open Democracy News Analysis - Intentions, oil and morality, - Comments

Ttrryosborn on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Ttrryosborn — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:30:52 +0000

Poem: Hide and SeeK in Iraq Author: Saddam Hussein For: His sons

a.simple.voice on "Intentions, oil and morality"

a.simple.voice — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:04:54 +0000

Poem: Hide and Seek in Iraq its a game my son, a game cant you see Viewed from a far away place Come now hide with me Through a square may be construed as fiction rather than reality Come lie with me son, in here but dont breath From the chair to the square a fireworks display Father why do my ears bleed The creation of this game I will truely never know or begin to understand My son Ive always loved you, but now are game is up No more lives for this father and son, surely a game this is not.

Steven Rogers on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Steven Rogers — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:31:20 +0000

Candace, I was wondering how many people that supported the invasion into Iraq are still outraged when people mention that the war was all about oil? I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but I still get... well, irritated, not outraged, by the "all about oil" nonsense. Where does that leave me in your equation?

Candace on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Candace — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:23:24 +0000

profound verbiage isn't required rallen. thanks for the comment. :)

Ron Allen on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Ron Allen — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:19:14 +0000

Candace, One of the saniest posts I have read in some time. 1. When is enough, enough 2. Is American Prestige worth 60,000 wounded and 3,200 slain? 3. Where's the cheap gas? 4. Does the word "stabilty" translate in Arabic? Obviously, I lack the profound verbage and time to craft a sixteen page rebuttal, yet it's time to do ...something different.

spearo100 on "Intentions, oil and morality"

spearo100 — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:27:01 +0000

Hiya Water Lily Thank you. It's a pleasure to debate on this board.

L.W. on "Intentions, oil and morality"

L.W. — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:57:08 +0000

Billy_Coconut on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Billy_Coconut — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:08:11 +0000

...

Candace on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Candace — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:46:06 +0000

Does anyone believe that the Mideast, the West, or even a majority of Iraqis, wants to go back to pre-2003? are you joking? Does anyone have fresh interpretations which are relevant today? How would you define fresh? If "fresh interpretations" mean good news about Iraq, I would say no. If fresh interpretations involves repeatedly referiing to anyone that doesnt agree with you on OD as, hacks or hysterics, then I would have to say bravo for your fresh interpretation of 2007.

Ttrryosborn on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Ttrryosborn — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:09:13 +0000

Water Lilly, "Interpretations of intentions"? That is the biggest single failure of contributors to OD. The reason for such a failure is that people talk about the situation in 2007 Iraq using mainly the events of four years ago and more. The Iraq of pre-2003 no longer exists. Make no mistake, it was Saddam's Iraq and his only. he made up his own "intentions" and "morality" toward the region and the world. He is gone. Does anyone believe that the Mideast, the West, or even a majority of Iraqis, wants to go back to pre-2003? Of course not. Like it, or not, the invasion of Iraq served the purpose of everyone, not just the US. The Iraq of 2007 may be a continuation of the Iraq of 2003 but it is completely different nevertheless. It is has different players, different dynamics and different problems. Why not stop the bickering about 2003 and start interpreting 2007? Does anyone have fresh interpretations which are relevant today?

spearo100 on "Intentions, oil and morality"

spearo100 — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:14:19 +0000

Interesting that prolonged debate across borders has reaped such clarity. Propoganda is not the blunt instrument it once was and reading through these posts I find little evidence of its use leaving scars. National interest seems to be the enduring motivation behind the actions of the protagonists. What lengths a goverment might go to to gain security and prosperity are the issues we debate. In the global village debates are carried out from a logical and moral standpoint rather than from self interest alone. If the day ever comes when patriotism is unfashionable and religion is a personal journey rather than an international crusade I think government could be conducted largely by the people in this way.

L.W. on "Intentions, oil and morality"

L.W. — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:49:38 +0000

Many of the heated arguments that happen here are over interpretations of intentions and whether they are respectable or not. I was wondering how many people that supported the invasion into Iraq are still outraged when people mention that the war was all about oil? Candace, First I'd like to thank you for the question. Then I'd like to thank to all the people who took the time to share their thought which I always appreciate. Here is my two cents...well may be a little more than that... When the war started at first by going to Afghanistan to chase OBL everything about it was legit on my radar. Later when the war moved to Iraq in order to remove Saddam and supposedly his WMD was a point when I knew this is going to be bigger than that. First of all what is WMD and which country doesn't have some? I don't care if Saddam had WMD or not. I don't care if he removed them during the 4 months period before the invasion or weather he had any at all. I was happy when Saddam was captured but I wasn't going to be that happy if I knew the current cabinet had no plan no strategy what so ever to carry on and handle the situation. I could never possibly imagine that a government can be so insanely incompetent. Then suddenly the war turned to be a war for democracy in Iraq, that is the time when I was strongly against it because I don't believe that Islam can coexist with democracy in a way that can allow that democracy to be really a democracy. I always thought this kind of combination would be more or less an Islamocracy. At that time majority of people were strongly in support of the war for democracy. I was against the idea. Then election time came about in Iraq and I remember at the time suicide bombers threatened to blow up the voting crowds and there were some incidents just prior the day of election and I was amazed that Iraqi actually voted in these large numbers and even many women and despite the fear. So I thought, allright, may be I am wrong may be these people really want that. May be the majority wanted Saddam out and wanted a different system. So I softened up and I decided this heroic revolution deserves some support. Then when the war grew to a civil war (which still is not official but is obvious)and when the new Iraqi government started making changes which only made their pre-existing system more radical (like I first predicted), I realized that the voting that took place was not about democracy at all, that was about POWER GAME. What is the role of Oil and morality in all that? A war cannot possibly have any morality. Never ever, not in my book. How the justice for some which results in unjust deaths of hundreds of thousands of others can be possibly moral, in any part of the world? War is innately immoral and it doesn't matter if the hidden motif was Oil or Israel, or Islamophobia. Really it doesn't matter if it was for Oil, or if it was fro democracy or if it was for Palestine or Islam (like its for some). War is a Beast against another Beast. My total disgust of mankind comes from the ugliness of the fact that with this enormous energy of religiousness on this planet there is such a sore scarcity of simple humanity. So this war was about Saddam, and about WMD, and about democracy ,and about oil, and about Israel, and about Palestine, and about radical Islam, and about terror, and about sick ideologies, and about power, and about justifiable and unjustifiable hatred against USA, and about justice and injustice, and most of all it's about Ignorance. This war has two sides and they are all equally involved in it as well as in the Oil interest. M.E. holds the Oil. Why are their people living so miserably? Because of greed for Oil money of their own. Ignorant people fight. Intelligent humane people work things out. Why are we today in this position? because like in any other war in the past the majority of the people on the planet are Ignorant, undereducated or plain stupid. When will we learn that What goes around comes around? No, the question should be when will we understand that we are wasting time on politics, religion and morality when the human can never grow out of his innate bestiality? Why can't we just go back to the Shatras and the Iurta and the Tipi and whatever and eat just vegetables, instead of hunting one another? What is the point of criticizing the interests in the Oil industry when instead of riding the bycicle we ourselves at the end of the day we all end up going about our business driving our cars? Do we take responsability on personal level about the harm and death our own interest in oil causes? How about the people with Asthma, how about Global warming and the mysery it may cause to so many people and other leaving species? Really people... we are all the same...animals. Driving our cars only fools us into thinking we are superieur. Message was edited by: Water.Lilly

owly on "Intentions, oil and morality"

owly — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:07:00 +0000

I think in regard to Bosnia and Kosovo (and certainly the later was an 'illegal' war under the criteria set out here and yet no one seems to complain about it) you have to recognize the pressure of public opinion upon events. Everyday pictures were beamed into every sitting room up and down the land and it did produce tremendous political pressure. The USA felt this was a European problem which the Europeans could solve or sort. They did neither. It was only when the USA and the UK felt that enough was enough that something was done. The lesson of those events was one of drift and dither, and this was unfortunate. As to Iraq during the first Gulf war the Allies stuck to the letter and the spirt of the UN resolution. This was a mistake and I think most people would accept that Saddam should have been removed at that stage. However given that he wasn't he did prove to be a rather stupid dictator. He might have saved his regime and his own life had he had more guile and played the game re wmd. On WMD it is difficult to exactly know what information was laid before Ministers but as I have pointed out the logic has to have been that Saddam did still retain a capability. What has emerged since reveals a lack of available intelligence to MI6, CIA etc. I think that many people who post on here are apt to take a rather simplistic line on all of this usually with the benefit of hindsight, which frankly isn't very helpful. If Bill Clinton could have operated from moral principles in Kosovo then could the same not be so of President Bush in Iraq ? Myself I think a number of factors came into play. WMD was one factor and there are various others, but perhaps a factor was a belief that by overthrowing a wicked and vile tyrant - one of the worst tyrants in the world - then it might send a message to other tyrants - 'behave or else'. Also by bringing change and democracy this might spread through the Middle East. And lets be honest there are some quite loathsome regimes in the region. The fact things have not gone as many had hoped is sad and is a result of many mistakes in the execution of events. What motivates many comments on this site is the belief in the old 'Westphalia Doctrine', but it seems to be applied on a selective basis. The Westphalia doctrine rests on the premise that it matters not what a ruler does within his realm, but is this a wholly tenable position in our modern world. A good example of this would be what is now happening in Zimbabwe. There is a tyrant, who I think many would agree is mentally ill, destroying his country and starving his own people for his own reasons. Does the world standby or does the world perhaps have a duty to intervene to relieve the suffering of the people. Why was this done in Kosovo, and held by many to be just and right, and yet in regard to Mad Dog Bob the silence is deafening. I agree with Billy_C that 'The intentions of US policy makers can be hard to fathom, however, so overlain they are with moralistic and ideological propaganda & rationalizations', but equally those critics who make much of the USAs foreign policy also have their own agenda overlain with exactly the same things. As to NeoCons it is worth remembering that NeoCon philosophy has nothing to do with Conservative thought; rather it is a commentary on the left and is a product of the failures of the left. Wouldn't it be grand if there was a little self examination of the left who blame everyone but themselves.

Billy_Coconut on "Intentions, oil and morality"

Billy_Coconut — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:34:55 +0000

...

jtmoana on "Intentions, oil and morality"

jtmoana — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:40:03 +0000

International politics requires cooperation between state leaders. Negotiations often the key to reach common grounds or mere compromise. Saddam Hussein defied the UNR 1441 and allowed Al Qeada operatives to Iraq. Furthermore, evidence found in Palestine refugee camps tied his regime to the endless suicide bombings in Jerusalem. $15,000 dollars were donated by the Hussein regime to families who children are willing to carry out suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Not to mention that in during Gulf War I Iraq fired 600 Scud missiles to Israel. Oil and other considerations are undoubtedly the US major concerns in the Middle East. But had not Saddam cooperated with the UN there would not have been war and his life would have been spared. Were there WMD? that question is not even closed, its wide open. Recently, Saddam's underground bunkers were discovered and were all designed to withstand chemical or nuclear attack. Plus, when UN warned of an immeninent attack, Saddam sons Uday claimed that US military would be showered in their own blood and made remarks carrying chemical warefare sentiments! was it a joke? maybe. My point is, Oil is US major concern in the Middle East, so as France, Germany, and Russia. But stubborn regimes reaped what it showed for more then 12 years.

Intentions, oil and morality,

Candace — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:31:42 +0000

I've noticed that many people do not believe the US has intentions in the ME that could be respected by anyone who isn't a power hungry war monger, or just blindly patriotic. Iran gets a similar scrutiny just interject shiite, Islam or extremist in there and its basically the same criticism. Many of the heated arguments that happen here are over interpretations of intentions and whether they are respectable or not. I was wondering how many people that supported the invasion into Iraq are still outraged when people mention that the war was all about oil? what about the attention given to Iran? How important do you believe oil is to the US when considering military action? Does that reality upset you? why or why not? and finally : Are you more interested in your moral position about who we are fighting or the results of actions taken in the middle east? explain please. :)