It's all about oil, and that's fine -- uncle's argument

[Robb]

Whew. My uncle threw this one at me. See if you can follow the "logic", and tell me if there's anything I could possibly have said to him:

"Of course this (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) is all about oil. Oil is national security; if we don't control it, we become vulnerable to manipulation worldwide. If the US is not the single superpower, millions will die in the ensuing panics and petty power struggles. So a few hundred American lives is the price we pay to keep the entire planet safe."

...Or something like that. Is there anything I can say to this guy, or is he lost forever?

[evil_orange_cat]

1. he's lost it forever...

focus on influencing youth... crusty old men rarely change their minds. :D

[arcane1]

2. if we have the "right" to own it all, doesn't everyone else?

It's in Russia, China, Japan, etc's, interest to own all that oil too. Keeping it for ourselves will only make things worse..

or- consider if our coal resources, for example, were highly valued by the Russians, Chinese, German, whoever. Using your uncle's "logic", they should not only be able to invade the US and take control of those resources, but they would be RIGHT in doing so!


though I have a feeling he is hopeless. Sounds like he's from the school of thought that Americans are the most important people on the planet, and that the rest of the world should be expected to make our needs their #1 priority

[Hamlette]

3. I've heard that argument before

the comeback is: we can and must find a way to break our oil dependency. World wide oil reserves are not as large as once thought. We are going to be facing shortages in our kids lifetimes.

We need "the vision thing" that the Bushes so famously lack. We need a manatten project for alternative fuels.

And if it's the control of oil that freaks us, why not take over Saudi Arabia? They are, after all, our best friends.

[DK666]

4. Sounds like

He's a DUNE fan.......

[wuushew]

5. No country has right to be rich at the expense of peoples lives

Does he atleast admit that THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians died for our oil crusade?

Secondly the world should get used to dealing with problems diplomaticly. As we have already hit peak oil in the future there will be no such thing as energy wars, as our automobiles will be powered by locally produced hydrogen. The sooner we start not sticking our nose in the middle east the sooner we can expect a decrease in terrorism.

[Mountainman]

6. That's the argument Japan gave for their war of imperialism and aggression

Japan lacked many natural recourses and had to rely on trade with other nations for basic raw materials. They wanted to be strong independently and felt they had the right to conquer other nations and take the resources they had previously traded for. Japan had preemptive strikes in their war of imperialism which is just what we are doing in Iraq. We condemned Japan for starting WWII in the Pacific and we should also condemn ourselves for doing the same thing.

[Robb]

7. Oooh, that's a good one!

He might actually hear that argument. :)

[LSK]

8. that was one of Hitlers big reasons to attack russia

He wanted the Ukraines wheat and to secure other natural resources at the expense of all the Russian people. If he had defeated Russia, he gave orders to starve most of the Russian people and that ALL natural resources would be used for Germany only.

[SharonAnn]

44. And they attacked us after we cut off their oil supply.

Something I didn't learn in my school history books about the "unprovoked attack" on Pearl Harbor.

[Silverhair]

45. Have you forgotten the Japanese invasion of China?

Seems that you have. Perhaps a review of history might be in order. Actually, it appears that you are anxious to have everything that happens be the fault of that most evil of nations - America. (Sarcasm) Trying to paint Imperial Japan as a victim nation just won't wash. And the USA was right to be concerned about the what the Japanese were doing in China. Have you ever heard of the "Rape of Nanking"?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

10. The extra cost for that energy can be had by taxing the rich

plus no brown skinned people need die for Bush. Seems like win win scenario to me.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. Savages?

You said: "I don't think a bunch of savages suicide bombing each other in the name of religion is "progress""

Not only reveals your prejudice, but also points at a complete ignorance of foreign politics.

Oh boy. :eyes:

[hyeary]

53. I'm afraid not

No, I afraid it doesn't reveal any prejudice, just the ability to see what's right in front of his face.

My outlook is based on the fact that we can romanticize, play with the truth and read Noam Chomsky all we want, but it does no good because you can't spin away the truth...it just doesn't budge and the further away you get from it, the closer we come to falling of a cliff and losing this next election.

The suicide-bombers are murderers, savages, whatever you'd like to call them. Religion makes me cringe and Islam is the worst of the lot at this point in time.

[AG78]

11. He's right though

But that's been the case throughout history. Every war has been about resources, in one way or another. Be it oil, or land, or water, or religion, or people, or a "way of life", or whatever. We may live in an advanced industrial society with all the pretty lights and cars, but that's really just a front. It's obviously cliche, but history has a way of repeating. Today is really no different from yesterday. I hope tomorrow will be different from today, but it's tougher to hold onto that hope as each revolution of the planet blends into the next.

It's always something. Whenever the "war on terror" ends, there will be something after that. What will it be? I don't know. But it will have something to do with one or more of the resources on the planet, and not freedom, liberty, or any of those other fine words people in power enjoy throwing around.

[Red_Viking]

12. Oil is finite. End of story.

So, we can go around the globe stealing other peoples' resources, killing countless Americans and innocent civlians, and ruining our own environment. Then, the oil will run out. And, we'll have no contingency plan. What next?

OR...how about this...instead of pumping $87 BILLION into an illegal war to steal stuff that doesn't belong to us, our GOVERNMENT spends that money developing alternative fuel sources. Don't tell me the most innovative country on the planet can't come up with some good, sustainable alternative fuels with $87B. Then, we don't have to kill anyone, we don't have to steal anything, and think of the jobs created right here in the US of A working in this new industry.

Once the oil is gone, the robber barons will move on to hoarding other resources, like water. It's already started. And the oil WILL be gone, whether we steal it or not.

Incidentally, I don't think we'll be brought low by not having control of the world's oil supplies. That's a smokescreen. This country could be cut off at the knees by a couple of well-timed economic blows from the EU or China. We import everthing and manufacture almost nothing. We're totally vulnerable. All it would take is further devaluation of the dollar, foreign investors pulling out, and a few key countries adopting the Euro. Oh, and China could get pissed and stop sending us cheap crap. What would we do then?

You may not be able to change your uncle's mind, and that's OK. Eventually, the truth will out, even for those folks who don't want to see it. Keep the faith!

:dem:

RV

[evil_orange_cat]

13. wrong liberal hippy slime... haven't you seen the KERR/MCGEE commercials?

oil is everywhere, we just have to find it... SUPPORT DEEP WELL DRILLING BECAUSE KERR/MCGEE SUPPORTS THE AMERICAN WAR (I mean WAY) of life.

[number6]

34. ooo no way man, that would make sense....

"OR...how about this...instead of pumping $87 BILLION into an illegal war to steal stuff that doesn't belong to us, our GOVERNMENT spends that money developing alternative fuel sources. Don't tell me the most innovative country on the planet can't come up with some good, sustainable alternative fuels with $87B"

we can't have any that shit under the Bu$h (mis)admin.

[Brucey]

14. Your uncle sounds like a cold-hearted, greedy,

myopic, uneducated SOB. I wouldn't say a word to him. There are lots of people on this earth who think everything belongs to them and a few deaths of OTHER PEOPLE are worth it. I have given up talking to the nuts in my family.

[lcordero]

15. even if it is the lone superpower

we still are not keeping the entire planet safe, we are making it more dangerous. Tell him that he would see all of the chaos if he were to open his eyes.

[Webster Green]

16. I thought we had made some progress since then.

How far back in history would you like to go to find a society whose laws, or lack of, are cruel enough for you?

edit: this is a reply to post #9

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

22. Oops, sorry way2.....

My post got cross-threaded. Don't know what happened. I was trying to respond to some incredibly lame post in another thread. No intense offended!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Grr, it's the selfish bastard ethos

This morning, Newsworld International told about the problem of grizzly bear poaching in the wilds of Alberta. Apparently, idiots with more ammunition than brains are driving into the wilderness on logging and mining roads and doing "drive-by shootings" of grizzly bears, sometimes just leaving the carcasses to rot in the woods.

Among the proposed solutions are a moratorium on road building and the banning of non-company vehicles from logging and mining roads.

Well, some freeper type, Alberta variety, was going on and on about how once a road was built, people had a right to drive on it, and furthermore, there were too many grizzly bears anyway, because sometimes people would want to hunt or fish at a certain spot and they couldn't because the bears were there, and didn't people have the right to hunt and fish and camp wherever they wanted? The authorities were treating bears as more important than people's needs .

There's not a whole lot you can do with the grown-up version of a self-centered brat.

[Military Brat]

55. Selfish bastards and their needs

Hmm, those aren't needs. Recreational hunting and fishing are wants. They justify it by rationalizing that grizzlies are dangerous, but they would do it to anything that kept them from getting what they want.

Drive-by shootings. That's disgusting. I bet they go home and pop the top with their friends and laugh about it. Sickening.

On the oil issue, I agree that America doesn't own the world. We need to stop acting like we do.

[proud patriot]

18. Well at least your uncle has learned to live with himself

I wonder if he sleeps at night with his perception of the world .

I would of responded to him like this :

"Well , I'm astonished at the excuses given for
breaking the Constitution and our founders vision for the United States of America.

Controling the worlds oil does not ensure the safety
or power of America . I think you've been misguided
and here's why , oil doesn't bring America back
to the forefront of invention . We've been stagnated
in our ingenuity by our dependence on oil.

The American public have been given little choice
because our government has given the most costly
of welfare payouts to the Oil industry . In return
the oil industry keeps those at the helm in power
with little thought of the longterm consiquences
to the American people .

I'm glad the youth in America don't see the world
as theirs to take and rape . I fear for the old
because to sustain the vision that's used to justify
War , and power may prove costly to your soul in
the long run ."

[BlueEyedSon]

20. Then let our leaders voice that agenda,

and let us participate in deciding how we want to secure our "national security"....

[Liberal Veteran]

23. I'd ask him how many brown people he is willing to murder...

...to secure oil.

Sometimes just boiling everything down to it's true essence is the best, even if you have to be in your face about it.

[Landlord]

25. 180 degrees

Let's look at this another way. We do not invade Kuwait to remove the Iraqi's. That would put Saddam Hussein, in control of a large part of the world's oil supply. Having a deranged individual in control of that much wealth with his ties to terrorism would be horrible. Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own people and his obtaining missiles that can target every country in the Mideast speaks of blackmail to me. I for one am glad that the Israeli's destroyed his nuclear reactor in 1982. I think we can all agree that the world is better off without Mr. Hussein. With hindsight, perhaps if the French and the British did the same thing to Germany in 1930's
a lot more people would be alive today.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Unbrilliant

The Professor

[General Discontent]

47. The most beautiful truth

Is the simplest. Touche'

D Wolfman

[Kathy in Cambridge]

27. Simplistic at best

Sounds like a talking point from the Rushbot manifesto.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

35. Hello, Bush Administration Spokesman.

:hi: Is that you Dick ?

[newyawker99]

56. Hi Landlord!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TankLV]

60. I believe that the world might be saying that about US in about 10 years

if things progress as badly as has progressed for the first 2.5 years of this squatter's regime.

If we only removed dictator bush* when we had a chance.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. the truth Robb... that it is an immoral opinion

how can he justify murder and theft of resorces? Does he understand the impact of one american on the worlds resorces as compared to one Iraqi or one Indian?

[Ilsa]

29. So now the "Christian nation" US

is entitled to go out and steal the oil because we can. Yep. Sounds about right for GOP-thinkers.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

38. Hi

"Hi fuckers I'm from Free Republic"

and you have a nice day too :hi: oh and Dick try not to use those
nasty curse words ....

[number6]

32. I think thats the secret neocon argument.

"Of course this (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) is all about oil. Oil is national security; if we don't control it, we become vulnerable to manipulation worldwide. If the US is not the single superpower, millions will die in the ensuing panics and petty power struggles. So a few hundred American lives is the price we pay to keep the entire planet safe."

[Cocoa]

33. Ted Koppel said this at his debate

Kucinich embarrassed him to the point where he let his guard down a little, so that he argued that point to counter Kucinich's calling for troops to be withdrawn.

Never mind that Koppel wasn't really supposed to be arguing ANY point.

Anyway, it was a very revealing moment...

edit: found the transcript:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50859-2003Dec9?language=printer

KOPPEL: General Clark, some of the speakers we've heard up until now make it seem, first of all, relatively easy that we can get the kind of international help that would permit us to take U.S. troops out of Iraq. But secondly, there is a certain innocence in the references to oil from that region as though we can simply say we don't need it.

Now, if Saudi Arabia is no longer a reliable ally; Iran clearly is not a reliable ally; if Iraq is allowed to descend into some kind of chaos, just whom do we have out there in the Persian Gulf who is going to supply the oil to the United States, to Japan and to Western Europe?

[salinen]

37. Your uncle is right about one thing

we will fo to war for oil in the name of National Security.

[NNN0LHI]

36. He is one of the 70 percenters who think attacking Iraq was just swell

Don't make no difference that there are no WMD's. We got the oil. Nothing else is important. That is what we are up against next election.

Don

[Devlzown]

39. Is HE ready to die?

If this man was in danger of being drafted, I bet he would be in favor of exploring alternative energy sources. It's really easy to sit back and smugly dismiss the loss of "a few hundred American lives," when one of those lives isn't your brother's or your son's or even your own.

[sendero]

40. Anyone...

... who can justify this war in that way for those reasons can pretty much justify killing for any reason. He is amoral.

The idea is essentially no different than a drug lord killing off the competition. Pathetic.

[Wulfian]

41. The planet would be safer

with alternative sources of fuel and independence from all oil. The 200 billion should have been spent on freedom from fossil fuel, not enslavement by it.

[shance]

42. Pardon me, but what an arrogant ass. Bottom line - Its NOT our oil

Is your uncle a Christian?

Does he happen to remember a section in the Bible called the Ten Commandments?

Has he ever heard the one about THOU SHALT NOT STEAL?

And if he really, really wants that oil, let him buy a one way ticket to Baghdad and see how important that oil is to him then. Theres no need for a round trip ticket these days. Theyre a little strict on the return policy.

I guess to "Joe" its fine that we will continue our rather genocidal shopping spree and the latest country on our list to Native Americanize is Iraq?

Does history have to keep repeating itself? I dont believe for a minute it has to. It continues because of fear, complacency and abuse of power.

I have to wonder how your uncle might enjoy it if it were us here in America as the sitting ducks instead, just like the Iraqis and of course our troops are right now, being blown up, torn apart, shot at, given no electricity, and little running, clean water. You uncle would probably be the one of the ones screaming about it the loudest dont you think?

[NNN0LHI]

43. They hate us for our freedoms n/t

[KharmaTrain]

46. WWJD??? Try This One...

Since old Wingnuts tend to be religious zealots as well, give this a whirl and see how it spins his head:

Since god created oil and he created the earth, why did he give the vast majority of this wealth to the Arabs? If this country was "endowed by the creator" (right wing buzz for Jesus), then why didn't he make us self-sufficient in oil so we wouldn't need anyone elses...kinda like manna from heaven.

If you really want to spin further, suggest maybe god has chosen a fuel source for us that we just haven't either discovered yet, or haven't been worth (since we've been killing all of his other children).

Damn, I'd have a field day with him.

My lone Repugnican relative stays far, far away from me these days...LOL

[LeahMira]

48. We are vulnerable because we have not developed alternatives.

Oil is national security; if we don't control it, we become vulnerable to manipulation worldwide.

It is now because we have become dependent on it just as, in another way, we have become dependent on our military technology for our security. Because we have put all our eggs in one basket, we are more vulnerable.

The answer, IMO, is not to continue stubbornly repeating our mistakes but to develop other alternatives as quickly as possible.

Solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources are there for the taking once the technology is developed to harness them for our needs. I read somewhere that the Bush ranch in Crawford utilizes geothermal energy. Hmmm...

The United Nations came into existence so that nations need not depend on military force to resolve their squabbles and "petty power struggles." As one of the few member nations with the power to veto proposals, the United States is positioned there to be a force for wisdom and justice. We certainly do not have any monopoly on those values though, and we need to hear the voices of those other nations that are also both wise and just. Working together, we have a far better chance of coming up with the best resolutions to problems.

[laruemtt]

49. sounds like a

pretty spiritually bankrupt guy with some convoluted reasoning going on there.

[rman]

50. It's an admission that Bush lied about the reasons for this war

The admin said explicitly it is not about oil. So you uncle basically says it's ok for the government to mislead the people; perfectly in line with the fascist neocon philosophy.

It is well documented that fascism actively promotes the 'policy' of deception of the people:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


"Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior".

"A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat, if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured."

"Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them."
- Leo Strauss, policical philosopher who worked with the Hitler administration, also teacher of Wolfowitz

[Junkdrawer]

51. Control of Oil = Control of China, Russia, & India...

Big Money is pouring into these countries (especially China) and Big Money wants to ensure its investments won't be nationalized.

That's the point most miss about the Afghan pipelines: It was as much about preventing pipelines from sending Caspian oil East as it was about US control of the pipelines when they are eventually built.

[spanone]

52. He should call the families of the dead from Iraq and thank them

for keeping our SUV's on the road. And tell them that their childrens lives were worth the price of cheap gas. I'm sure these families will be comforted.

[lulu]

54. "We" won't control the oil

In Bush's wet dream -- stealing other countries' oil resources -- "we" the U.S. won't own the oil. The corporations will own the oil, and corporations have no loyalty to U.S. citizens, no obligations, no trust. U.S. citizens will be Enronized when the corporations own the oil, and we will pay dearly.

Your uncle's logic is based on the argument that Bush represents the U.S.'s interests. It's a faulty argument. Bush and his cronies are sacrificing thousands of lives in order to make themselves richer. Period.

[Dr Fate]

57. I have a PERFECT response that will get his goat:

Say:

"Well, I am glad the at least you can be honest about this and admit our real reasons for war. Can you tell me why Bush refuses to be honest like you and say what you just said? Bush keeps lying, and instead of saying what you said, he says it's about WMDs and freedom. Does Bush think that lying to the American people about the REAL reasons like you admit to- is okay? I thought that Bush said he trusted the American people- so why cant he give us the real reason like you just did? Isnt lying an impeachable offense? What else is he lying about...etc,etc..."

[Selwynn]

58. Keeping the planet safe... yeah's how's that going so far, Chief?

[gulliver]

59. It's as easy as taking land away from "Injuns"

OK. So this time there are a billion "Injuns" in the world. Who cares if it makes them want to kill us when we steal from them? No big deal. So what?

OK. So this time the Injuns have a few technologically sophisticated countries in their hands, even one with nuclear weapons (Pakistan). So what?

OK. So this time the Injuns bomb buildings throughout the world and even a couple of big ones here in the United States. So what if it costs us hundreds of billions in the economy, clobbers our airline and travel industries, and puts the American people into a security spasm every few months.

Everyone knows the bigger guy can just go in and take what he wants in today's modern world. Just ask Ken McElroy, formerly of Skidmore, Missouri.

Those Mus-lims (er, Injuns) won't necessarily drop a nuke in the middle of Manhattan and turn the United States into a totalitarian-leaning political basket case.

And we need all of that oil. Conservation is for sissies. Energy independence is something you get by force. That's how you get security.

Yes it is. Oh yes it is. It is. Is so. Is so.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Well first of all it wasn't about oil...

I don't buy that control bullshit even though it is the Bush regime. If we were really concerned about oil we could've spent the $100+ billion on oil or finding a new energy source.

[Robb]

62. Well, it wasn't about oil at first.

At first, it was about natural gas. It became about oil later. ;)

Besides, what's $100 billion compared to what's out there under the sand? :shrug:

[Karenina]

63. It was about the $$$$

Iraq converted to Euros and put the "petrodollar" at risk.

[xxqqqzme]

64. ok that's good 4 the

20th century...'n oil IS 20th century technology. What about the 21st century?