal conduct by Hussein. The UN had authority to act and they were whimping out, so we took the lead… okay, we did it! And it we had the authority, but for many reasons we can’t go into now it worked out very poorly for us.
Fact: Little to none of the oil that is sold by Iraq ends up in the United States. The vast majority is sold to China and most of the rest to Europe.
$60 billion in American taxpayer funds ended up going into the reconstruction of Iraq and Bush’s suggestion that oil would pay for that never materialized.
By enlarge Western oil companies have far more attractive global investment opportunities than in Iraq.
Oil from the middle East makes up a small percentage of US oil resources — 12%
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised
People who say the Iraq war was fought over oil do not know what they are talking about. They are simply blowing smoke.
Thank you Pie…my point exactly.
Jack: ” Your point is unrealistic to the point of being absurd. No government would be so united in stupidity as to want to do what you suggest.”
I think It is exactly the kind of strategy that any radical leftist would have and would set in motion! Leftists are determined to “spread the wealth” and equalize power. what better way than to help developing nations acquire more oil…and at our expense!
The man is no moderate lefty!
Pie: “The vast majority is sold to China…”
Emphasis “SOLD”!!!
By Iraq…not America!
A liberated country engaging in capitalism…imagine that.
And they say Bush failed? I don’t think so. Bush’s hard fought efforts delivered a fairly stable democratic Iraq that would require continuous support to survive. Instead those efforts were thrown away by an appeasing, ally shunning, enemy embracing nut case who believed he was the second coming and had the ability to usher in a “new era of peace”. Instead, he has delivered an era of instability and danger. He has delivered a growing terrorist threat, nuclear in nature…not to mention possible world war.
Dewey I hate to burst that conspiracy bubble but plans to take out Saddam go back way before 2001. The Pentagon always has contingency plans for various situations all over the world…it’s their job to have these plans ready to present to presidents as he considers what to do. Your criticism is pointless.
Re #7 Tina : Agreed.
Re #8 Tina : Poor Dewey has a bad case of the ignorant dork.
“Only a fool joins the military today.” Dewey
Well, there’s a statement that says more about Dewey than he wanted us to know.
Dewey, those “fools” are the only reason America still lives and guys like you are not in charge of re-education camps.
Required Viewing —
Naval Admiral William H. McRaven’s University of Texas at Austin 2014 commencement address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&feature=youtu.be
“Did Vietnam have oilfields?”
Jack, you can’t possibly have forgotten our commie fixation? You can’t. In fact, I believe you are still afflicted.
That the nation’s setters-of-policy have gotten over it is a blessing.
And … it is beyond ironic … psychotic is probably closer to it … I believe I’ve heard that you of the right now cherish a not-so-secret fondness for that unreconstructed commie, V. Putin? Is that true?
Fixation is an interesting word reserved by leftists for republicans…no such was ever slung at the beloved Commie hating Bobby Kennedy or brother John who first took us to Vietnam
The “fixation” was not unwarranted.
General Giap served as a member of the Politburo of the Vietnam Workers’ Party, which in 1976 became the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Commies all around the world were slaughtering, imprisoning, and otherwise trampling on the rights of people but that wasn’t considered relevant, or worthy of fixation, by sixties radical leftists. Nor was the imperialistic march of the Soviets worthy of American radical leftists scorn.
You, dear girl, pretend to care about people and their rights and yet you embrace the ideals of the very regimes (commie) who oppress, imprison, torture and murder people.
If there is a group that’s afflicted with a fixation it’s the radical left who believes America is imperialist, oppressive, and the source of the world’s problems and Cuba and Venezuela models of human dignity and rights.
Not-so-secret-fondness? Where do you guys get this stuff?
Tina: “If there is a group that’s afflicted with a fixation it’s the radical left who believes America is imperialist, oppressive, and the source of the world’s problems and Cuba and Venezuela models of human dignity and rights.”
What liberals do you know of that consider Cuba and Venezuela models of human dignity and rights? Name them.
Re #15 Chris :
You might be able to name then yourself, jackass.
Start with Michale Moore.
Re #15 Chris :
Ooops, typos, second thoughts … REDO
You might be able to name some of them yourself, jackass. (Or maybe not.)
Start with Michael Moore.
At Chris #15: Barbara Walters, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, Joe Kennedy, Jose Serrano, Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, Ted Turner, Bill Clinton, Steven Spielberg, Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Andrea Mitchell, Diane Sawyer, Tina Brown, Mike Wallace, David Rockefeller, Mort Zuckerman, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, Anitta Dunn, Julius Genachowski, Andy Stern, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Medea Benjamin, Norman Mailer, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Chesa Boudin.
Don’t forget Noam Chomsky.
Sorry, Tina, my request wasn’t clear. Can you show me evidence that any of the people you named consider Cuba and Venezuela models of human dignity and rights? I know some of them have praised the Cuban healthcare system (which does rank slightly lower than the US in world health rankings), but I’m not sure that means they see them as models of human rights.
Geez Chris, these people really believe that the things the dictators show them when they visit represent reality…they believe these dictators love the people and have created a perfect life for them (Paradise).
Sean Penn:
Oliver Stone:
More Oliver Stone from an interview about his Castro movie:
“Street demonstrations in favor of Fidel Castro are not a fake,” claimed Stone. “If they were, those demonstrators should win an Oscar for best acting. I can testify to this because I have seen the joy on their faces when people come up to the president. … “In Cuba, I observed an openness and freedom that I had not found in any other country in the region, the Caribbean or Central America,” Stone said. “I have met many world leaders in Panama, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, but have never seen the kind of spontaneous affection for a leader expressed on the streets as I have seen in Cuba towards Fidel.”
Spielberg, Stone, Belafonte, Chevy Chase, Francis Ford Coppola, and Jack Nicholoson praise Castro:
Opinion about Belafonte, one of Castro’s useful idiots:
These moronic dupes believe the dictators were benevolent and good to the people; the dictators showed them only what they wanted them to see. You also seem willing only to see what you want to see. The statistical information about murders, imprisonment, torture, land and business grabs, lack of even the basic necessities for the people (while the elites live in grandeur) is all brushed away…and doesn’t sink in.
I don’t know how they (you) can be so nonchalant about these abuses…so utterly blind! Praise for these men is praise for the conditions that “socialism” has brought to their countries…can’t you get that?
Thanks, Tina.
I can only say that the people you cited are all actors and directors, and I don’t put much stock in their opinions, nor should anyone else. I also couldn’t care less what Michael Moore thinks, and he’s lost a lot of credibility in liberal circles over the years. Cuba is obviously not a good example of freedom or human rights, and liberals who praise Cuba and Castro are wrong to do so.
Another American dupe goes to Cuba to offer praise.
Chris I’m happy to hear you don’t agree with the actors and directors. Unfortunately as celebrities they are high profile tools for tyrannical regimes and have the capability to capture the minds of our young with their nonsense.
More dangerous are those who sit in our Congress, enacting laws that have over the last fifty to seventy years pushed America further toward the policies that shape these regimes. That they praise the dictators should sound alarm bells. Unfortunately a vast number of people in our nation actually believe they can trade their freedom for financial security (hand outs) never considering for a moment what they have sacrificed for ease and comfort.
Radicals that embrace Chavez and Castro are the leaders of the Democrat Party today…they hide their true intentions behind fancy phrases. I urge you to dig deeper.
Again Tina does Chris’ homework for him.
More homework!