[MrPositive]

Originally Posted by heathenos

Alan Greenspan = Captain Obvious.

I think his point is that it is politically harmful to mention this obvious fact. Which he finds unsettling. That is the point.

I guess it wasn't obvious enough for you.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by GermanBJJ

By the "control of oil," people generally make an assumption going forward: that oil is going to become extremely valuable in the future because there is less and less of it and demand is rising. Now, assuming this to be true (and it is an assumption), two things are going to happen: (1) nations that are exporters of oil are going to become very powerful and (2) nations that are net importers are going to do whatever it takes to get it.

So, looking 50 years into the future, we have two options: (1) Do nothing and allow nations that export oil to become even more powerful than they are today (and they might exploit this extreme power to the detriment of the US or become friendly with our national enemies) or (2) begin to go down the row of currently unfriendly oil producers and somehow turn them into US friendly oil producers (which, perhaps not coincidently, we are doing: Iraq was first, Iran is in our sights and Venezuela is starting to make some conservative politicians itchy.)

*Note: This is a huge assumption and the existence of so much oil shale in the US brings into question it's validity but one could argue it isn't controlling the oil for US consumption that is the purpose but controlling the oil to keep it from our competitors*

I am not a believer that oil is going to be a problem for the US going forward for a number of reasons, and you may or may not be either but this is really irrelevant. It seems to some politicians DO believe this to be a major problem and it is those politicians who are pushing these confrontations. Additionally, there was an Army report that Darwinist poster a while back that noted that the US military is greatly concerned that high oil costs and/or oil shortage could render much of the US military incapable. And this was a public report; god knows what the discussions are in private.

I might not believe it; you might not believe it but the question is: do the people who actually make these decisions believe it? I don't know how oil and control of it in some sense isn't a concern when the US basically has no other reason to be concerned with the Middle-East at all. Let's just be clear about it: Middle-East stability (meaning the Middle-East is either US-friendly or rendered impotent in every way) means a stable flow of oil to the West and a safe and secure Israel. I personally think politicians would push us into war for those two reasons in a heart-beat.

I don't think we disagree at all that oil was central; I just think that most explanations about how the war was supposed to be beneficial by just saying "controlling oil" remain unconvincing and fail to really explain much. The real question is what the control was supposed to do for us that would justify its ridiculous cost and risk. As I speculated in my previous post, I suspect the main reason "oil control" was a factor centers on the war planners' belief in scenarios of likely military conflicts that would disrupt global oil supplies. That is really the only situation where you can imagine the oil supply halting -- nations at peace simply do not stop shipping oil, it would be political suicide. "Controlling oil" really only makes sense if you think that it will enable you to evade such potential regional military conflicts, with their attendant effects on the global oil supply. Otherwise it would not seem to provide any real benefits, forcing you to invoke far-out theories of stealing oil, petrodollars, etc.

Put succinctly, I think the real best prototype of the oil motivation was actually Gulf War I: Iraq attacking Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia. If all three of those nations were consumed by conflict and could not ship oil, it would be catastrophic. THAT is the nightmare scenario, the avoidance of which strikes me as by far the most plausible of the "oil" justifications for our current war. The NeoCons, in my estimation, believed they could pacify the middle east and get rid of violent dictatorships and theocracies by introducing democracy and free market capitalism. Not only would this ensure that the region remained peaceful (and thus the oil flow would not be disrupted by conflict) but it would also make them into invaluable economic trading partners, somewhat similar to Japan. Plus it would clean up our exposure to hostility from Muslims, reconciling them with the West and Israel, and allowing us to continue playing our oil policy with Saudi Arabia and the like without incurring terrorist exposure. The thing to understand in my view is that the NeoCons really, in their heart of hearts, genuinely believed THEY were the good guys, the historical heroes.

I think this is the most likely read of the "controlling oil" motivation, since it (a) is based on historical realities that have happened recently, as opposed to vague speculation about future changes; (b) doesn't require weird conspiracies about stealing oil as opposed to just buying it; (c) allows the Neo-Con's vision to appear internally justifiable to the NeoCons themselves (i.e., they could legitimately see their worldview as heroic, rather than a cabal chortling about their evil); and perhaps most importantly (d) is almost exactly in line with what they *actually said*, something that should not be taken lightly.

[FDPN]

Originally Posted by LavrentiBeria

That's absurd. Do you really think that the US can maintain a puppet government in Iraq for an extended period of time? The next adminstratition is going to pull out of Iraq completely. And after that, only Allah knows what will happen.

Wanna make a bet about that?

I'm collecting 5 dollar bets that will be a future windfall.

If we're still in Iraq in 2013, you owe me 5 dollars.

Which democratic presidential nominee has vowed to leave Iraq entirely? None of them. They are a different side of the same coin. They will leave our troops in Iraq for the long haul.

The Iraq invasion and "Korean model" they are implementing is completely bipartisan. It comes from the people who really run the government (I'm not entirely sure who they are, but they certainly aren't the politicians that you and I vote for).

[FDPN]

I can't believe you're debating this simple statement of fact.

I'm done with this thread, I've said all that needs to be said on the matter.

[DaRuckus337]

Originally Posted by texteditor

War "for oil" is maybe a bit simplistic.

Why not believe in the neo-con's notion of democracy? New markets, new consumers, a privatized oil sector with privileged relations with the US, a way to boost the defense industry, privileged contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, a strategic base in the Middle East for the promotion of more democracy. And don't forget the neo-cons principle of foreign policy: hubris.

It was all to be a tremendous success story and ironically, it's working! For many of those that have initiated this war it has been a considerable source of profit. But was it good for America, you will ask? Some will simply not bother themselves with abstractions.

This is the correct answer. Everyone around here loves to take such an adversarial stance towards politicians, assuming that they only act based on various unspoken sinister ulterior motives that we the 'intellectual' public have to try to and tease out via wild speculation. This approach to an 'objective' analysis of politics and foreign policy contains little insight and usually demonstrates little more than one's complete ignorance on how things actual work in Washington and who these people really are. Clearly, none of you know anybody in politics. Nobody who does would ever dehumanize these politicians to the degree that most of you do with your ridiculous conspiracy theories and presuppositions of 'secret master plans'.

Believe it or not, most people inside the Beltway - for better or for worse - say what they mean and mean what they say (with the exception of campaign season). This means that when a neocon tells you the best thing for America to do is to spread democracy to middle east, that is EXACTLY what he means. He means open free markets, disintegrate the cartel, and root out extremism through the instillation and nurturing of a egalitarian social-democratic system. Why is this explanation not sufficient for you people? It checks out on every level of common sense, and doesn't rely on assuming that some of your most successful fellow Americans are retarded or insane. I honestly don't understand why when it comes to politics, so many 'bright' posters cannot accept the fact that people can be wrong without being stupid, can make a mess without having bad intentions, and can push a fatally flawed agenda without being insane. The problem is, was, and always will be a case of excessive hubris.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by DaRuckus337

This is the correct answer. Everyone around here loves to take such an adversarial stance towards politicians, assuming that they only act based on various unspoken sinister ulterior motives that we the 'intellectual' public have to try to and tease out via wild speculation. This approach to an 'objective' analysis of politics and foreign policy contains little insight and usually demonstrates little more than one's complete ignorance on how things actual work in Washington and who these people really are. Clearly, none of you know anybody in politics. Nobody who does would ever dehumanize these politicians to the degree that most of you do with your ridiculous conspiracy theories and presuppositions of 'secret master plans'.

Believe it or not, most people inside the Beltway - for better or for worse - say what they mean and mean what they say (with the exception of campaign season). This means that when a neocon tells you the best thing for America to do is to spread democracy to middle east, that is EXACTLY what he means. He means open free markets, disintegrate the cartel, and root out extremism through the instillation and nurturing of a egalitarian social-democratic system. Why is this explanation not sufficient for you people? It checks out on every level of common sense, and doesn't rely on assuming that some of your most successful fellow Americans are retarded or insane. I honestly don't understand why when it comes to politics, so many 'bright' posters cannot accept the fact that people can be wrong without being stupid, can make a mess without having bad intentions, and can push a fatally flawed agenda without being insane. The problem is, was, and always will be a case of excessive hubris.

Exactly. Could not possibly have said it better myself. The idea that these people are sitting around rubbing their hands in glee over their evils is just way too much to swallow. In reality-land, these people believe they are moral heroes, saving the world and making it better. That's why they are in the political world -- they think they are the truth and the light.

Unfortunately so many people still don't understand that evil does not always or usually spring from evil motives; they instead need a moralized version of the world in which light battles darkness. It makes sense to them, and it makes things so much easier. That just isn't human reality, however.

Btw Texteditor -- big ups for your solid posts in this thread, nice to see an intelligent new poster in these forums.

[d brooks]

Originally Posted by Octavian

I think that's not entirely true at all and I also think that you can't believe a word out of Alan Greenspan's mouth. To be perfectly honest, I hate Alan Greenspan and if more Americans actually knew his full story, they probably would too. He has done much to undermine the middle and lower classes in the US, allowed Social Security to turn into a full fledged scam and changed his personal theory and philosophy based on political games a number of times, much to the detriment of the country's economy.

Of course, people will listen to Greenspan as if he's a god. After all, the man has quietly been essentially the most powerful man on Earth over the last 20 plus years.

Is the war somewhat about oil? yes, of course oil plays a large role but that is not to say that controlling that oil will actually benefit the US. We are a part of a globalized economy and no longer does a strong US company operating overseas mean a strong US economy. Instead, the US tax payer foots the bill while US companies see their rewards to the highest bidder on the international market, all the while, the profit they reap only somewhat to sparingly finds its way back into the US economy.

I think arrogance, hubris, Israel, Paul Woflowitz and William Crystal (and more from the American Century Project) all play major roles in the war as it was clearly a long standing intention of both said men, considering their attempts during the mid to late 90's to push Clinton towards waging war on Saddam.

Good post. I think private companies might have had a strong role pushing the war..after all Cheney and crew are all oil men from the private industry

The dots are there just waiting to be connected

[Foulsmeller]

Originally Posted by LavrentiBeria

Can someone who believes that the Iraq war was about oil explain to me how is the US going to control Iraq's oil?

The only way for the US to control Iraq's oil is to control Iraq. And once the American troops leave Iraq (this is bound to happen in the near future) and the pro-US leaders murdered, how is this control going to be exerted?

Ya hey...we didn't really think it through.

[Stooge]

Originally Posted by LavrentiBeria

So you're basically assuming the war was about oil, right?

It is highly implausible that cynical bastards like Wolfy and Pearle really believed that the US troops will be greeted as liberators. A never-ending armed conflict between US troops and the Arab natives is well in line with the NeoCon interests.

Give me one quote that could lead to believe that Wolfowitz is a cynical bastard. That has to be about as far off as your quote in my sig.

[Foulsmeller]

Originally Posted by Stooge

Give me one quote that could lead to believe that Wolfowitz is a cynical bastard. That has to be about as far off as your quote in my sig.

I'll say this about Wolfie: He got what he wanted. He didn't know what to do with it..but he got it.