Looking For An Answer To The Hippie Liberal Rant

I was just wondering how people back up the claim that war in Iraq "is all about the oil?"

Iraq already supplies enough oil to the US to make it the fifth largest supplier. OPEC controls oil prices worldwide. Saudi Arabia and Venezuala have consistently bowed to international pressure to lower oil prices in times of crisis by pumping extra oil.

How will installing a new government in Iraq give us an advantage over the current situation?

Let it be known that I think Bush does a lot to help out his friends in the oil insustry and big business (granting Haliburton exclusive contracts even while it was being investigated for bilking the government), but this objection has always seemed just a convenient cop-out by college-liberals.

It makes them feel better to think they "really" know what is going on, that they can see behind the veil of the Oil hunting War loving right wing.

Typical stuff too, like as long as you have a theory that is good enough to make yourself feel like you know what is going on in the world and are somehow "in the know" about situations without actually having to do research.

It's liberal coffe shop thinking. I live in Woodstock NY, liberal capitol of upstate NY, and they all do that here, just spout these theories without ever actually backing them up.

Humans are funny like that.

-SJ™

Well, I'm a "Hippie Liberal" :lol:

But I don't see the oil argument as a cause for hostilities to be the quite the same as alot of people have stated.

I think Bush and his some of his cabinet officers stand to gain personally from any war in that region by their financial and personal link to the US oil industry. The US oil industry stands to gain financially by any rise in the price of oil. Since its output is not restricted by any International alliance such as OPEC. Increases in international oil prices as a result from any instability in the Gulf region, means more money for US oil interests. Of course, it hurts all other sectors of the economy, so I have to believe that it's not a major reason for the current administration decisions. I'd be very disillusioned if I truly believed that, then I couldn't be a "hippie liberal" anymore. :lol:

And of course, the issue of oil can also be attributed to other players in this international situation. French and Russian oil interests have alot of deals with the present Iraqi government. Not to mention that , at least the Russians also are owed a good deal of money by Iraq. This very well could account for those two governments reluctance to anything that would result in a change in leadership, in that country. But once again, I have to believe that the situation is more complex than that.

Of course the above, is the reason why some think that the US stands to gain, in general. If those deals with Russia and France are not honored because of a change in the status quo, then US companies are free to pursue deals of their own.

If the oil industry stands to gain from rises in the prices of oil (which it does), and Bush does anything they want, why does this administration as others before it, pressure for increased production when prices rise? Take last summer, when prices were ridiculously high, and prices were eventually forced down, and even talk of opening the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) to help suppress prices.

The problem with the oil argument is Bush has friends in the auto industry as well, which always pushes for lower fuel prices to support its sale of giant cars and trucks. It may be kind of sick, but it serves as a system of checks and balances. I guess that's the only good thing about special interests--there are a lot of them.

Just to clarify:

I cannot stand the left or right wing frames of mind.

They are both the same with different words coming out of their mouths.

-SJ™

Right on SJ™ (see, I remember what I learn),

Whatever happened to informed moderates?

I don't care what you have to say, just say it with some logic. Thus the original thread.

It is not about oil. There is enough oil from other places. "Another Cadaver" is correct.

It is about a known lunatic who WILL use weapons of massive destruction (and a nuke if he can get one).

He has a history of killing his own, and driving fear to others. Look at Kuwait, can you explain that?

I think that the various view points of this upcoming conflict are probably more complex than the US wants more oil, or that Europeans are a bunch of pacifist liberals.

It's funny, you even see alot of news analysts breaking this down in very simplistic terms. I saw one the other day that stated the reason for disagreement among US and Europe over war in Iraq could be summed up by religious views. That Bush and the american people are prone to viewing things in black and white because of the significance of morality and religion in the american culture, while Tony Blair, is willing to back Bush despite wide spread lack of support by the british public, because he's a deeply religious man as well. He stated that the most Europeans, because of the different cultures, languages, and political systems, tend to not see things in the same manner.

While the above might have a certain amount of very general truth or logic to it, it's still an absolutely moronic way to sum up the situation.

Picking oil as the sole reason for the US's desire for war with Iraq, or the argument this war is all about stopping terrorists, are equally simplistic and are more a result of propaganda from various proponents of both sides.

While, I'm a liberal and am very much against going to war in Iraq, right now.
I have my own reasons and for most part they're completely unrelated to anything about oil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Another Cadaver@13 February 2003 - 22:21
I was just wondering how people back up the claim that war in Iraq "is all about the oil?"

Iraq already supplies enough oil to the US to make it the fifth largest supplier. OPEC controls oil prices worldwide. Saudi Arabia and Venezuala have consistently bowed to international pressure to lower oil prices in times of crisis by pumping extra oil.

How will installing a new government in Iraq give us an advantage over the current situation?

Let it be known that I think Bush does a lot to help out his friends in the oil insustry and big business (granting Haliburton exclusive contracts even while it was being investigated for bilking the government), but this objection has always seemed just a convenient cop-out by college-liberals.

---

Well because it mostly is.
We live the way we do because of oil......plain and simple.
You are seriously under estimating the value and the impact of oil on our
economy.
Hey how much oil do you think Iraq would supply to us if we went to war and
ended up winning(to the victors go the spoils).

"How will installing a new goverment in Iraq give us an advantage over the current situation?"............are you kidding?

Peace brotherdoobie

Quote:

---

How will installing a new goverment in Iraq give us an advantage over the current situation?"............are you kidding?

---

Really,

If Iraq already is our fifth largest supplier or oil in the world, what significant change can be made even if we were to set up a puppet government?

And I agree that oil drives our economy; the question is how a war can improve that situation. I need an economic or political answer, not one bathed in generalities.

I assume there is one, this thread was not started to debunk that position. But everyone I have ever heard say "it is all about oil" has never given a reason what we stand to uniquely gain by getting rid of Saddam oil-wise.