A Case for an Alternative Reason for War in Iraq
John Sileo
December 24, 2005
With a mix of common sense, intuitive feeling, and yes, fact, I have concluded that the Iraq war is at least half due to the incalculable powers of oil, and maybe a whole lot more. Since I don?t believe in ?just the facts? perspectives, I will tell you how I have concluded such.
Because I am an average person with no ?expertise?or ?credentials?other than a college degree, I can claim ?common sense?, as coined by founding father Thomas Paine, as my own. I am in fact a commoner (although the modern term is average). Actually, Paine argued that commoners had just as much sense as royalty and elites and could govern a country just as well as they could. During that time, there was a serious debate about giving the vote to commoners since many believed they didn?t have the intelligence to make good decisions and would ruin a country by voting. Since Paine won and American average people got the right to vote, birthing representative democracy (not true democracy), I believe common sense IS justifiably part of the equation.
Next is something of a controversy. I use intuition all the time and I believe it is well-used by all of us, but often abandoned when it counts and ignored when discussed. It?s all about gut instinct and your feelings. Just like you know you love your mother or your spouse but you can?t prove it in any factual way, we use this feeling to form realistic and legitimate opinions all the time. But it sure is tough to argue with. With so many debates come the usual request, prove it! While intuitive feeling, by it?s definition, maybe quite impossible to begin to prove, but it is real. Try the old God/No-God debate on. I always had doubts about God but until I realized that I could feel it, I didn?t believe. Fact just can?t explain God and Love. Just because you buy somebody flowers doesn?t mean you love them!
And the facts, please. Oh the facts. Just them alone show an extremely doubtful picture. Factor in sense and feeling, and this war is nothing less than a mental illness, same as Slavery and Indian Removal/Mass Murder. Our aim was the BIGTIME money when we justified Slavery and Indian Removal And Mass Murder (call it SIRAMM). How many trillions in today?s dollars was SIRAMM worth we will never know, but it was enormous and in the tens of trillions for sure, maybe a lot more.
So the facts are that America and the western world have a history of using stupid justifications that border on mental illness to assault millions and gain trillions- even a whole continent of people lost 90%+ of their lives in the IRAMM part of SIRAMM. WE DIDN?T HAVE SLAVERY OR INDIAN ASSAULT BECAUSE THEY DIDN?T HAVE A SOUL AND WERE EVIL, WE DID IT BECAUSE WE WANTED THE MASSIVE WEALTH AND WE WERE EVIL, even if we didn?t know it.
And most importantly, SIRAMM was racially motivated, too. We were open about that then, unlike today. I realize racism has improved dramatically, but the root of it has not been removed, which in my opinion is money and materialism.
It?s like my buddy at work said after I argued against him several times that our killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi?s (maybe more) wasn?t justified even if I did support the war originally. He told me finally, ?I don?t care about those people. We need to kill as many of them as we can?. I can?t prove it?s racism that partly motivates his perspective, except that he has a history of actions that suggest he is a bit racist, and, most importantly, I felt it when he said it. He didn?t care about all that logic, he just wants them dead. It?s kill or be killed, of course! And racism keeps him from reasoning that we may have provoked them and we have it in our power to undo that. That doesn?t matter to him, he doesn?t care about those people.
Here is how IRAMM went. We invaded their homeland in a variety of ways, they took offense and defended it through violence or otherwise. In response, we justified that since they are trying to kill us, we could kill them in mass. Rather than recognize that we were provoking them in a terribly violating way, we passed up that thought process/feeling/sense/logic, and successfully blasted them in every terribly way imaginable including genocide, mass murder, totally unjustified warfare, and disease spreading. How is it not murder if you know you carry a fatal disease to someone and you take actions to spread it to them anyways. Like a person with full blown AIDS who screws another without notification and protection, it is murder.
It is a similar situation in Iraq today with few exceptions. One is deliberate deception about the reasons for the warfare and an absolute hush regarding the racial factor. I feel otherwise, racism is a factor. Among other reasons, I have heard the term Sand N**r one to many times to believe differently. I know my race too well.
There is a growing posse of facts that suggest alternative motivations behind this war, not to mention common sense and intuitive feelings. I can?t possibly go over them all in one article, but I will say I can feel the deception and my heart smothers me with doubt about the Iraq War. What does your heart tell you about the reasons our president has given us for war in Iraq?
Here are a few facts.
There are about 10 reasons Bush and his administration provided us but, in hindsight, they look like excuses. If I am right and they are merely excuses, the reason is still out there. What is it? The ten reasons Bush made for Iraq war are roughly this: 1. Sadaam is a brutal dictator 2.We will be seen as liberators 3.They have WMDs 4.They are seeking WMD?s 5.They have broken 17 U.N. Resolutions since 1991 6.They have barred inspectors for too long 7. by what I call word association, they related Iraq and Al Qaeda by mentioning them in the same breath dozens of times without actually saying there was an association, which is deliberate deception if it?s true (maybe word association shouldn?t work on people, but it does and so it?s wrong) 8. Iraq supports terrorism 9. We are fighting them on their soil, no ours 10. We are going to establish democracy in the whole region of the Middle East by bringing it to Iraq (and Afganistan) which will lead to a more peaceful region since there is a historical link between democracy and peace.
If we want an end to the war- stop invading their land and causing conflict. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is and I keep wondering why.
But there is also a justifiable link between invasion and homeland defense, which, in my opinion, is what this war is about. People are defending themselves and they always will. And they have warned us of that since 1992! But we ignore that and demonize them as killers just because they kill. Granted, their way of fighting is ugly and immoral, but if you want peace, STOP AGRAVATING THEM. Dear God what does it take? If you provoke someone by invading them, they are nearly certain to fight back and usually amongst themselves too, if they are not united.
The most important thing I have to say is this. When I am talking about our invasion that sparked this conflict, I am not speaking about the recent Iraq War. I am speaking about our building of PERMANENT MILITARY BASES in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. It?s true that the Suadi Government wants us there but it is also true that they are in direct conflict with many of their people about inviting a foreign power to settle their military in their backyard. That conflict is very reasonable. It is one we would have as well if our Federal Government (I can already feel the hostility) were to invite any nation (let alone one we didn?t like very much) to put their military bases in our soil. It wouldn?t matter what ignorant reason Washington gave us, people would see that as an act of treachery and hostility, violence, and probable succession and civil war would ensue, unless we reversed course. And it doesn?t take an educated person to know that the foreign power would get themselves in the middle of a serious conflict if they pursued, which wouldn?t be at their best interest. What would be their interest anyways in building bases in the U.S.?
What is our interest in building bases in the Middle East and involving (and certainly part and parcel to causing) their conflict? I don?t want to cause a conflict and then fight it? What is our motivation? Certainly not because they attacked us. That, my intelligent brothers and sisters, is a result of our aggression. And don?t give me some vague ?we have to be the World?s Police? rap. We have to keep world peace, not cause war.
I am certain that the brains (but foolish) people of Washington who have initiated and sustained this effort are smart enough to know why they attacked us. Just like people during the IRAMM time knew the Indians were attacking us to defend themselves and drive us out of their homeland. They are much smarter than letting that one go.
The answer was and is Big Money. There is big money in Slavery and Indian Removal and Mass Murder (labor and land) as well as Oil.
The big difference between then and now is key. Humanity is more mature today. We see that Social Darwanism, used in association with other stupid reasons to justify SIRAMM, was a big mistake. So the immature people who think they are helping Americans by securing the most powerful and quickly dissipationg commodity the world has ever known, OIL, are being deliberately deceptive in their campaign. That is one key difference, deception and non-transparency.
But the most powerful difference is that OIL is worth so much more than Slaves and Indian Land was. It is the product of products, the commodity to control all commodities. It?s power cannot be overstated. I believe it is the most powerful thing in the world. A nuclear bomb might be tough, but can it control and sustain the world economy. Can nukes single handedly create a whole new and vastly improved quality of life the way oil has and create a few gazillion boatloads of wealth in the process? I didn?t think so.
Now we have to build and sustain ourselves as oil becomes scarce and very expensive without government price controls. We have to build a new energy economy and we are doing that. One huge tripping point: whoever controls the last of the oil WILL HAVE SERIOUS POWER OVER OTHERS IF THEY CHOOSE TO USE IT. Exactly how it will work is tough to see. But this is the general gist of how things are headed while the most powerful thing in the world becomes expensive and rare and it is nothing short of dangerous.
But, dear heavens, is war necessary before it is necessary? We can fight a war over oil when it is imminent, not before.
If the powers that be get away with this, then what will be next. If they would do it once, they will do it again.
Already you see the demonization in the press about Iran and Venezuela, two monstrous oil-producing nations and members of OPEC. The problem with Iran, as interpreted by various mainstream press reports, is they have a nuclear weapons program which is somehow against the world?s rules. Maybe there is a good reason they shouldn?t have them but I have never heard it. I just hear that they shouldn?t have them. It doesn?t seem to matter that we have 10,000 of them (literally) and a history of using them.
The press? issue with Venezuela is, well nothing, except the dude does not like us. President Chavez, a socialist, says George W. Bush is a madman and the most dangerous man in the world today.
The Iraq war is not right and we in this country have the power, if we act collectively, to stop them. Or they will find some impossibly inane excuse- that might make sense from an ignorant perspective- to use our military go after another pile of money. Economic security is not worth death. That is what our military is doing even if so many accomplished people provide say otherwise.
Because I am an average person with no ?expertise?or ?credentials?other than a college degree, I can claim ?common sense?, as coined by founding father Thomas Paine, as my own. I am in fact a commoner (although the modern term is average). Actually, Paine argued that commoners had just as much sense as royalty and elites and could govern a country just as well as they could. During that time, there was a serious debate about giving the vote to commoners since many believed they didn?t have the intelligence to make good decisions and would ruin a country by voting. Since Paine won and American average people got the right to vote, birthing representative democracy (not true democracy), I believe common sense IS justifiably part of the equation.
Next is something of a controversy. I use intuition all the time and I believe it is well-used by all of us, but often abandoned when it counts and ignored when discussed. It?s all about gut instinct and your feelings. Just like you know you love your mother or your spouse but you can?t prove it in any factual way, we use this feeling to form realistic and legitimate opinions all the time. But it sure is tough to argue with. With so many debates come the usual request, prove it! While intuitive feeling, by it?s definition, maybe quite impossible to begin to prove, but it is real. Try the old God/No-God debate on. I always had doubts about God but until I realized that I could feel it, I didn?t believe. Fact just can?t explain God and Love. Just because you buy somebody flowers doesn?t mean you love them!
And the facts, please. Oh the facts. Just them alone show an extremely doubtful picture. Factor in sense and feeling, and this war is nothing less than a mental illness, same as Slavery and Indian Removal/Mass Murder. Our aim was the BIGTIME money when we justified Slavery and Indian Removal And Mass Murder (call it SIRAMM). How many trillions in today?s dollars was SIRAMM worth we will never know, but it was enormous and in the tens of trillions for sure, maybe a lot more.
So the facts are that America and the western world have a history of using stupid justifications that border on mental illness to assault millions and gain trillions- even a whole continent of people lost 90%+ of their lives in the IRAMM part of SIRAMM. WE DIDN?T HAVE SLAVERY OR INDIAN ASSAULT BECAUSE THEY DIDN?T HAVE A SOUL AND WERE EVIL, WE DID IT BECAUSE WE WANTED THE MASSIVE WEALTH AND WE WERE EVIL, even if we didn?t know it.
And most importantly, SIRAMM was racially motivated, too. We were open about that then, unlike today. I realize racism has improved dramatically, but the root of it has not been removed, which in my opinion is money and materialism.
It?s like my buddy at work said after I argued against him several times that our killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi?s (maybe more) wasn?t justified even if I did support the war originally. He told me finally, ?I don?t care about those people. We need to kill as many of them as we can?. I can?t prove it?s racism that partly motivates his perspective, except that he has a history of actions that suggest he is a bit racist, and, most importantly, I felt it when he said it. He didn?t care about all that logic, he just wants them dead. It?s kill or be killed, of course! And racism keeps him from reasoning that we may have provoked them and we have it in our power to undo that. That doesn?t matter to him, he doesn?t care about those people.
Here is how IRAMM went. We invaded their homeland in a variety of ways, they took offense and defended it through violence or otherwise. In response, we justified that since they are trying to kill us, we could kill them in mass. Rather than recognize that we were provoking them in a terribly violating way, we passed up that thought process/feeling/sense/logic, and successfully blasted them in every terribly way imaginable including genocide, mass murder, totally unjustified warfare, and disease spreading. How is it not murder if you know you carry a fatal disease to someone and you take actions to spread it to them anyways. Like a person with full blown AIDS who screws another without notification and protection, it is murder.
It is a similar situation in Iraq today with few exceptions. One is deliberate deception about the reasons for the warfare and an absolute hush regarding the racial factor. I feel otherwise, racism is a factor. Among other reasons, I have heard the term Sand N**r one to many times to believe differently. I know my race too well.
There is a growing posse of facts that suggest alternative motivations behind this war, not to mention common sense and intuitive feelings. I can?t possibly go over them all in one article, but I will say I can feel the deception and my heart smothers me with doubt about the Iraq War. What does your heart tell you about the reasons our president has given us for war in Iraq?
Here are a few facts.
There are about 10 reasons Bush and his administration provided us but, in hindsight, they look like excuses. If I am right and they are merely excuses, the reason is still out there. What is it? The ten reasons Bush made for Iraq war are roughly this: 1. Sadaam is a brutal dictator 2.We will be seen as liberators 3.They have WMDs 4.They are seeking WMD?s 5.They have broken 17 U.N. Resolutions since 1991 6.They have barred inspectors for too long 7. by what I call word association, they related Iraq and Al Qaeda by mentioning them in the same breath dozens of times without actually saying there was an association, which is deliberate deception if it?s true (maybe word association shouldn?t work on people, but it does and so it?s wrong) 8. Iraq supports terrorism 9. We are fighting them on their soil, no ours 10. We are going to establish democracy in the whole region of the Middle East by bringing it to Iraq (and Afganistan) which will lead to a more peaceful region since there is a historical link between democracy and peace.
If we want an end to the war- stop invading their land and causing conflict. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is and I keep wondering why.
But there is also a justifiable link between invasion and homeland defense, which, in my opinion, is what this war is about. People are defending themselves and they always will. And they have warned us of that since 1992! But we ignore that and demonize them as killers just because they kill. Granted, their way of fighting is ugly and immoral, but if you want peace, STOP AGRAVATING THEM. Dear God what does it take? If you provoke someone by invading them, they are nearly certain to fight back and usually amongst themselves too, if they are not united.
The most important thing I have to say is this. When I am talking about our invasion that sparked this conflict, I am not speaking about the recent Iraq War. I am speaking about our building of PERMANENT MILITARY BASES in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. It?s true that the Suadi Government wants us there but it is also true that they are in direct conflict with many of their people about inviting a foreign power to settle their military in their backyard. That conflict is very reasonable. It is one we would have as well if our Federal Government (I can already feel the hostility) were to invite any nation (let alone one we didn?t like very much) to put their military bases in our soil. It wouldn?t matter what ignorant reason Washington gave us, people would see that as an act of treachery and hostility, violence, and probable succession and civil war would ensue, unless we reversed course. And it doesn?t take an educated person to know that the foreign power would get themselves in the middle of a serious conflict if they pursued, which wouldn?t be at their best interest. What would be their interest anyways in building bases in the U.S.?
What is our interest in building bases in the Middle East and involving (and certainly part and parcel to causing) their conflict? I don?t want to cause a conflict and then fight it? What is our motivation? Certainly not because they attacked us. That, my intelligent brothers and sisters, is a result of our aggression. And don?t give me some vague ?we have to be the World?s Police? rap. We have to keep world peace, not cause war.
I am certain that the brains (but foolish) people of Washington who have initiated and sustained this effort are smart enough to know why they attacked us. Just like people during the IRAMM time knew the Indians were attacking us to defend themselves and drive us out of their homeland. They are much smarter than letting that one go.
The answer was and is Big Money. There is big money in Slavery and Indian Removal and Mass Murder (labor and land) as well as Oil.
The big difference between then and now is key. Humanity is more mature today. We see that Social Darwanism, used in association with other stupid reasons to justify SIRAMM, was a big mistake. So the immature people who think they are helping Americans by securing the most powerful and quickly dissipationg commodity the world has ever known, OIL, are being deliberately deceptive in their campaign. That is one key difference, deception and non-transparency.
But the most powerful difference is that OIL is worth so much more than Slaves and Indian Land was. It is the product of products, the commodity to control all commodities. It?s power cannot be overstated. I believe it is the most powerful thing in the world. A nuclear bomb might be tough, but can it control and sustain the world economy. Can nukes single handedly create a whole new and vastly improved quality of life the way oil has and create a few gazillion boatloads of wealth in the process? I didn?t think so.
Now we have to build and sustain ourselves as oil becomes scarce and very expensive without government price controls. We have to build a new energy economy and we are doing that. One huge tripping point: whoever controls the last of the oil WILL HAVE SERIOUS POWER OVER OTHERS IF THEY CHOOSE TO USE IT. Exactly how it will work is tough to see. But this is the general gist of how things are headed while the most powerful thing in the world becomes expensive and rare and it is nothing short of dangerous.
But, dear heavens, is war necessary before it is necessary? We can fight a war over oil when it is imminent, not before.
If the powers that be get away with this, then what will be next. If they would do it once, they will do it again.
Already you see the demonization in the press about Iran and Venezuela, two monstrous oil-producing nations and members of OPEC. The problem with Iran, as interpreted by various mainstream press reports, is they have a nuclear weapons program which is somehow against the world?s rules. Maybe there is a good reason they shouldn?t have them but I have never heard it. I just hear that they shouldn?t have them. It doesn?t seem to matter that we have 10,000 of them (literally) and a history of using them.
The press? issue with Venezuela is, well nothing, except the dude does not like us. President Chavez, a socialist, says George W. Bush is a madman and the most dangerous man in the world today.
The Iraq war is not right and we in this country have the power, if we act collectively, to stop them. Or they will find some impossibly inane excuse- that might make sense from an ignorant perspective- to use our military go after another pile of money. Economic security is not worth death. That is what our military is doing even if so many accomplished people provide say otherwise.
Print
Email
