10 reasons why the USA should not attack Iraq - GoFuckYourself.com

Joe Sixpack · 02-12-2003, 07:40 AM

From the libertarian perspective:

10 reasons why the USA should not attack Iraq

Wizzo · 02-12-2003, 07:51 AM

Some decent points, but they ruin the whole thing by making up some stupid bullshit to add to it.... Of the 10, 5 are accurate and 5 are a bunch anti-polical bullshit...

Just like the Dems and GOP, if they would stay with the facts and not try to push their agenda, it would go so much further....

goBigtime · 02-12-2003, 08:06 AM

Bah. I don't get that post, or anything about this war.. other than the fact that saddam is sitting on a shitload of oil (60% or 85% of the middle easts reserves?) and only contributing like 5% or less to oil exports or something?? (I thought I read that somewhere)

For whatever reasons, those numbers suggest were not doing any dealins with the guy (hes unwilling? his prices too high? dunno), yet he has so much oil he can control the market over there just by whipping out an evil grin and a matchbook.

Anyway on that page above they talk about how if we go to war with them, Saddam will feel like there is nothing left to do and will be more likely to use WMD.

But to get SUPPORT for the war, we need support from the UN.

And to get support from the UN, there needs to be evidence of the WMD's that he doesn't have that they say (on that page) he will be more likely to use (if he has them) if we were to force him to via war.

Damnit. I wish I would have voted.

chodadog · 02-12-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
(60% or 85% of the middle easts reserves?)

Officially, Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq. Many experts believe that Iraq's actual oil reservers are much larger than the official numbers, as their oil fields haven't been investigated fully, but i doubt you'll find many that would say they have more oil than Saudi.

Anyways, like i said, Saudi has more oil. 60 or 85 percent is quite simply, wrong.

goBigtime · 02-12-2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chodadog

Officially, Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq. Many experts believe that Iraq's actual oil reservers are much larger than the official numbers, as their oil fields haven't been investigated fully, but i doubt you'll find many that would say they have more oil than Saudi.

Anyways, like i said, Saudi has more oil. 60 or 85 percent is quite simply, wrong.

Yeah I thought I read it somewhere fairly official -- most likely off of a link on drudge. I just couldn't remember the specifics. But the bottom line was, Saddam controls or is sitting on TONS of oil, enough to move the markets, and not selling much of it.

I could see how this could be unacceptable to some people.

kenny · 02-12-2003, 09:09 AM

Its not about oil, they would have taken it the first time if they where concerned about that

chodadog · 02-12-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
I could see how this could be unacceptable to some people.

And here i was thinking it had something to do with trade sanctions.

FATPad · 02-12-2003, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Yeah I thought I read it somewhere fairly official -- most likely off of a link on drudge. I just couldn't remember the specifics. But the bottom line was, Saddam controls or is sitting on TONS of oil, enough to move the markets, and not selling much of it.

I could see how this could be unacceptable to some people.

He's not allowed to sell it.

He's allowed to sell enough oil to buy food and medicine (supposedly) for his people.

chodadog · 02-12-2003, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FATPad
He's allowed to sell enough oil to buy food and medicine (supposedly) for his people.

Even then, the revenue is handled by the UN as part of the Oil-For-Food program.

G Sharp · 02-12-2003, 09:40 AM

Libertarianism is an interesting philosophy. Very American. Unfortunately, it has one weak spot. For it to work, everyone must follow the law and play fairly. Unfortunately, not everyone does this so the "marketplace of human interaction" often tilts towards REGULATION and, ultimately, monopoly. Moreover, it relies on the assumption that all human beings are rational and self-starters. This is not true, quite a few are very dependent and need a strong state to tell them what to do or to provide for them.

Ironhorse · 02-12-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Yeah I thought I read it somewhere fairly official -- most likely off of a link on drudge. I just couldn't remember the specifics. But the bottom line was, Saddam controls or is sitting on TONS of oil, enough to move the markets, and not selling much of it.

I could see how this could be unacceptable to some people.

Iraq is positined to dominate the global oil production by 2030, this assumes some speculation I'm sure as to reserve fields not yet discovered. The russians have a contract to look for oil in Iraq, that's why they joined the 'old europe' bandwagon.

Sarah_Jayne · 02-12-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Damnit. I wish I would have voted.

Well, take it as a lesson and do it from now on. Now we start to see what one vote can do.

02-12-2003, 07:40 AM	#1
Joe Sixpack So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 3,793	10 reasons why the USA should not attack Iraq From the libertarian perspective: 10 reasons why the USA should not attack Iraq

02-12-2003, 07:51 AM	#2
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	Some decent points, but they ruin the whole thing by making up some stupid bullshit to add to it.... Of the 10, 5 are accurate and 5 are a bunch anti-polical bullshit... Just like the Dems and GOP, if they would stay with the facts and not try to push their agenda, it would go so much further.... __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

02-12-2003, 08:06 AM	#3
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	Bah. I don't get that post, or anything about this war.. other than the fact that saddam is sitting on a shitload of oil (60% or 85% of the middle easts reserves?) and only contributing like 5% or less to oil exports or something?? (I thought I read that somewhere) For whatever reasons, those numbers suggest were not doing any dealins with the guy (hes unwilling? his prices too high? dunno), yet he has so much oil he can control the market over there just by whipping out an evil grin and a matchbook. Anyway on that page above they talk about how if we go to war with them, Saddam will feel like there is nothing left to do and will be more likely to use WMD. But to get SUPPORT for the war, we need support from the UN. And to get support from the UN, there needs to be evidence of the WMD's that he doesn't have that they say (on that page) he will be more likely to use (if he has them) if we were to force him to via war. Damnit. I wish I would have voted. Last edited by goBigtime; 02-12-2003 at 08:09 AM..

02-12-2003, 09:09 AM	#6
kenny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,245	Its not about oil, they would have taken it the first time if they where concerned about that

02-12-2003, 09:40 AM	#10
G Sharp So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,343	Libertarianism is an interesting philosophy. Very American. Unfortunately, it has one weak spot. For it to work, everyone must follow the law and play fairly. Unfortunately, not everyone does this so the "marketplace of human interaction" often tilts towards REGULATION and, ultimately, monopoly. Moreover, it relies on the assumption that all human beings are rational and self-starters. This is not true, quite a few are very dependent and need a strong state to tell them what to do or to provide for them.