Harper wanted Canadians troops in Iraq

[Slavik44]

Of all the reasons stated by the United States for going to war with Iraq, be they WMD, removing tryany, humanitarian reasons, putting stability in a ass backwards region, etc etc..........I've yet to heard what is the problem with any of these above reasons......

I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it?

There is no real problems witth those reasons, unfortunantley the U.S has yet to remove any WMD from Iraq. Humanitarian reasons would be great, unfortuantley Bush never really made it out to be a priority and once he was in Iraq he wasn't able to stabilize the country. People died in iraq due to Suddam's tyrrany and they are dieng in Iraq now due to Bush's incompetence. The number of insurgents, in a country, does not determine the populations mood. In Canada thousands of people protested the war in Iraq, but well over half the population was opposed to the war in Iraq. Likewise saying that their are only 25,000 Insurgents in iraq or even 5,000 insurgents is menaingless. They would just be on the extreme end of a large portion of iraqi's who are P.O'ed at America. Suddam was an evil man, but it is a tragedy that a country with as many nukes as Canada has soldiers couldn't come up with an adequate plan to stabilize a country. Is it not then the falt of the country that floundered the oppurtunity to help millions, by spending more time creating Bush sh*t about Atomic weather balloons then planing the liberation of a persecuted people.

Removing weapons of mass destruction from an evil dictator is a good reason to go to war, but no WOMD have been removed from an evil dictator, Removing tyrrany from power is a good reason unfortuantley It was replaced with incompetence, wich has not been much better. Humanitarian reasons are a great idea but we never heard much about them from bush he didn't make them a prioirty in his speeches and it appears as if he didn't make them much of a priority in his plans for Iraq. Sure lets stabilize a country, how many car bombs would you like with that? The problem with all of these reason's is that none of them have occured or rather taken place.

Your attempt to Justify war for oil is disturbing, I don't care how much oil climbs to Per/barrell it will never out weight Human life, The U.S didn't need to secure it's oil imports, as Saudi Arabia, Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and Nigeria are the top 5 exporters of Oil to the U.S (fairly stable-no iraq), all other countries would be minor players in the U.S oil markets.(http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030919.html, incase you wanted to see for yourself). So simply put, it would not be to secure their current imports or even their Oil a war in Iraq with oil as a reason would be to eliminate their current partners and commandeer their oil, certainly not justafiable.

[caesar]

Quote: " Of all the reasons stated by the United States for going to war with Iraq, be they WMD, removing tryany, humanitarian reasons, putting stability in a ass backwards region, etc etc..........I've yet to heard what is the problem with any of these above reasons......

I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not really serious are you???? The oil belongs to Iraq not the USA. Now you are losing any credibility that you had.

I guess, you believe that the USA has a right to invade Canada and take our oil too if they think they may need it? Geeesh,

[idealisttotheend]

Hey Stoker. Your house is an important part of my economy. I think I'll protect it by coming over and occupying it since it is so important me. You agree I assume.

I hope you are one of those people who says silly things just get a rise out of people. But then your posts in CND/US relations don't seem to indicate that so I can't wait to read your further arguments to put the world under the hegemony of the United States.

[takeanumber]

Hey Idealist:

If you're locking your kid in a crib and making him eat his feces, or if you're wailing and raping your wife...you better believe that I'm going to come over to your house.

It doesn't matter that you're 'contained' within your house. What you'd be doing would be wrong, and since I had the ability to drag you out into the street, I'd do that to liberate the family.

(speaking metaphorically)

You CAN be liberal and not be an evil lying feces-chucking Conservative AND have a sense of morality to defend people who can't defend themselves.

[idealisttotheend]

Stoker's argument was that controlling the oil was a valid reason for invading Iraq even if it was the primary reason (irregarless of all other possible factors including locking babies in cribs)>

[takeanumber]

Stoker is wrong when it comes to economic self determination.

That's called Imperalism Stoker.

And we all know it.

Taking your metaphor about the homes and applying it to human rights abuses stands though.

I really don't think Bush went to war in Iraq because of human rights though. He went out of selfishness and started using the liberal arguement only when it was convinient. (As did most of the feces chucking Cons in Canada...changing their logic only after the facts on the ground didn't mesh with their realist world view.)

[idealisttotheend]

I really don't think Bush went to war in Iraq because of human rights though. He went out of selfishness and started using the liberal arguement only when it was convinient. (As did most of the feces chucking Cons in Canada...changing their logic only after the facts on the ground didn't mesh with their realist world view.)

Agreed. Many people also still believe Bush's terrorist connection fantasy also which speaks well to the power of the media.

[takeanumber]

The media was totally asleep on this one.

I'm glad that the NYTimes apologized and we're going to see more 'vigilence'.

But there Bush goes again, raising the terror level, for political gains.

It's just sick what he's doing. Just sick.

And the media is still eating it up. lol.

[Stoker]

Your attempt to Justify war for oil is disturbing, I don't care how much oil climbs to Per/barrell it will never out weight Human life, The U.S didn't need to secure it's oil imports, as Saudi Arabia, Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and Nigeria are the top 5 exporters of Oil to the U.S (fairly stable-no iraq), all other countries would be minor players in the U.S oil markets.(http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030919.html, incase you wanted to see for yourself). So simply put, it would not be to secure their current imports or even their Oil a war in Iraq with oil as a reason would be to eliminate their current partners and commandeer their oil, certainly not justafiable.

AND

You are not really serious are you???? The oil belongs to Iraq not the USA. Now you are losing any credibility that you had.

I guess, you believe that the USA has a right to invade Canada and take our oil too if they think they may need it? Geeesh,

AND

Hey Stoker. Your house is an important part of my economy. I think I'll protect it by coming over and occupying it since it is so important me. You agree I assume.

Where did I say that the "Big Bad United States" was going to steal Iraqi Oil?

Right then, what I did say:

I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it?

Again, whats wrong with making sure that ones intrests can flourish within a stable enviroment? Is it wrong that we, among many other nations, went to war against Iraq in 1991 so as to free Kuwait and secure Saudi Oil fields?

And to dumb it down for those that need it......Would it be a bad thing if the police made a secure enviroment so a consumer can purchase goods from a merchant?

[takeanumber]

What's wrong with it?

Uh...this is the problem with the Realist thesis.

It just doesn't capture the ethical problems of Imperialism.

There is plenty wrong with it.

[caesar]

quote:..Would it be a bad thing if the police made a secure enviroment so a consumer can purchase goods from a merchant------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly would be bad if those "police" are from another country with no authority or business being there.

I guess, Alberta should be next. Lots of oil there to ensure is delivered safely to the good old USA.

You can't be serious!!!

[Stoker]

What's wrong with it?

Uh...this is the problem with the Realist thesis.

It just doesn't capture the ethical problems of Imperialism.

There is plenty wrong with it.

So if there is plenty wrong with it, you should have no problem stating the wrongs...........

Please explain........how I see it, the United States gets a stable source of Oil that it needs and Iraqi's get democracy and oil revenue and if needed the support of the worlds only superpower.......whats wrong with that?

It certainly would be bad if those "police" are from another country with no authority or business being there.

I guess, Alberta should be next. Lots of oil there to ensure is delivered safely to the good old USA.

You can't be serious!!!

Why is it bad that the "Police" are from another country?

WRT Alberta's oil, I don't see no need as to why the United States would need to insure it's stablity? Are there some form of Anti-US insurgents at work in Alberta disrupting the US-Alberta trade relationship?

[idealisttotheend]

Sorry, I'll change my analogy. Your house is important to my economy. So I'll secure it and the protect the real estate agent who comes to sell it to one of my friends. You'll get the money and the people who are securing it for me will protect you from any burglurs while they're there and you are in the house.

Sounds fair to me. I like stable house prices and a secured market.

[Stoker]

Sorry, I'll change my analogy. Your house is important to my economy. So I'll secure it and the protect the real estate agent who comes to sell it to one of my friends. You'll get the money and the people who are securing it for me will protect you from any burglurs while they're there and you are in the house.

Sounds fair to me. I like stable house prices and a secured market.

Let's try this:

Iraq is the coffee shop owner

The United States is the Policeman and a customer

The majority of the world are customers also

The Terrorists/insurgents are the crack addicts/hobos

Crack Addit comes and disrupts the sale of coffee to the public. This pisses off the coffee shop owner and the public. Policeman comes and deals with crack addict, thus allow the sale of coffee again. Coffee shop owner makes money, the public gets it's morning brew.

No where in there is the Policeman taking money out of the shop owners till or stealing coffee...........just like how the States isn't taking the Iraqi oil money or outright stealing their oil.

[Slavik44]

Where did I say that the "Big Bad United States" was going to steal Iraqi Oil?

Right then, what I did say:

I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it?

Again, whats wrong with making sure that ones intrests can flourish within a stable enviroment? Is it wrong that we, among many other nations, went to war against Iraq in 1991 so as to free Kuwait and secure Saudi Oil fields?

And to dumb it down for those that need it......Would it be a bad thing if the police made a secure enviroment so a consumer can purchase goods from a merchant?

Who says Iraq's oil needs secured? did Iraq ask you to secure it? Why is it neccasary to secure iraq oil when iraq plays a very minor role in U.S oil imports. Of course you must be a big fan of the Soviet Union and their acts to secure Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968, after all they were simpley protecting their interests, and securing them as they were essential tot he soviet Union's well being. Which by the way Iraqi oil is not essential to the survival of the U.S, not even 7% of America's oil imports came from iraq, hardly worth securing, hardly in need of securing, it is like beating up a kid to acquire one tenth of a carrot for lunch, no i think you would grab the Sandwich while you are at it. Again this is ridiculous we have gone from denying War for oil to embracing the idea.

As for your analogies, they are missing the one small part, where the gun is held to the guys head and he is forced to sell the house.

[Slavik44]

Sorry, I'll change my analogy. Your house is important to my economy. So I'll secure it and the protect the real estate agent who comes to sell it to one of my friends. You'll get the money and the people who are securing it for me will protect you from any burglurs while they're there and you are in the house.

Sounds fair to me. I like stable house prices and a secured market.

Let's try this:

Iraq is the coffee shop owner

The United States is the Policeman and a customer

The majority of the world are customers also

The Terrorists/insurgents are the crack addicts/hobos

Crack Addit comes and disrupts the sale of coffee to the public. This pisses off the coffee shop owner and the public. Policeman comes and deals with crack addict, thus allow the sale of coffee again. Coffee shop owner makes money, the public gets it's morning brew.

No where in there is the Policeman taking money out of the shop owners till or stealing coffee...........just like how the States isn't taking the Iraqi oil money or outright stealing their oil.

no you wouldn't want to steal something out right, that would be wrong, but killing a crack addict and a hobo dismissing the managment of the cofee shop, replacing it, and then forcing them to sell coffe only to the police is moral and honest.

[caesar]

Okay; enough of the nonsense. A policeman is not a policeman outside of his jurisdiction. Iraqis are not crack addicts and you have no right shooting anyone. Let's get back to reality.

[Slavik44]

Okay; enough of the nonsense. A policeman is not a policeman outside of his jurisdiction. Iraqis are not crack addicts and you have no right shooting anyone. Let's get back to reality.

you havent been to downtown vancouver lately have you?

[idealisttotheend]

Crack Addit comes and disrupts the sale of coffee to the public. This pisses off the coffee shop owner and the public. Policeman comes and deals with crack addict, thus allow the sale of coffee again. Coffee shop owner makes money, the public gets it's morning brew.

In civil society the police come when the coffee shop owner calls them and acts according to rules set by a higher authority (the lawmakers). The coffee shop owner remains in effective control over his premisis.

Your example is that of a police state. The police come when they feel like it and act how they wish which is also in their best interests since you admit they are a customer. The police define who is a "crack addict" and is killed and who is not. The police decide who sells what to whom. This is effectively economic totalitarianism and effectively imperialism.

In reality, the "coffee shop" owners (OPEC countries) don't seems to like the police very much and don't call them. Therefore the police can not be seen to be acting begningly,

In any case, tell me is Iraq selling more or less oil now than pre war? Would you call the Iraq oil supply secure. Any oil pipeline/refinery repair companies likely to go out of buisness in the new future in Iraq. And what about post 1991, how much oil did Iraq sell then, the public .

[Stoker]

no you wouldn't want to steal something out right, that would be wrong, but killing a crack addict and a hobo dismissing the managment of the cofee shop, replacing it, and then forcing them to sell coffe only to the police is moral and honest.

Who did the United States "pick" as leader of Iraq? Didn't the Iraq government choose the leader and then come Janurary, won't the Iraqi people pick their leader?

And do you have proof that Iraq can only sell Oil to the United States?

In civil society the police come when the coffee shop owner calls them and acts according to rules set by a higher authority (the lawmakers). The coffee shop owner remains in effective control over his premisis.

So we could call the United Nations the higher authority, and with that the case then, I suggest you go read 1441.

Your example is that of a police state. The police come when they feel like it and act how they wish which is also in their best interests since you admit they are a customer. The police define who is a "crack addict" and is killed and who is not. The police decide who sells what to whom. This is effectively economic totalitarianism and effectively imperialism.

Police State? The United States has already stated that if the new Iraq government wants them gone, they will leave........how's that a "police state"?

In reality, the "coffee shop" owners (OPEC countries) don't seems to like the police very much and don't call them. Therefore the police can not be seen to be acting begningly,

And why do you think other owners don't like the police? Could it be that the police are ensuring that the "workers" (Iraq people) at the new "Iraqi shop" have rights, as opposed to the coffee shop workers?

In any case, tell me is Iraq selling more or less oil now than pre war? Would you call the Iraq oil supply secure. Any oil pipeline/refinery repair companies likely to go out of buisness in the new future in Iraq. And what about post 1991, how much oil did Iraq sell then, the public .

I don't know the exact figures (I find them tonight when I get home from work), but yes, they are slowing getting back to the level of production that they had pre 1991. And the major difference, between now and since Saddam took power, is that the Iraqi people will be the ones reaping the benifits of their nations oil.

So we have the Iraqi's getting freedom and oil revenue, and the Americans and the rest of the west are planting the seeds of stability (democracy) in the middle east.........whats wrong with this? Please i ask any of you..

[idealisttotheend]

I was possibly being overly rhetorical. I was refering to this regarding the oil:

Attacks on two pipelines and personel

Another attack not two hours ago on a pipeline

Note that this effectively shut down exports and is pushing world prices up. It is likely to be repeated and was done with inside help. The oil supply does not seem all that secure to me and it's very hard/expensive to guard pipelines once they are identified by the terrorists/insurgents etc.

As to post 1991, I was refering to sanctions against Iraq. If the US intended to keep the oil flowing why the crippling sanctions.

I will look for the oil numbers since I posted about them.

Graph on pg 5 shows that exports dropped from 1 billion barrels a day to almost nil as a result of the US led embargo against the Iraqis

This article puts oil revenues at 11 billion for the last 12 month period'

[caesar]

I believe that it is the threaten closure of the Russian oil producer that is driving up oil prices.

[Slavik44]

no you wouldn't want to steal something out right, that would be wrong, but killing a crack addict and a hobo dismissing the managment of the cofee shop, replacing it, and then forcing them to sell coffe only to the police is moral and honest.

Who did the United States "pick" as leader of Iraq? Didn't the Iraq government choose the leader and then come Janurary, won't the Iraqi people pick their leader?

And do you have proof that Iraq can only sell Oil to the United States?

okay, if you get rid of a leader, you have no leader, but then a new leader comes to power, that would be replacing a leader, you simply misinterpreted what I said.

The second one i appologize for I was inferring that the police were the people who invaded Iraq, after all more countries then the U.S are involved as "policemen" in Iraq. And no I don't have proof that the U.S will only sell oil to the Invaders, however you implied that the U.S was invading Iraq to secure oil. As the U.S gets very littel oil from Iraq, it can be logical implied that Iraq would export more oil to the U.S.(currently 6% of U.S oil Imports come from Iraq)

***http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

You don't invade a country, sentence 1,000 of your people to death to fight for 6% of your oil imports.

[caesar]

quote:You don't invade a country, sentence 1,000 of your people to death to fight for 6% of your oil imports "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Today 6%; tomorrow ?????? There are future considerations to be made.

[Stoker]

Note that this effectively shut down exports and is pushing world prices up. It is likely to be repeated and was done with inside help. The oil supply does not seem all that secure to me and it's very hard/expensive to guard pipelines once they are identified by the terrorists/insurgents etc.

Did the United States blow-up the pipelines? Did the Iraq government blow-up the pipelines? Or did terrorists that fear a soveregin Iraq aided by the United States led coalition blow-up the pipelines?

Is the United States trying to prevent the destruction of Iraqi pipelines? Is the Iraqi government trying to prevent the destruction of their oil fields via the new Iraqi army and police force? Are the terrorists trying to prevent the destruction of the pipelines?

Is the United States rebuilding Iraq's only really industry to speak of, at the great cost of lives and money? Is the Iraqi government rebuilding Iraq's only really industry to speak of, at the great cost of lives and money? Are the terrorists trying to rebuild Iraq's number one industry?

Is the United States working toward a positive outcome for the Iraqi people? Is the Iraqi government working toward a positive future for the people of Iraq? Are the terrorists working for a positive future for the people of Iraq?

Who are the bad guys?

The second one i appologize for I was inferring that the police were the people who invaded Iraq, after all more countries then the U.S are involved as "policemen" in Iraq. And no I don't have proof that the U.S will only sell oil to the Invaders, however you implied that the U.S was invading Iraq to secure oil. As the U.S gets very littel oil from Iraq, it can be logical implied that Iraq would export more oil to the U.S.(currently 6% of U.S oil Imports come from Iraq)

***http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

You don't invade a country, sentence 1,000 of your people to death to fight for 6% of your oil imports.

First off, I wish to thank you for adding another "round to my chamber" to those that say that the United States went into Iraq for their oil.

Second, I didn't imply that the United States went into Iraq for Iraqi oil, I said it, but from the postion of one playing devils advocate.

Third, again thank-you for pointing out how absurd it is to think that this war was about oil, it's about the several thousand Americans that died almost three years ago. As I've been saying in many threads at this site, since I first started posting here, the United States did not go into Iraq for Oil.