McCain Implies Iraq War is for Oil

[Dinner]

If he's not a neo-conservative he's sure endorsed a lot of Bush's neo-conservative positions during this election. I liked McCain back in 2000 but he's flip flopped on torture, on Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, on deficit spending, an warrentless wire tapping, he used to denounce people like Falwell & Hagee and now he says he's proud of them.

The man seems to have abandoned his most principled positions in order to get the approval of people he formerly said he despised.

[Imran Siddiqui]

he's sure endorsed a lot of Bush's neo-conservative positions

I don't think I've seen McCain advocate overthrowing governments to spread democracy and freedom. Even his comments on Iran were about American interests.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And this story really won't go anywhere, because I think the lesson of Iraq is that we should persue a realist foriegn policy and only go into places where our national interest is paramount.

Iraq was/is for oil too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
If McCain had won the 2000 election, I doubt we'd have invaded Iraq. It's hard to construct a "realist" case for invasion. Even if one did (it would have to be based on the imagined/overblown WMD threat), it would've been a different war. Invade, topple, leave. Not to say that would've been better for the average Iraqi (hard to say, really), but it would certainly have been better for US. Best of all, of course, was to avoid invading at all. That goes w/o saying, but this being 'poly, I figured I'd say it just to be clear

-Arrian

He voted for the invasion.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If he's not a neo-conservative he's sure endorsed a lot of Bush's neo-conservative positions during this election. I liked McCain back in 2000 but he's flip flopped on torture, on Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy, on deficit spending, an warrentless wire tapping, he used to denounce people like Falwell & Hagee and now he says he's proud of them.

The man seems to have abandoned his most principled positions in order to get the approval of people he formerly said he despised.

I've let go of my irritation over his sucking up to Falwell & Co. It's something he had to do, and I forgive him. I don't believe it for a second - he's a big fat liar He still thinks those guys are *******s.

The torture and wiretapping positions piss me off. The tax breaks too, to a slightly lesser extent (though I'm generally Jacks frothing rage over the consistent borrow & spend fiscal policy). He's also more hawkish than I'd like, though at least in a "realist" sort of way. That's better than the "we'll remake reality as we see fit" of the neo-cons.

Anyway, I'm not voting for the guy, and I do prefer (the more honest, IMO) 2000 version.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

He voted for the invasion.

He, Hillary and most of the Congress voted to approve the use of force by the President. It was a ****up, no doubt about it.

However, I think that had he been in the Oval Office, a lot of the neo-con mumbo jumbo would've been ignored. I think a theoretical McCain administration would've had a better appreciation for the difficulties of an invasion (their concept of what was "doable" would've been more sober). Generals who said we needed half a million troops wouldn't have been fired. Higher required troop levels, incidently = need for more allies. If those allies balked at invasion (as they did), a reasonable President would re-assess. Tough talk, maybe a redesign of the sanctions... maybe an airstrike or two.

With a more sober assessment of the situation, I think McCain would've been a lot more likely to accept either continued containment or an invasion with different goals.

Hey, I'm guessing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe McCain would've gotten us into the very same mess. :shrug:

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
However, I think that had he been in the Oval Office, a lot of the neo-con mumbo jumbo would've been ignored.

"neo-con mumbo jumbo" is just typical lies from our government. You still don't get it do you. They tell us we have to go to war for freedom and democracy when it's only about oil. This isn't about neo-con's in the least bit. It would do you well to ignore all this crap about neo-cons. Our government is lying to us, and McCain is clearly lying to us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is it exactly only about oil? If it was for oil, then it really didn't work out all that well, did it? The only way oil factors into it is because the ME only matters because of oil.

I don't think McCain, or Gore, would have gotten us involved in Iraq. Neither would have ignored the people who were saying it isn't a great idea and neither would have surrounded themselves with neocon idealists.

[Patroklos]

on Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy

I am curious, is this a hardwired bug for you to repeat this fallacy over and over again, of can it be moded?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is it exactly only about oil?

It doesn't make sense to say we did it for freedom and oil. First, they lied. They never said originally it was for oil. Is that what you call freedom? Second, killing for oil is the opposite of fighting for freedom. You can't fight for oil and freedom at the same time. You can't be a democracy and an empire at the same time. So this is doublespeak. They are saying they are fighting for freedom when in fact they are only fighting for oil. Saying you are fighting for freedom only, and fighting for oil is only fighting for oil. A tyrant claiming to be benevolent is just a tyrant.

If it was for oil, then it really didn't work out all that well, did it? The only way oil factors into it is because the ME only matters because of oil.

Listen to yourself, "the ME only matters because of oil." The ME matters because of people. That's the principle that this country claims to stand for. It doesn't stand for that, but that doesn't make it untrue.

I don't think McCain, or Gore, would have gotten us involved in Iraq. Neither would have ignored the people who were saying it isn't a great idea and neither would have surrounded themselves with neocon idealists.

Why did McCain for for the invasion then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It doesn't make sense to say we did it for freedom and oil. First, they lied. They never said originally it was for oil. Is that what you call freedom? Second, killing for oil is the opposite of fighting for freedom. You can't fight for oil and freedom at the same time. You can't be a democracy and an empire at the same time. So this is doublespeak. They are saying they are fighting for freedom when in fact they are only fighting for oil. Saying you are fighting for freedom only, and fighting for oil is only fighting for oil. A tyrant claiming to be benevolent is just a tyrant.

That doesn't answer my question. How is it only for oil? Because if that is what the war was about, we did extremely poorly, because we really didn't take the oil or utilize it to pay for the costs of the invasion or anything.

So how was the fight for oil? And if it was for oil, where is the payoff?

Listen to yourself, "the ME only matters because of oil." The ME matters because of people. That's the principle that this country claims to stand for. It doesn't stand for that, but that doesn't make it untrue.

The ME only matters because of oil. I say it again because its true. Without the oil, the ME is as relevent to US foriegn policy as subsaharan Africa.

Non-intervention of foriegn affairs is also a principle the US used to stand for. We have gotten engaged in things beyond our borders, mostly, because our interests were in trouble.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It doesn't make sense to say we did it for freedom and oil. First, they lied. They never said originally it was for oil. Is that what you call freedom? Second, killing for oil is the opposite of fighting for freedom. You can't fight for oil and freedom at the same time. You can't be a democracy and an empire at the same time. So this is doublespeak. They are saying they are fighting for freedom when in fact they are only fighting for oil. Saying you are fighting for freedom only, and fighting for oil is only fighting for oil. A tyrant claiming to be benevolent is just a tyrant.

That doesn't answer my question. How is it only for oil? Because if that is what the war was about, we did extremely poorly, because we really didn't take the oil or utilize it to pay for the costs of the invasion or anything.

So how was the fight for oil? And if it was for oil, where is the payoff?

The payoff is that we have more control over the oil. Simple question: simple answer.

Listen to yourself, "the ME only matters because of oil." The ME matters because of people. That's the principle that this country claims to stand for. It doesn't stand for that, but that doesn't make it untrue.

The ME only matters because of oil. I say it again because its true. Without the oil, the ME is as relevent to US foriegn policy as subsaharan Africa.

What about freedom and equality? That's not relevent to the US?

Non-intervention of foriegn affairs is also a principle the US used to stand for. We have gotten engaged in things beyond our borders, mostly, because our interests were in trouble.

You are assuming that the US actually stands for principles. I said the US "claims" to stand for principles. The US doesn't have any principles. It's all bull****. From the day our ships landed in this land until the present they US has never lived up to any principles.

[Arrian]

The payoff is that we have more control over the oil. Simple question: simple answer.

It doesn't seem to be working out that way.

I do think that many in the government hoped for good oil deals from a friendly Iraqi quasi-democracy. Like everything else, this seems to have been a miscalculation.

What about freedom and equality? That's not relevent to the US?

Those things are usually pretty far down our foreign policy checklist.

There is a group of people who argued that spreading freedom and democracy (not equality) by the sword would, in fact, benifit us. Those people are neocons. You would have us ignore their role in this. I see them as relevant to the discussion.

You are assuming that the US actually stands for principles. I said the US "claims" to stand for principles. The US doesn't have any principles. It's all bull****. From the day our ships landed in this land until the present they US has never lived up to any principles.

There have been moments. I'd like to see more. The trouble is that international relations tends to make a mess of principles. If you're too principled, you get nothing done and piss everyone else off. If just go along to get along, well, you're not very principled are you? Further, your principles don't match very well with even the "pretend" principles of the US, so even if our foreign policy were principled you'd probably be pissed off.

Pick any nation on the planet that has ever been vaguely powerful. Examine their principles. Examine their actions. It's a depressing exercise. Those who match up well are guys like the Mongols, for whatever that's worth.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The payoff is that we have more control over the oil. Simple question: simple answer.

But we don't. Now, perhaps if we had our oil companies take over we would. But we didn't.

What about freedom and equality? That's not relevent to the US?

Perhaps at home, but abroad? Only to the neo-cons as Arrian pointed out and liberal foriegn policy folk (who want freedom and equality, but through international organizations).

You are assuming that the US actually stands for principles. I said the US "claims" to stand for principles. The US doesn't have any principles. It's all bull****. From the day our ships landed in this land until the present they US has never lived up to any principles.

The US does stand for principles. Those principles aren't exactly the same in the domestic sphere and foriegn affairs sphere.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
unanalized

Ouch, is that even medically possible?