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 [*] 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?
This doesn’t logically follow from what I said. You also could have easily figured the meaning of the statement in context without undue hardship (the * above is me taking out the extraneous word as I was about to say it differently and decided to change without recognizing my error.) The sentence is straight forward. Perhaps you have a different cultural background that leads you to interpret things the way you expect to hear them locally. Or, you’re just being an ass?
Either way, no, the ‘therefore’ and what follows in your sentence doesn’t follow my reasoning nor the way I presented it. I was particular not to present anything that posits anything I do not know (like whether oil was in fact a number one reason for war or not) throughout this debate. It is you who asserted a positive denial that oil was an irrelevant issue. The burden is on you to prove this rationale. My basis in argument has only attempted to show how (a), you’re not supporting your case with positive evidence, (b) it is a viable possibility that oil could possibly be a real issue considering that you are bullying VYAZMA and myself that such a thought is so trivially silly: It is not possible for an angel like the U.S. under Bush to actually be guilty of misconduct is your implied message.
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?
Cool. Let it be understood loud and clear that you accept that Bush, his administration, or other American influences have just as much capability to be deceptive as the rest of us. This means it is possible for them to have gone to war on illegitimate grounds considering they not only claimed other reasons for war, but denied that they were going in for oil.
1) I presented the assumption that the U.S. did not go to war for oil and then asked you pointed references to North Korea, Rwanda, and Somalia as being more of a concern humanitarian-wise and threat-wise for which you only responded to Nigeria, a country that I don’t think fits these others to this extreme. Please address this. Also, why does the United States not stand against Israel for their humanitarian bullying of the Palestinians and recognize that for them being such a tiny country, they have an extremely imbalanced power of military might equal to that of the U.S. or China?
2) Why did the U.S. Bush administration, et al. communicate in ways that were so obviously deceptive to audiences everywhere?
(a) Ignore responding directly to questions that were pointed and refused platform for skepticism.
(b) Used repetition of words and statements that they didn’t qualify with explanation; They were emotionally charged words that used clear advertising and propaganda techniques aimed at associating hatred of 9/11, the victims, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden to Iraq, non-stop and unapologetically. Most of these politicians are very well versed in rhetoric, logic, and sufficient experience to know that what they said to the public media would not pass an opposite critical analysis amongst each other. So they were purposely being deceptive.
(c), Any counter argument or presentation of their claims that were proven false by external sources only met with convenient finger-pointing to some other non-accountable source. And they only admitted faults when they were proven false externally. They used Bush’s down-to-earth drinkin’ buddy personality to appear clumsy and daft to sell the idea that the government is ‘stupider’ than the public. The purposely plied the Jackass appeal of the public to present an appearance of plausibility to justify any mistakes they could make.
3)The Republican ideology aims toward less government with the emphasis on delimiting business and removing social structures. Their claim is to reduce taxes but this rhetoric is merely its selling feature. The function is to transfer the power of the people to the aristocratic interests of particular businesses and the churches that foster dependency to them as well as maintain authoritarian rule (laws based on moral rules dictated by religious authors). They are thus experts at manipulation. So how could they actually be so truly stupid by how they appear to behave? Why would they pick a clumsy appearing George Bush to represent them? It’s mockery and a joke to those of us who understand their motives. It suggests that they will go to any means to an end. How do you respond to this seriously, without ridicule or distraction? Just going to slough it off too?
4)There are various documentaries that show how the Bush administration and company used their power to hand off absolutely ridiculously expensive contracts to their friends and associates for war contracts given to private authority, away from public accountability. How do you justify this as evidence for actual deceptive practices by nearly every government official? [see War Profiteering]
5)Oil controls: Prior to Iraq’s invasion, external oil contracts were not allowed to maintain their sovereignty over their resources. Now, it is open to external powers to provide the contracting to their resources. With their oil infrastructure destroyed throughout the war, the Iraqi’s are now dependent upon utilizing these large multinational contractors. They will only be guaranteed to get a royalty of their raw resources, now, as these other companies profits above and beyond the initial resource costs are now theirs. This virtually takes the control away from the Iraqi population.
Iraq Petroleum Company
Iraq National Oil Company
Oil in Iraq- Global Policy Forum
The Iraqi war is largely about Oil
Is this sufficient evidence for you to work with?