Iraq War Not About Oil and Other Fables

Just saw this little piece on Yahoo news; the Secretary of Defense has come out and blasted Alan Greenspan for saying the war in Iraq was "mainly about oil."
This is what Greenspan wrote:

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy," Greenspan wrote.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," added Greenspan, who for decades had been one of the most respected U.S. voices on fiscal policies.

Gates just pulls out the tired WMD argument:

"I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said.

"After all, Saddam Hussein launched wars against several of his neighbors," Gates said. "He was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, certainly when we went in, in 1991."

I know we already have enough to argue about on this forum, but it makes me really angry to see the refusal to face facts that's going on in Washington.

Ironic comment in the same article:

Gates's defense came a day after thousands of anti-war protesters marched in Washington. A spokeswoman for one of the groups who organized the march said more than 200 protesters were taken into custody, including at least 10 Iraq war veterans, when they attempted to cross a police barrier near the U.S. Capitol.

Randolph Bourne said,"War Is the Health of the State". I was hoping Gates would make a counter attack," central bankers magically turn lead into gold through financing wars". ha ha

I love the "I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," quote. Really? OK, why aren't we in the Sudan now? Where were we during Rwanda? Shouldn't we be invading North Korea and Iran right now? Puh-leeze.

btw a sidenote..but can police in the states just arrest people like that? You are free to hold a demonstration but you will have to do it in a very spesific place or you are arrested?

Everyone in the US has the right to protest anything they want, Dez. But not any way they want. They need to maintain civility. Local governments often have their own ideas about that and create laws to set standards. Whenever protesters get arrested over here, it's usually because police decided they were creating a civil disturbance in violation of local laws. More often than not they were asked to comply and refused.

Ah okey sounds reasonable and makes sense even. I quess its much like here in Europe.

About the anti-war arrests—I've been trying to find an impartial account of what happened at that rally, Dez. I think Squeek has described it fairly accurately. There's no doubt there was a large armed police presence, that protesters did cross police barricades, and that many were "voluntarily" arrested—that is, their aim was to draw attention to their cause by being arrested. There was also a smaller but very vocal pro-war group present and part of the barricading was done to keep the two groups apart and avoid general mayhem.

If you'd like to read more detail, here's my google search with umpteen different versions.

And contrary to what some would have you think, in this age of cell phone cameras catching everything, police are actually pretty cautious about stuff … unlike in the 60's where they would respond much less … um … respectflly.

Of course it's about oil. That's what Europeans here had always suggested, even in the early timnes of war.

The most evident proof was when the ministry of oilö was safely guarded meanwhile the national treasures museum of Iraq was severely robbed and plundered and scavenged.

This is a think I can nevever forgive, never ever. You shhould've witnessed the wave of shock running through archaeological circle throughout he world after learning this.

And I take my "Old Europe" with a bitter pride.

Yes,I think the destruction of the past is one of the most terrible side-effects of war. The library at Alexandria in ancient times, the art thefts of WWII, and many more. One of the most recent examples that comes to mind is the destruction of the ancient Buddhas carved in the rock face of an Afghanistan mountain by the Taliban.

Originally Posted by magerette
Yes,I think the destruction of the past is one of the most terrible side-effects of war. The library at Alexandria in ancient times, the art thefts of WWII, and many more. One of the most recent examples that comes to mind is the destruction of the ancient Buddhas carved in the rock face of an Afghanistan mountain by the Taliban.

Don't need war for idiocies like that. My country wiped out three-quarters of our building heritage in the 1960's and 1970's. There are very few small towns where the center isn't a concrete-paved square surrounded by dismal, low concrete-glass-and-rusting-steel boxes.

Yes, the destruction of those Bhuddas is also something I grief for.

And what's worse is that they believe they are RIGHT.

Of course they do. Religious intolerance is normally displayed through extremism!! I may disagree with other people's beliefs, but at least I respect them for believing in something!! I can admire statues/art/etc of a 'religious' nature as what it is, ART without being offended by it. Let's hope they never get to Egypt.

The art done in the name of religion is some of the most amazing stuff throughout history … it is always sad when it is destroyed.

Originally Posted by Corwin
Of course they do. Religious intolerance is normally displayed through extremism!! I may disagree with other people's beliefs, but at least I respect them for believing in something!! I can admire statues/art/etc of a 'religious' nature as what it is, ART without being offended by it. Let's hope they never get to Egypt.

They did get to Egypt, on several occasions and in several flavors. Who do you think burned down the library of Alexandria or defaced just about every statue and wall relief that's above ground and not in the middle of the desert?

Originally Posted by Corwin
Of course they do. Religious intolerance is normally displayed through extremism!!

I recently heard that - as I read - convertists tend to be more abnd rather extreme in their religious beliefs than people who have "grown up" in that religion.
This piece of text occurred during the arrestment of several wannabe-terrorists here in Germany, only one or two weeks ago.
Some of them seem to be convertists, actually, as the press wrote.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I recently heard that - as I read - convertists tend to be more abnd rather extreme in their religious beliefs than people who have "grown up" in that religion.
This piece of text occurred during the arrestment of several wannabe-terrorists here in Germany, only one or two weeks ago.
Some of them seem to be convertists, actually, as the press wrote.

I think that's rather natural, really. If you're born into a religion, most likely it'll just become a part of your identity as a matter of course; you won't really have to make any huge effort of will to examine and accept what it represents and teaches. OTOH converting into (or out of) a religion is a huge psychological effort, often a life-changing crisis even. That means that you will be very deeply committed to the principles of whatever screed you end up espousing.

Converts don't get the benefit of their parents' perspective and wisdom as it relates to their religion, and that's a huge disadvantage. They're new, and that's that.