Midnight Oil

[Powderworks] NMOC - Is Saudi Arabia next?

Timothy Towns towns@us.ibm.com
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:32:20 -0700

Dave, I think most of the US population that is paying attention to world
events has struggled mightly with just why our country is at war.  This
struggle has been compounded greatly by Mr. Bush and his ever changing
reasons for his actions.  To me the idea that this war is for humanitarian
reasons or for riding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction are very weak
because of many counter examples in the world today where we are doing
nothing or even embrace such countries.   Your arguments that it is not
about oil or world domination further muddy the water.

Why can't the American public get clear, concise reasons for the actions of
our government?  It certainly tends to make everyone suspicious and
skeptical and I would say rightly so.

I ask you, just what is motivating Mr. Bush and his administration?

Tim Towns

"Dave Schultz" <dschultz29@hotmail.com>@cs.colorado.edu on 03/30/2003
12:47:29 AM

Sent by:    powderworks-admin@cs.colorado.edu

To:    powderworks@colorado.edu
Subject:    Re: [Powderworks] NMOC - Is Saudi Arabia next?

Dear Powderworkers,

I've been trying to keep out of this political stuff, but I couldn't let
this pass...

>From: "David A. Brass" <amt4all@yahoo.com>

>This war may go on for years as the American "bliztrieg" sweeps across the
>Middle East and North Africa in it's all out quest for oil...

This is not only one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this list,
it's without a doubt the most offensive too, speaking as someone whose
grandfathers (one of whom is Jewish) both escaped the Nazis.
Hitler's invasion of Poland was motivated by his desire to wipe out the
and provide Aryans with "lebensraum" (free land). Eastern Europe was where
most Jews lived. He never intented to honour his pact with the Soviet
He only turned his attention to western Europe because surprisingly (since
they didn't give a damn about Czechoslovakia) France and England declared
war on Germany. If you doubt any of these points, I direct you Lucy
Davidowitz's The War Against the Jews.

Bottom line: don't dare use Nazi terminology to describe anything but
(It's "Blitzkrieg", btw.)

Second, this idea that the war is about oil is the most facile thing I've
heard from the anti-war camp. Look, I've heard good reasons why not to go
war- Kurds rising in Iraq destabilizing Turkey for one. Let's stick to real
geo-political analysis, shall we? As Jacques put it so well, there are alot
of ridiculous conspiracy theories coming out of the anti-war side of this

Does anyone here, by any chance, even work in the energy industry? Someone
in my family does. So here's some facts:

The U.S. gets about 40-45% of it's oil from.... the U.S. and Canada!
Next is Venezuela. Only about 20% of its oil comes from the (entire) Middle

The areas that get most of their oil from the Mid East are western Europe
and Japan. This is why they footed most of the bill for the first Gulf War.

Some more things you might like to know:

Oil was, well, the ONLY Iraqi industry not effected by the embargo
-honestly, you should know this just from reading a newspaper. The west and
far east never had a problem getting as much oil as they pleased out of
Iraq, or any other Arabian country for that matter.
This war is NOT about oil.

No, wait, this war is about oil - not 'Blood for oil' but 'No bloodshed for
oil', because the countries that have the largest investments in Iraq's oil
industries are France, Russia, and Germany, in that order. In other words,
the most ardent 'dove' powers, in order. Oh, not to mention biggest
investments in chemical and, shall we say, 'other' Iraqi industries.
I can't wait 'til Hussein's regime falls and caches of chemical weapons
'Made in France' stamped on the casings are found throughout his bunkers
palaces. You'll be eating crow -unless of course, you think the U.S.
them (yes, some crazies on the web are already throwing this around).

So what if the U.S. once backed Iraq against Iran? The expressions "lesser
of two evils" and "better late than never" come to mind'.
On that note I forward Shakers & Movers "it's never too late..." as my
Oil-linked lyric. As in never too late to finish what they should have
finished in '91.
Isn't it morally right for the U.S. to realize and atone for past wrongs?
How is this hypocritical?

Seems far more hypocritical that people on the Left (including Amnesty
International) would sooner charge Bush with war crimes (choke!)
than, gee whiz, back a war to get rid of the man who's committed as many
human rights abuses as anyone on the planet.
Although North Korea has a Stalinist gulag system...

Which brings me to the "What about North Korea? They have nukes and the
States does nothing?" argument...


Saddam would've had a nuke by '93 if the first Gulf War had not occured.
He's had 4 years without inspectors to start the nuclear program again, and
has been hiding who-knows-what from inspectors since they got back - and
Blix's reports said as much.

Do we want a world where a madman, who literally answers to no-one (*ahem*
murdered his cabinet minister son-in-law), with a rabid hatred of the only
rock of democracy in that region (Israel), and the West generally, has a
nuclear weapon?

It would seem the anti-war crowd do.

I back this war one hundred percent, and I want to add that my government
does NOT speak for me and scores of other young people I know (and
anti-American assholes like Herb Dhaliwal sure don't).
We are, with the French, allowing others to fight for our common values and
interests, while being the morally righteous primadonnas of the world, a
pathetic adolescent nation, insecure in the shadow of a big brother
confidently making it's way in the world.
I have never been more ashamed in my life to be Canadian.

Dave Schultz
Ottawa, Canada

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

Powderworks mailing list