• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ralph Nader on Big Oil and the War on Iraq.

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
From a recent article by Nader...

  • Despite the costs and dangers to innocent civilians, one powerful administration constituency stands to benefit from a unilateral war in Iraq that results in a U.S.-led regime change. That constituency is the oil industry, whose slick influence and crude ambitions permeate the administration from top to bottom.

    Both the President and the Vice President are former oil executives. National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice is a former director of Chevron. President Bush took more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries in the 2000 election. All told, 41 members of the administration had ties to the oil industry.

    U.S. oil companies, banned from Iraq for more than a decade, would like nothing more than to control the production of Iraqi oil. With reserves of 112.5 billion barrels, Iraq sits on top of 11% of the world's oil.
    Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ill.) are two of the many politicians who have the question of who will control Iraq's petroleum on their minds.

    Plans for control of the oil fields are already being laid. The Wall Street Journal reported on January 16 that officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Slumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war oil bonanza. But no one wants to talk about it.

    Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation told the Journal, "If we go to war, it's not about oil. But the day the war ends, it has everything to do with oil."

    The American people have a right to know what role the oil industry is playing in Bush's increasingly frenetic drive to war. What is being discussed in these meetings regarding the oil industry's designs on this gigantic pool of petroleum?

    The American people also have a right to know what was discussed in the numerous secret meetings Vice President Cheney's national energy task force held with oil and gas executives. Cheney has been adamantly secretive about these meetings, despite repeated attempts by Congress and public interest groups to learn what was discussed.

    Cheney's energy policy casts as inevitable that we will have to import 17 million barrels of oil a day (two-thirds of our supply) by 2020 and subsequently recommends "that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy."

    It does not recommend specific goals for conservation anytime in the near future. Just as Cheney refused to meet with anybody but industry cronies in formulating the national energy policy, Bush is now refusing to entertain the counsel of anyone but war hawks. Repeated entreaties by national peace groups, including veterans, clergy, and business groups, for meetings with the President have fallen on ears deaf to anything but the constant beating of war drums.

    While it would be naive to label this purely as a war for oil, the apparent connections are enough to raise some serious questions. And when coupled with the Administration's frighteningly stubborn insistence on ignoring the caution signs pouring in from all sides, those questions become even more serious.
Fair comment.

Some excellent points there, IMHO. :cool:
 

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
How, exactly, is it "uneducated"? What, specifically, is "uneducated" about it? Perhaps you could point out the errors?

In order for the oil theory to be discounted as totally unreasonable, we would require:
  • Nader to know absolutely nothing about the subject on which he is speaking.
  • The facts to be totally contrary to such a theory.
  • The oil companies to be totally disinterested in the entire affair.
  • Bush and his administration to have absolutely no ties to Big Oil.
But of course, the reverse is true.

QED. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
Hey TheBear,
I've never seen you defend your stand before. You always pass off snide comments whenever someone raises a position that you disagree with. Would you care to actually counter the arguments raised in the article, rather than going the "it's so obvious that anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" road?

thanks
 
Upvote 0
Those who suggest that oil is the primary motivator in this war (not Nader - he said that view was naive), have yet to make a case. They have shown motive and opportunity quite well. They have shown the contradictions and inadequacies in the ostensible motives for war. Clearly there is no falsification of this theory available now. But, there is no proof for it either.

We are right to be skeptical of that claim, but we would be wrong to ignore the possibility that this war is motivated at least in part by the desire to control the petroleum. Especially when the explanations being given to us are insufficient and the proper justifications are not supported by factual evidence.

I am reminded of Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "What in the world could that be?"... "I didn't see anything"... "Never mind. I'll tell you later. First we drink!"
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,653
1,812
✟312,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"Well, it'll be interesting to see how many people wish to address the article in question.

No luck so far."


This said, in mere minutes since the OP. :D

LOL!!! Come on folks! Evangelion is ready to dress you down....He's in a hurry, so act now!!! :D

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
Today at 07:29 PM Jerry Smith said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=662980#post662980)

Those who suggest that oil is the primary motivator in this war (not Nader - he said that view was naive), have yet to make a case. They have shown motive and opportunity quite well. They have shown the contradictions and inadequacies in the ostensible motives for war. Clearly there is no falsification of this theory available now. But, there is no proof for it either.

We are right to be skeptical of that claim, but we would be wrong to ignore the possibility that this war is motivated at least in part by the desire to control the petroleum. Especially when the explanations being given to us are insufficient and the proper justifications are not supported by factual evidence.

I am reminded of Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "What in the world could that be?"... "I didn't see anything"... "Never mind. I'll tell you later. First we drink!"

I agree with you--that's no proof that this war is about oil, and no proof that this war isn't about oil. What we have is mere speculation on the basis that the Bush administration hasn't made a convincing and coherent case for war yet.

One more question: If Iraq were not in the Middle East, and Iraq didn't have 10% of the world's oil reserves--suppose Iraq was in Southern Africa--would Bush still send two hundred thousand troops halfway around the world?
 
Upvote 0

datan

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2002
5,865
100
Visit site
✟6,836.00
Faith
Protestant
and oh...one final question: if tomorrow the United States invaded Iraq, and after months of searching they find no conclusive proof of an active WMD programme, do you think that Bush will withdraw from Iraq "oops! we made a mistake! sorry!", re-instate Saddam as president (if he's still alive, that is?) and apologise to the world for making such a dreadful mistake?
 
Upvote 0