Why we invaded Iraq

Politics and Social Issues
81
You haven't established (A), that Iraq had WMDs,
Inspectors found WMD in Iraq. I linked the Duelfer report for you in my previous reply. But maybe the Pumpkin Man slipped the weapons inspectors hallucinogenic mushrooms before they thought they examined WMD and it was all an illusion. Plus he gave their cameras and testing equipment hallucinogenic mushrooms, too. It's possible.
The Iraq Survey Group replaced the United Nations inspections teams (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), led by Hans Blix) and from the International Atomic Energy Agency (led by Mohamed ElBaradei), which had been mandated by the UN Security Council to search for illegal weapons before the conflict (See Iraq disarmament crisis). None had been found. The ISG was made up of more than one thousand American, British and Australian citizens, with the United States providing the bulk of the personnel and resources for the operation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group] Besides NOT finding WDM, does it not phase you that a group composed of the very people who wanted to go to war established themselves as the authorities to determine the truth? There's a severe conflict of interest! I won't bother reading the Duelfer report since it is created by these very same people who wanted a reason to go to war! For the same reason, you don't ask a detective to investigate a crime involving someone of personal relations to them.
(B), how such presumed WMDs had significant threat to the U.S., who has the most WMDs in the world with more significant threat to every other domain in the world.
I don't see why I need to establish anything about the threat represented by Iraq's WMD. It was the judgment of the intelligence services of the U.S. and its allies (even the French) that Hussein had WMD at the start of the Iraq War. The evidence suggests their beliefs were sincere. France certainly had no reason to back up the assessment politically, given France's formal opposition to the invasion. In the end, the decision had to be made on incomplete evidence, which is often the case in war because the enemy doesn't want you to know what he's doing.
You're evading the question. What was the specific threat to the U.S.?
The U.S. went to war unilaterally: that is, without the democratic forum agreement of the United Nations.
Hurray for customized definitions. Have you ever considered the possibility that an individual veto power fundamentally undermines democracy?
You're stalling! Why did the U.S. go to war without the acceptance of the UN?
This invalidation of the UN makes any evidence you put forward to supporting anything they discovered earlier invalid as you only arbitrarily authorize their wisdom.
How's that supposed to work?
More stalling! Answer the question. If the UN is unimportant to the democratic process by the U.S., why should you get to pick and chose what they have to say as being important and relevant?
Any decisions you claim the U.S. made based on UN findings, therefore are useless.
Why? How does it follow that the work of UN inspectors is invalidated by the reluctance of the UN to act because of, for example, veto power exercised by nations gaining illicit benefits through the OFF program?
You're distracting the argument to place burden on me to defend the UNs decision-making process. It is irrelevant. (That's an example of an attempted straw-man setup, if I ever saw one! You know,... distracting one to a different issue that is easier to defeat?)
Example: you cannot use,
Iraq agreed to destroy WMD it unquestionably possessed (if Iraq destroyed its WMD then Iraq had to possess WMD or else it had nothing to destroy). Iraq was required to provide documentation of this destruction to the UN as part of the ceasefire agreement. Iraq failed to produce that documentation, along with many other failures to keep to the terms of its agreement. Iraq, apparently intentionally, continued to present the impression to the international community that it possessed WMD capabilities.
to defend a U.S. justification for war.
Why not?
Because by choosing to go to war against the UNs decision is belittling their relevance to make wise decisions. How can the UN be recognized as sufficiently qualified by the U.S. to have properly determined the truth with regards to a ceasefire agreement. Isn't that why they also decided to investigate on their own via the ISG?
Apparently you regard the UN as a type of international god. But the UN found itself guilty of corruption in administering the OFF. Yet if the UN rejects the UN's own authority in running the OFF cleanly, doesn't that undermine the UN's case against itself? This is the type of logic you'll apparently ask me to accept. It's not a good idea for anybody to accept logic like that.
Now you're justifying even more why you have no reason to use data from the UN to bolster your views. If they are corrupt, how do you even trust anything they said before?
82
Bryan, Your so fixated on assuring us that oil is insignificant.
Right. That's why I use evidence in my arguments.
Let's presume you are correct and try telling us why Iraq posed a bigger security concern for the U.S. than the other issues of other countries that the U.S. ignored?
I already explained that. There is no other nation (save Afghanistan, which was already done) where the U.S. could be assured of greater international support than with Iraq. I went into the reasons in some detail.
You clearly implied that the assumption that the U.S. could possibly go to war on the bases of oil as a significant factor is lacking evidence and that because of such should be dismissed because you cannot confirm something on missing evidence.
You can't even clearly express what I supposedly clearly implied. One can build a case on missing evidence where one has a reasonable expectation that the evidence should exist where it is absent. One does not make a reasonable case with assertions that something is merely possible. Otherwise it's a job for ... Pumpkin Man!!!!!
Yet, you find that although WDMs were not found in Iraq, you are allowed to create a story that though plausible, cannot even be disproven -- unfalsibiable!!
Incorrect. It's most likely that Iraq's WMD were destroyed, even though it can't be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. VYAZMA asked a pedantic question about why Hussein got rid of his WMDs and would not accept the commonly accepted (and falsifiable) idea that they were destroyed as part of my answer. Given that pedantry, I covered the additional possibilities, that the weapons remained in Iraq or were transported elsewhere. I'm not preferring one unfalsifiable option over any other. I'm going with the option that has the best evidence behind it (destruction) and humoring my pedantic debate opponent with the other options. This is in contrast to VYAZMA's theory about the reason for the Iraq War that apparently rises above all evidential tests. We get less oil after the war? No problem! It was all about oil anyway! The temporary government crumbled when it was supposed to and so we failed to get the oil, or something.
This is no "straw man" argument as I have not misrepresented your views.
I created no story that cannot be disproved. The Duelfer Report spends time evaluating the possibility of weapons shipments to Syria, and the theory is falsifiable. VYAZMA's story is also falsifiable in principle, but what makes his story unfalsifiable in practice is his selective dismissal of evidence in the style of a conspiracy theorist.
You will be deliberately be distracting and ignorant if you do not respond to a reason why the U.S. chose Iraq over other world concerns that raised more humanitarian threats taking oil out of the motive!
Intentionally or not, you're wasting my time by asking a question that I've already addressed in this thread. I also covered the example of Nigeria, which is oil-rich and a key source of imported oil for the U.S., and there was no military intervention there (unrest in Nigeria persists to this day with no U.S. military intervention). What's the missing factor? Concerns about international security and terrorism. But we'll soon see that such evidence doesn't phase you or VYAZMA. http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/15-03-2006/77327-nigeria-0/
83

Bryan,
Oil use by the U.S. cannot be a measure for whether an advantage by particular interests within the U.S. contemporary government made them successful or not. If you control the oil, you are still going to profit from it regardless of where it is sold. Also, if I may use another analogy, if you robbed a bank, is it even wise to be showing off your efforts by spending it so non-frugally at home? While many such robbers make this mistake, I don’t think that an intelligent group of organized Americans would want the rest of the world looking at something so immediately obvious.

84
Let's presume you are correct and try telling us why Iraq posed a bigger security concern for the U.S. than the other issues of other countries that the U.S. ignored?
I already explained that. There is no other nation (save Afghanistan, which was already done) where the U.S. could be assured of greater international support than with Iraq. I went into the reasons in some detail.
Define "International support". I don't think that the combination of the U.S.A., Brittain, and Australia, make up such a population of the world alone. In fact, wait,...I thought that was the function of the UN?
85
You haven't established (A), that Iraq had WMDs,
Inspectors found WMD in Iraq. I linked the Duelfer report for you in my previous reply. But maybe the Pumpkin Man slipped the weapons inspectors hallucinogenic mushrooms before they thought they examined WMD and it was all an illusion. Plus he gave their cameras and testing equipment hallucinogenic mushrooms, too. It's possible.
The Iraq Survey Group replaced the United Nations inspections teams (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), led by Hans Blix) and from the International Atomic Energy Agency (led by Mohamed ElBaradei), which had been mandated by the UN Security Council to search for illegal weapons before the conflict (See Iraq disarmament crisis). None had been found. Egad, your gift for taking things out of context is virtually without peer. You're confusing the lack of evidence for WMD in the 2000s with the undoubted existence of WMD in the 1990s. To repeat, there's no doubt that Iraq had WMD (in the 1990s). The question is what happened to them (by the 2000s). The question is whether they were destroyed, moved, or hidden somewhere in Iraq.
Besides NOT finding WDM, does it not phase you that a group composed of the very people who wanted to go to war established themselves as the authorities to determine the truth? There's a severe conflict of interest! I won't bother reading the Duelfer report since it is created by these very same people who wanted a reason to go to war! For the same reason, you don't ask a detective to investigate a crime involving someone of personal relations to them.
After dismissing the Duelfer Report, what evidence would you use that no WMD were found in Iraq? Press reports?
You're evading the question. What was the specific threat to the U.S.?
You're evading the reasons I gave for ignoring your question. I'm charging you with irrelevance. Answer the charge.
The U.S. went to war unilaterally: that is, without the democratic forum agreement of the United Nations.
Hurray for customized definitions. Have you ever considered the possibility that an individual veto power fundamentally undermines democracy?
You're stalling! Why did the U.S. go to war without the acceptance of the UN? LMAO. Stalling how? Are we going to pretend you've asked the the same question twice? Your statement is false. The U.S. did not go to war unilaterally, and the UN Security Council is not a democratic body because one party can veto any majority vote. You're doing your usual thing where you ignore the evidence that renders your arguments ridiculous.
This invalidation of the UN makes any evidence you put forward to supporting anything they discovered earlier invalid as you only arbitrarily authorize their wisdom.
How's that supposed to work?
More stalling! Answer the question. You didn't ask a question. You made a statement. The statement is apparently illogical, so I'm asking you to explain it. Apparently you don't intend to answer my question.
If the UN is unimportant to the democratic process by the U.S., why should you get to pick and chose what they have to say as being important and relevant?
The UN is of some importance because it can lend international credibility (for some reason) to certain policies. It's not essential to the democratic process because the UN itself is not a democratic body. As everyone ought to know.
You're distracting the argument to place burden on me to defend the UNs decision-making process.
Rubbish. You're making a series of silly assertions and avoiding your responsibility for supporting them with evidence or reasoning.
It is irrelevant. (That's an example of an attempted straw-man setup, if I ever saw one! You know,... distracting one to a different issue that is easier to defeat?)
That's not the definition of a straw man. For a straw man argument you attack a weakened/weaker version of a person's actual argument. You don't move to a different issue. And I'm not moving to a different issue. I'm asking you to support your assertions. That's reasonable.
Because by choosing to go to war against the UNs decision is belittling their relevance to make wise decisions.
Well, duh! How is the UN Security Council supposed to make wise decisions when any of the five permanent members (including the three leading recipients of illicit OFF vouchers) can veto a majority decision for any reason?
How can the UN be recognized as sufficiently qualified by the U.S. to have properly determined the truth with regards to a ceasefire agreement. Isn't that why they also decided to investigate on their own via the ISG?
UN inspection teams have to report their evidence and they don't operate according to an individual veto process like the Security Council does. You're employing the all-or-nothing fallacy, by the way. http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#All-or-Nothing
Apparently you regard the UN as a type of international god. But the UN found itself guilty of corruption in administering the OFF. Yet if the UN rejects the UN's own authority in running the OFF cleanly, doesn't that undermine the UN's case against itself? This is the type of logic you'll apparently ask me to accept. It's not a good idea for anybody to accept logic like that.
Now you're justifying even more why you have no reason to use data from the UN to bolster your views. If they are corrupt, how do you even trust anything they said before? lol No, I'm making an absurd argument to try to get you to realize the absurdity that results if we accept your logic. Unfortunately you overlooked the absurdity and concluded that I simply supported your ridiculous logic. If you can't follow a reductio ad absurdum then I would probably be wise to focus my arguments on somebody else. http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
86
Bryan, Oil use by the U.S. cannot be a measure for whether an advantage by particular interests within the U.S. contemporary government made them successful or not. If you control the oil, you are still going to profit from it regardless of where it is sold.
So how does the U.S. control Iraqi oil? Do we have a hidden bunker where specially trained CIA agents control the oil mentally from afar?
Also, if I may use another analogy, if you robbed a bank, is it even wise to be showing off your efforts by spending it so non-frugally at home? While many such robbers make this mistake, I don't think that an intelligent group of organized Americans would want the rest of the world looking at something so immediately obvious.
To connect the analogy to its analog, what did the U.S. steal? The oil we're mentally controlling from afar with specially-trained CIA agents?
87
Let's presume you are correct and try telling us why Iraq posed a bigger security concern for the U.S. than the other issues of other countries that the U.S. ignored?
I already explained that. There is no other nation (save Afghanistan, which was already done) where the U.S. could be assured of greater international support than with Iraq. I went into the reasons in some detail.
Define "International support". I don't think that the combination of the U.S.A., Brittain, and Australia, make up such a population of the world alone. In fact, wait,...I thought that was the function of the UN? Both words are in the dictionary. Figure it out. http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html
88
You haven't established (A), that Iraq had WMDs,
Inspectors found WMD in Iraq. I linked the Duelfer report for you in my previous reply. But maybe the Pumpkin Man slipped the weapons inspectors hallucinogenic mushrooms before they thought they examined WMD and it was all an illusion. Plus he gave their cameras and testing equipment hallucinogenic mushrooms, too. It's possible.
The Iraq Survey Group replaced the United Nations inspections teams (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), led by Hans Blix) and from the International Atomic Energy Agency (led by Mohamed ElBaradei), which had been mandated by the UN Security Council to search for illegal weapons before the conflict (See Iraq disarmament crisis). None had been found. Egad, your gift for taking things out of context is virtually without peer. You're confusing the lack of evidence for WMD in the 2000s with the undoubted existence of WMD in the 1990s. To repeat, there's no doubt that Iraq had WMD (in the 1990s). The question is what happened to them (by the 2000s). The question is whether they were destroyed, moved, or hidden somewhere in Iraq. I'm not confusing anything. A question remains a question until it has been resolved with evidence, something you claim to adhere to but don't care to provide. No evidence has been presented that gives you justification for drawing a rational conclusion that WMDs continued to exist or be a threat. It was the official justification to go to war by Bush and his few allies. The context for war was clearly meant by Bush and allies to present Iraq with being associated with the very terrorists of 9/11. So stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with false rationalization. (The participants in Bush's plans, by the way, had conservative governments who support his ideology. Had Canada had our present Prime Minister, another conservative, you would have had all the blessing and support they could provide. Clearly, this is politically right wing motivated. Conservative governments do not support the liberal motto: have as much freedom as one wants as long as they do NOT infringe on their very rights to the same freedom. The founding belief of conservatives are to preserve the AUTHORITY of the status quo: the particular capitalists & religious authority to impose upon the [dumb] population.)
Besides NOT finding WDM, does it not phase you that a group composed of the very people who wanted to go to war established themselves as the authorities to determine the truth? There's a severe conflict of interest! I won't bother reading the Duelfer report since it is created by these very same people who wanted a reason to go to war! For the same reason, you don't ask a detective to investigate a crime involving someone of personal relations to them.
After dismissing the Duelfer Report, what evidence would you use that no WMD were found in Iraq? Press reports?
I don't know. What evidence would you use to show that no God lives in the Universe? I'd like to see any evidence of one WMD at the time. It might be true that you had a gun in your place last year that posed a threat to someone. But if you have no gun now, and you feel no intrinsic need to be open and honest with me, personally, am I justified in presuming that you had malice against me?
You're evading the question. What was the specific threat to the U.S.?
You're evading the reasons I gave for ignoring your question. I'm charging you with irrelevance. Answer the charge.
So oil is irrelevant. And now, threat to the U.S. is irrelevant, too. You previously declared security as the main issue. What security? Who's security? I assumed fairly that the U.S. had personal concern for their supposed security in the name of terrorism, according to your point of reference. I was narrowing the inquiry to what was SPECIFIC. But now you've just denied your own previous stance.???
The U.S. went to war unilaterally: that is, without the democratic forum agreement of the United Nations.
Hurray for customized definitions. Have you ever considered the possibility that an individual veto power fundamentally undermines democracy?
You're stalling! Why did the U.S. go to war without the acceptance of the UN? LMAO. Stalling how? Are we going to pretend you've asked the the same question twice? Your statement is false. The U.S. did not go to war unilaterally, and the UN Security Council is not a democratic body because one party can veto any majority vote. You're doing your usual thing where you ignore the evidence that renders your arguments ridiculous. "Unilaterally" wasn't a word I chose out of thin air to describe what occurred:
On the campaign trail last year, [Bush] repeatedly proclaimed the need for unilateral actions to combat terrorist threats and promote democracy. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/03/22/decision_to_go_to_war_in_iraq_defines_bush_presidency/]
Everyone understood that the term in context referred to Bush's decision to go to war without the UN!
This invalidation of the UN makes any evidence you put forward to supporting anything they discovered earlier invalid as you only arbitrarily authorize their wisdom.
How's that supposed to work?
More stalling! Answer the question. You didn't ask a question. You made a statement. The statement is apparently illogical, so I'm asking you to explain it. Apparently you don't intend to answer my question. Oh... excuse me, you broke up my quote to the question I was leading to below. You were still stalling as you asked a weird question instead of demonstrating what I'd said was faulty. How is what supposed to work? Try following this: If you show disrespect for the integrity of a witness because you do not trust his behavior now, how does it look if you've continue to not to question the previous trust in him in the past? If it was discovered that this guy was a pedophile, for instance, would you not question why you trusted him to babysit for you in the past?
If the UN is unimportant to the democratic process by the U.S., why should you get to pick and chose what they have to say as being important and relevant?
The UN is of some importance because it can lend international credibility (for some reason) to certain policies. It's not essential to the democratic process because the UN itself is not a democratic body. As everyone ought to know.
In every democracy, you'll always find those against it. Do you only legitimize those votes in America who favor your idea of 'democracy'? The United States of America is less than the United Nations of the World. Regardless of the same political problems within any government, your disdain for the UN is no different than anyone's skepticism placed on their own political bodies. But deliberately dismissing the larger elect is no different than breaking the law within your own political boundaries. America broke the world's democratic elect and is therefore no different than any criminal of democracy.
You're distracting the argument to place burden on me to defend the UNs decision-making process.
Rubbish. You're making a series of silly assertions and avoiding your responsibility for supporting them with evidence or reasoning.
Your ad hominem ridicule is suggesting your emotionally frustrated with the argument rather than its substance.
It is irrelevant. (That's an example of an attempted straw-man setup, if I ever saw one! You know,... distracting one to a different issue that is easier to defeat?)
That's not the definition of a straw man. For a straw man argument you attack a weakened/weaker version of a person's actual argument. You don't move to a different issue. And I'm not moving to a different issue. I'm asking you to support your assertions. That's reasonable.
It's a straw man because you set the straw-man, "the UN itself is not a democratic body", an argument you believe and if I believed, it would be easy to argue its invalidation. You also have some ambiguous definition of "democracy". Vetoes are for substantive votes and include the United States as being one of the five you mentioned. I would like to see them go myself but it is understandable why they stand. On the contrary, the President of the United States has such an individual power that even the present Constitutional Monarchs do not. While royalty can technically veto, they are not allowed to in action. It is just a historical remnant where a representative to the Monarch must automatically sign for traditional sake. The President of the United States has the dictatorial power to nullify any popular vote by Congress as well as having Executive powers of law creation on special things (Homeland Security, for example). This answers your other question:
How is the UN Security Council supposed to make wise decisions when any of the five permanent members (including the three leading recipients of illicit OFF vouchers) can veto a majority decision for any reason?
How can the UN be recognized as sufficiently qualified by the U.S. to have properly determined the truth with regards to a ceasefire agreement. Isn't that why they also decided to investigate on their own via the ISG?
UN inspection teams have to report their evidence and they don't operate according to an individual veto process like the Security Council does. You're employing the all-or-nothing fallacy, by the way.
In this case, it's valid. The U.S. didn't veto NOT going to war as this was not proposed. The absence of reason to go to war was. What could vetoing that mean? The U.S. went to war without the consent of the UN based on its irrelevancy to them. You are either all in with the democratic process of the UN or not. The U.S. decided NOT. P.S. I am well versed in logic including inductive fallacies...and I'm concise.
89
Bryan, Oil use by the U.S. cannot be a measure for whether an advantage by particular interests within the U.S. contemporary government made them successful or not. If you control the oil, you are still going to profit from it regardless of where it is sold.
So how does the U.S. control Iraqi oil? Do we have a hidden bunker where specially trained CIA agents control the oil mentally from afar? Good question. I was pointing this out because you claimed asked earlier where the evidence of overt gain was to be demonstrated within the U.S. economy. I am saying that it doesn't have to present itself so obviously.
Also, if I may use another analogy, if you robbed a bank, is it even wise to be showing off your efforts by spending it so non-frugally at home? While many such robbers make this mistake, I don't think that an intelligent group of organized Americans would want the rest of the world looking at something so immediately obvious.
To connect the analogy to its analog, what did the U.S. steal? The oil we're mentally controlling from afar with specially-trained CIA agents?
First of all, the analogy is to demonstrate that if the interests of the United States government at the time did act covertly and for deceptive reasons, they are not stupid enough to be obvious about it. Your denial of possible American deception is worse than your assumption that Iraq had WDMs because nobody denied that Iraq was capable [possible] of deception.
90
I'm not confusing anything.
You sound confident.
A question remains a question until it has been resolved with evidence, something you claim to adhere to but don't care to provide. No evidence has been presented that gives you justification for drawing a rational conclusion that WMDs continued to exist or be a threat.
Where did I draw that conclusion? Answer that question and then tell me again that you're not confusing anything.
91
Bryan, Oil use by the U.S. cannot be a measure for whether an advantage by particular interests within the U.S. contemporary government made them successful or not. If you control the oil, you are still going to profit from it regardless of where it is sold.
So how does the U.S. control Iraqi oil? Do we have a hidden bunker where specially trained CIA agents control the oil mentally from afar? Good question. I was pointing this out because you claimed asked earlier where the evidence of overt gain was to be demonstrated within the U.S. economy. I am saying that it doesn't have to present itself so obviously. I don't think I'll be able to detect your answer to the question even after you fix your grammar. Please rephrase, making clarity your goal. Right now it looks like you're saying that since you're claiming that a country doesn't have to end up with oil in its own market to control the oil that therefore the U.S. obviously controls Iraqi oil. But don't we require some sort of control structure of some kind (that's what I'm asking about)? If not, then how do we know that the Portuguese or the Irish aren't the ones controlling the oil?
First of all, the analogy is to demonstrate that if the interests of the United States government at the time did act covertly and for deceptive reasons, they are not stupid enough to be obvious about it. Your denial of possible American deception is worse than your assumption that Iraq had WDMs because nobody denied that Iraq was capable [possible] of deception.
I'm open to possible American deception. But I judge deception based on the evidence presented. If you don't have evidence of deception then I'm not going to accept a conclusion that is based on the assertion of American deception. That's the road to the reasoning of a conspiracy theorist. So what's your evidence? So far we've got you dismissing the Duelfer Report based on who wrote it (ad hom circ/genetic fallacy) rather than its content. Should I have confidence you'll use rational methods to reach your conclusions?
92
Bryan-Your argument is of the style of a conspiracy theory argument. You simply arrange the facts to fit your theory. Since we don't control the oil in post-war Iraq therefore we lost the war, regardless of whether the expected goals prior to the war are substantially met. If the U.S. controls the oil, then we won the war for control of oil. If the U.S. doesn't control the oil, then the U.S. lost the war. Is there any way to falsify the theory?
What part of my argument is untrue? You are nitpicking semantics and grammar so far. What facts have I arranged? In my argument, I never stated anywhere about US "controlling oil". Where do I say that? I never stated that we Invaded Iraq to assume control of oil. I never stated that we invaded Iraq to capture oil reserves. You keep trying to twist my words and argument around. To make it easier for you to argue your "canned" counter-arguments. However by your own admission the United States controlled Iraq's oil effectively through a blockade. And that was during a war, because by your own admission, number 1- a blockade is a war.(and I agree) and number 2- we were already at war with Iraq. This also by your own admission. Remember you said that it was one big war from the outset of The Gulf War onwards? So, here we have a total admission by you that it was a war for control of oil.
The U.S. We were blockading trade including trade for oil. We were keeping ourselves from trading the oil that we supposedly need to control. Your next move, of course, is to argue that our blockade that kept us from the oil we need and allowed other nations to benefit in turn forced us to go to war (and lose) in a bid to control the oil. Though in the interim the U.S. was getting the lion's share of the non-corrupt trade in OFF Iraqi oil.
No, no how obtuse of you. The next step was the oil for food program. Haven't you been following along?
No, the trade embargo (not a blockade as such) included oil.
Are you trying to backstep here? Don't waffle on me now! It seemed like you were beginning to understand all of this. And embargo just means ceasing trade with a country. A blockade is when ships and airpower or other military conventions are used to stop trade. At the height of Oil for Food 60% of Iraqis were dependent on food for oil.
So the blockade was to prevent the trade of oil that we need so badly we'll go to war for it.
No no no...we were already at war remember. You clarified that for me. And I agree. Big long war. Saddam invades Kuwait. We chase him out. He remains belligerent, we set-up blockade and trade food for oil, spotty at best stories are cooked up about WMDs, we attack Iraq itself.
Okay, so you're apparently not arguing that the OFF was the war for oil you were talking about.
No, no no..I'm arguing that that was one tactic that was directly related to oil. In essence proof that the whole war had implications for oil in a variety of contexts.
So what do you have left to support your assertion that the invasion directed by Bush was a war for oil?
Bush and Cheney feared that Saddam was going to set his oil fields on fire like he did earlier. The blockade was working and the pressure was getting to Saddam.
Therefore you need no supporting evidence? What's the upside for the U.S., exactly, of invading Iraq when we're getting the bulk of the oil distributed through the OFF program?
I didn't know we were getting the bulk of the oil through the oil for food program. But that is even more compelling now.
The Gulf War was about oil security as well as protecting state sovereignty (Kuwait). We didn't want loose cannon Hussein controlling the bulk of ME oil for reasons already discussed.
Wow, remember that 75% I talked about? In regards to you agreeing with my arguments? You are doing awesome!! I can stop now. This is that whole "interconnectedness" thing coming to fruition!
But obviously oil was a minor concern if we cut off the oil almost completely for five years before allowing Hussein to trade oil for food (the right thing to do, apparently was to support Hussein's people for him and underwriting his despotic behavior). The guy is perfectly willing to sell us oil if he can have a free hand in building up his military and threatening his neighbors, mind you. Why aren't we cool with that? It's really all about oil, isn't it?
No. We just covered this. We didn't want "Loose Cannon" Hussein(love that nickname by the way!) controlling the bulk of Mid East oil. Like you just said. It's not easy dealing with an increasingly megalomaniacal dictator who was probably going crazy from stress from the long war, and bad doctors(ala Hitler) It's not easy making big oil deals with guys like that.
Bryan-The question takes it for granted that we know Hussein got rid of the WMD either by destroying them or shipping them away.
Vyazma-But I thought we invaded Iraq because we thought he still had WMDs?
Bryan-Is it you who knows everything or is it me? Make up your mind. Vyazma-So I take it your not going to answer the question? I can't say that I blame you.
I love reading how you interpret news reports and professional analysis as my "little conjecture bits."
News reports and professional analysis is dime a dozen fluff nowadays(maybe always was...)
You do realize that you are in the vast minority here?
Better that than a tiny minority. ;-)
Hey Bryan, a "tiny minority" means a slim margin effectively. I said a vast "minority". By that I meant that you are in a rapidly dwindling minority that represents a minuscule opinion on this matter. In fact I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't Dick Cheney or Condoleeza Rice. But then again maybe Rice defected from your camp too? I can't keep track of those clowns anymore.
So then we half won the war? Or just 45%? Or what? If the aim was to get oil and we're getting oil then we won, right? But you said we lost.
Hey, we are trading with Vietnam again after all these years. We lost that war. We didn't prevent So. Vietnam from going communist. The whole Iraq war debacle is still playing out. It's not that cut and dried Bryan. There's lots of international players with all kinds of diplomatic and trade angles. Obviously Iraq is going to take a look at her post-civil war/occupation/war/debacle needs and see what's best for her. Both in oil interests and in regional security policy. That security policy being the one and the same we had in regards to her security-mainly resource sovereignty.
Vyazma-China can outbid us there. As the article from the NYT that you cited stated. That's certainly a consequence of our bungled adventure there.
Bryan- No, it's a result of China willing to engage in high-risk investment since a nationalized oil industry doesn't answer to shareholders.
Yeah same thing. Paying high prices is high risk investment.
93
Bryan-Your argument is of the style of a conspiracy theory argument. You simply arrange the facts to fit your theory. Since we don't control the oil in post-war Iraq therefore we lost the war, regardless of whether the expected goals prior to the war are substantially met. If the U.S. controls the oil, then we won the war for control of oil. If the U.S. doesn't control the oil, then the U.S. lost the war. Is there any way to falsify the theory?
What part of my argument is untrue?
Once you answer the question as to how your theory is falsifiable it will start to make sense to tell you what parts of your argument are untrue. Until then there's no point.
You are nitpicking semantics and grammar so far. What facts have I arranged? In my argument, I never stated anywhere about US "controlling oil". Where do I say that? I never stated that we Invaded Iraq to assume control of oil. I never stated that we invaded Iraq to capture oil reserves. You keep trying to twist my words and argument around. To make it easier for you to argue your "canned" counter-arguments. However by your own admission the United States controlled Iraq's oil effectively through a blockade. And that was during a war, because by your own admission, number 1- a blockade is a war.(and I agree) and number 2- we were already at war with Iraq. This also by your own admission. Remember you said that it was one big war from the outset of The Gulf War onwards? So, here we have a total admission by you that it was a war for control of oil.
And you've argued full circle. You argued that the invasion was because of oil, which I've contested. Then you brought up how the "blockade" (actually an embargo) was an act of war, supposedly showing that I'm wrong about something ... perhaps the reason for the invasion? So I point out that the embargo was for one reason and the invasion was something else and you apparently agreed. Yet here you are claiming I've conceded the point about it being a "war for control of oil" based on the embargo even after you admitted you were talking about the invasion directed by Bush from the start. Full circle. 1) It's silly to argue that the embargo that prevented most of Iraq's oil trade was primarily about control of oil. The embargo's purpose was to cripple Hussein's ability to maintain his military. Its purpose was to cut off Hussein's income, not to help the oil market. 2) The embargo, even if you want to call it an act of war, does not allow you to say that the invasion was a war for oil. They are separate events and actions undertaken for separate reasons. You're committing a fallacy of ambiguity. The act of war (embargo) is not the war (invasion).
94
I didn’t know we were getting the bulk of the oil through the oil for food program. But that is even more compelling now.
Of course it is. All evidence, regardless of what it is, helps lend additional support to the theory.
95
Bryan-1) It's silly to argue that the embargo that prevented most of Iraq's oil trade was primarily about control of oil. The embargo's purpose was to cripple Hussein's ability to maintain his military. Its purpose was to cut off Hussein's income, not to help the oil market.
We already covered the difference between an embargo and a blockade. You already conceded it was a blockade, and that it was used to cut-off oil supplies. You also stated that a blockade was an act of war and that the whole theater of operations was one continuous war from the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq until the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq recently.
2) The embargo, even if you want to call it an act of war, does not allow you to say that the invasion was a war for oil. They are separate events and actions undertaken for separate reasons. You're committing a fallacy of ambiguity. The act of war (embargo) is not the war (invasion).
There are always separate events and actions in any war that are taken for separate reasons. Did you have anything meaningful to add?
96

*Bryan you have conceded that the US discussed how the Iraqis would use their oil revenues after we physically invaded Iraq itself. The Wolfowitz comments.
Regardless of what you presume his statements to mean, it is a direct link to war and oil.
*You have conceded that the Oil for Food program was carried out under duress caused by the US military’s blockade of Iraq’s trade ability.
*You have stated that the purpose of our invasion was “not primarily” for oil. “Not Primarily” is just a matter of semantics and interpretations. And in any case supports my claim that wars are for resources and not ideals.

97
Bryan-1) It's silly to argue that the embargo that prevented most of Iraq's oil trade was primarily about control of oil. The embargo's purpose was to cripple Hussein's ability to maintain his military. Its purpose was to cut off Hussein's income, not to help the oil market.
We already covered the difference between an embargo and a blockade. You already conceded it was a blockade, and that it was used to cut-off oil supplies.
Cutting off oil supplies gives us less oil. If we get more oil then we're doing the embargo for oil. So what am I actually conceding? What we find is that your argument continually relies on ambiguity. Every piece of evidence supports your theory no matter what it is.
You also stated that a blockade was an act of war and that the whole theater of operations was one continuous war from the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq until the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq recently.
Just going along with that part of your reasoning. I have no objection to you defining the terms that way, and I have no objection because it doesn't get you anywhere without fallacies of ambiguity.
2) The embargo, even if you want to call it an act of war, does not allow you to say that the invasion was a war for oil. They are separate events and actions undertaken for separate reasons. You're committing a fallacy of ambiguity. The act of war (embargo) is not the war (invasion).
There are always separate events and actions in any war that are taken for separate reasons. Did you have anything meaningful to add?
I'll emphasize for the reader that you're not addressing your argument's problem with ambiguity. Your response here is an exercise in not addressing my point.
98
Bryan-1) It's silly to argue that the embargo that prevented most of Iraq's oil trade was primarily about control of oil. The embargo's purpose was to cripple Hussein's ability to maintain his military. Its purpose was to cut off Hussein's income, not to help the oil market.
We already covered the difference between an embargo and a blockade. You already conceded it was a blockade, and that it was used to cut-off oil supplies.
Cutting off oil supplies gives us less oil. If we get more oil then we're doing the embargo for oil. So what am I actually conceding? What we find is that your argument continually relies on ambiguity. Every piece of evidence supports your theory no matter what it is.
You also stated that a blockade was an act of war and that the whole theater of operations was one continuous war from the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq until the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq recently.
Just going along with that part of your reasoning. I have no objection to you defining the terms that way, and I have no objection because it doesn't get you anywhere without fallacies of ambiguity.
2) The embargo, even if you want to call it an act of war, does not allow you to say that the invasion was a war for oil. They are separate events and actions undertaken for separate reasons. You're committing a fallacy of ambiguity. The act of war (embargo) is not the war (invasion).
There are always separate events and actions in any war that are taken for separate reasons. Did you have anything meaningful to add?
I'll emphasize for the reader that you're not addressing your argument's problem with ambiguity. Your response here is an exercise in not addressing my point. Bryan. Now you are resorting to childlike banter. There's nothing ambiguous about pointing out the historical record of the United States blockading Iraq from trade-including food, until it agreed to trade oil for food. What's ambiguous about that? You just don't like it because it has the word "oil" in it. You want it to be about WMDs. We could have set up a program called Food for WMDs! We didn't do that did we? Wonder why?
99
*Bryan you have conceded that the US discussed how the Iraqis would use their oil revenues after we physically invaded Iraq itself. The Wolfowitz comments. Regardless of what you presume his statements to mean, it is a direct link to war and oil.
And as I have noted, apparently any link between war and oil is supposed to support your claim that Bush invaded Iraq for oil. If Bush used an oil-and-vinegar salad dressing while discussing war plans that would doubtless prove your point all the more. Next response: *Bryan you have conceded that Bush may have used oil-and-vinegar salad dressing while discussing war plans. Regardless of your interpretation of his food selection, it is a direct link to war and oil.
*You have conceded that the Oil for Food program was carried out under duress caused by the US military's blockade of Iraq's trade ability.
Which, of course, leads seamlessly to ironclad support of your contention that the Bush invasion of Iraq was for oil. Or something.
*You have stated that the purpose of our invasion was "not primarily" for oil. "Not Primarily" is just a matter of semantics and interpretations. And in any case supports my claim that wars are for resources and not ideals.
The claim at issue is your claim that the Bush invasion was for oil. You try to protect that claim by going through a cycle of watering it down and then reasserting it in stronger form, typically bolstered by new evidence that does nothing to lend support. It's a tiresome cycle. I've challenged you to present your affirmative case. Sum it up for us in your next response, please.
100
Bryan. Now you are resorting to childlike banter.
:rollseyes:
There's nothing ambiguous about pointing out the historical record of the United States blockading Iraq from trade-including food, until it agreed to trade oil for food.
There's everything ambiguous in saying that an oil embargo "act of war" in the 1990s is the 2003 invasion "war."
You just don't like it because it has the word "oil" in it. You want it to be about WMDs.
:rollseyes: Yeah, that must be it.
We could have set up a program called Food for WMDs! We didn't do that did we? Wonder why?
If we had called it that then it would just prove your theory all the more because the U.S. was hiding its true intent with the misleading name. Everything proves your theory.