Disturbing e-mail from an acquaintance - need help with a response

[mac56]

(I truly hope he's just baiting me, because if he genuinely believes this I'd think he's insane.)

So the war is for oil - so what?! Oil is a good reason to go to war. Contra the neo-hippie "no-blood-for-oil" jackasses, oil is blood. They are one and the same. You control oil, you control people's lives.

Oil is the fundamental backbone of the global economy. That's why I maintain that if Saddam attacked more neighboring oil fields it is a clear precedent for war, because he is tinkering with millions of lives. This war was and is largely about oil - the only reason this hasn't been communicated is because it's politically disadvantageous, and people don't understand that their very lifeblood depends on oil. Everything we have in civilization is brought to us by the carriage of oil.

Oil is the product upon which global civilization is totally dependent. BTW, as a Christian, I realize that we have a responsibility to protect people. If their lives depend on oil, than that is naturally something we should protect.

[skypilot]

1. Unfortunately, I think he's serious.

Sounds like a right winger who's is begrudgingly admitting that we were right but now he has to put his own spin on it. And a fucked up spin it is.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. So why all the lies about WMD's, al Qaeda and "democracy"?

Why would 9/11 be a catalyst?
etc.

[mhr]

3. With Respect He Is Right About The Oil, It Is The Reason Bush Invaded Iraq

The problem is we are running out. To wit, see the following article about Peak Oil.

http://www.dallasforkerry.com/mediascope/brainzone/

[Spinzonner]

4. Do you disagree with his premise or his values ?

Fundamentally, he's probably right on the premise of why we went to war. It's the neocon vision of our role and our right.

However, the need to do so wasn't there - Iraq was reduced to a minor player on the oil market - and the moral justification for both this war whether on international law or even his basis is completely absent.

[mac56]

11. I agree that this was their premise for war.

It's been glaringly obvious since the beginning. What disturbs me is his cavalier assertion that this is right, proper, and especially justifiable from a Christian perspective.

[htuttle]

5. My Capitalist, Agnostic brother made the same argument before the war

I told him flat out: "We'll never, ever be able to hold onto Iraq. We won't get a drop of oil out of Iraq, and oil will be more expensive after the invasion than it is now."

He thought he was being a 'hard-boiled rationalist' by justifying the theft of oil resources. I told him he was being a dreamer. The world is not a game of Risk.


I haven't had the chance to rub it in yet...

[callous taoboy]

10. I've got a brother like that who

made the same argument, though he was almost rubbing his hands with glee when he said it.

[Mikimouse]

6. The Spice must flow!

And, while we have a Harkonnen administration, they will make sure that it does!:evilfrown:

[Ravenseye]

29. Rautha / Raban 2004

Feyd Rautha for Iraqi President
Glaubus Raban for Iraqi Prime Minister

They promise to 'squeeze' Iraq for as much blood an oil as we need.

[Mikimouse]

42. THey'll have to get past the....

Mikimouse shadow in the second moon first.:hippie:

[SheepyMcSheepster]

7. "as a christian......"

he should try to do unto others as he would have them do unto him.

[davidwhite0570]

8. So hes a Christian?

Killing 1000's of innocent civilians over oil is Christian? I think JC may differ with him! It is after all in our 10 commandments, thou shall not kill! also, thall shall not steal which is what we are doing in Iraq....stealing the oil they produce for repug companies...

[Ravenseye]

30. Most Christians are Hypocrites

I've met a number that weren't hypocrites. Nearly all of those are democrats, staunchly anti-war, and spend much of their free time helping those less fortunate.

People who say they are Christian who say it's fine to protect our people's energy intrests, even if it means killing thousands of innocent people to do so, are not Christian.

What would Jesus do?

I'm not Christian but I've read the Bible. I'm not a scholar on the topic or anything but I think Jesus would have gone to Iraq and used something called love kindness and diplomacy. He would have won the war with words, and if he didn't he would have left the people of an independent nation to their own fate. It's not gods place, or a christian's place to determine the free will of other people.

Bah. I just hate the circular arguments used by the pro-wars. We need the Oil. We need to get rid of Saddam for his people are suffering. Saddam was a threat to us directly. Ok, no really we just need the Oil. But don't you think it's better that Saddam is gone? He was in league with Al-Qaeda. Don't you think we need to protect our energy interests?

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. He just did you a favor.

Very honest e-mail. That's exactly what they believe. And they have a point to an extent. Without oil, our civilization ceases to exist as we know it. We certainly would not remain a superpower if we do not have the resources to get around the globe.

On the other hand, this rationalization that taking oil supplies by force is our divine Christian duty and right is what scares the hell out of me. If there were Christian motives behind the take-overs, Halliburton would be doing the service for free.

[mac56]

13. "Halliburton would be doing the service for free."

Excellent point. May I use that?

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. G'head.

:-)

[lovedems]

12. I say instead of spending billions of dollars and killing thousands of

people, the best thing to do was spend billions of dollars and use resourcful people to find an alternative to oil! A drug addict is dependent on drugs, some will spend all of their money and kill for those drugs. Does that make it right? No. The right thing to do is spend money to get the drug addict off of drugs and help them find an alternative to what makes them happy!

In short, just because we are dependent on it doesn't make it right. It certainly doesn't make it right to invade a country and kill thousands to feed that dependency. The reason this administration refuses to find an alternative is because they are like drug pushers, they are making money off the dependency.

I am sure there are other, more direct analogies then a drug addict but that is the one that came to my mind first.

[Iris]

16. oh. Another neo-hippy!

We were just posting the same thoughts at the same time! Otherwise I would have tagged on here!

Well said.

[lovedems]

21. LOL!

Here's to thinking alike! :toast:

[sadiesworld]

26. Bah.

How will research help *'s buddies in the oil industry? How does energy conservation assure dominance in the ME and protection of the State of Israel? How can * be a war preznit w/o a war?

:evilfrown:

[displacedtexan]

14. This writer needs to sign up! Quickly!

We need him on that wall!

We can't handle the truth!

Send this person info on recruiters... or, better yet, forward this email to every recruiter you can find.

[Iris]

15. Oil is a limited resource

Won't it eventually run out?

So excuse this "neo-hippy" thinking, but it seems to me our $78 million + dollars would be better spent trying to come up with alternative fuel sources.

I very much doubt Jesus would want to destroy the lives and homes of many thousands of his people just so we can drive H2s whenever we want to. That's a pretty twisted spin on Christianity, if you ask me.

But then again, I'm just a "neo-hippy jack-ass" - whatever that is.

[Sparkly]

17. if Saddam attacked more neighboring oil fields it is a clear precedent for

IF.

Even if the rest of the blood=oil nonsense were true, there was still not rationale for war.

[MadHound]

19. Well this one is fairly easy

Yes, this war WAS about oil, and about America establishing an oil empire in order to prevent the rise of another superpower. However there are other options than going to war for oil, and spilling blood for the oilgarchy.

Tell your brother that instead of devoting it's resources to extracting ever shrinking reserves of oil from countries that we conquer, we should invest in renewable resources, such as biodiesel, that can take the place of oil. If we converted to biodiesel, we wouldn't have to go to war, we wouldn't have to suffer the blowback terrorist attacks that go along with the quest for empire, and by being self sufficient for our energy needs, our economy couldn't be held hostage by foreign nations who have their hand on the oil spigot. And if your brother is the conservative he sounds like, tell him that not only would biodiesel eliminate the need for foreign oil, but it would also create tens of thousands of new jobs, revitalize the family farm and agriculture industry, and lower the energy costs for all Americans. It is also a very clean burning fuel, and biodiesel is an off the shelf technology, since any diesel engine is easily converted over to biodiesel. If we started converting our economy to biodiesel tommorow, within ten-fifteen years we would be completely energy self sufficient, if not sooner.

[midwayer]

39. I love it! BIODIESEL

Here's the Link

http://www.eugeneweb.com/~bios/biod.htm

[sui generis]

20. hey let's not over intellectualize here

tell him to fuck off - life is too short for games. If you're going to spend time with people on a topic, make sure they are people who are worthy of interacting with you.

[kayell]

22. Is your friend Gordon Gecko?

Nah, can't be. Gecko was much more succinct when he said greed is good.

[Longhorn]

23. Tell him that's the same rationale that was used to justify slavery.

The almighty buck.

[LiberalEsto]

24. Oil and Jesus

And what would Jesus do? Do you think he would approve of taking innocent lives in order to power our giant SUVs?

[Jokinomx]

25. I feel he is correct about the oil....

Check out this site.... it will rattle your bones it is so chilling...

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Saddam had oil contracts with Russia that would have sent this high grade oil north instead of west. Russia... was just waiting for the inspectors to verify that there were no WMDs.... Chimp and Cheney.. should know more about oil than most and they couldn't wait for the sanctions to be lifted... so we went to war. Otherwise we would have had to fight Russia for it. Or China.....or someone that actually could fight back. We all NEED this oil...

We are on the verge of a worldwide catastrophe and I think this administration knows it. Even if Kerry wins...when gas prices climb to $4.00 to $5.00 a gallon next year... the economy will be hurt more than we can imagine.

That is My Humble Opinion

[mac56]

27. You really think we need it so badly

that we ought to be willing to kill and die for it? And like my acquaintance states, it's actually our Christian duty to do so?

Not flaming you, just asking for clarification.

[Jokinomx]

35. Thanks for asking..

Your right... I didn't clarify my feelings about killing for oil...

I was against this war from the beginning. We should have been making changes in our energy needs thirty or forty years ago.. since that didn't happen... we have to work together with other countries to solve our global problems. This administration is greedy and thoughtless to the needs of all humans ... Help Americans and forget about the rest is the attitude that I see. As a race.. we are in deep doo doo... I think chimp and his cronies know this and are trying to get all they can before the collapse of the worlds economy.

So... I don't agree with the premis to go to war for oil... but it doesn't change the fact that we use more oil per capita than any nation on earth. We need to change that.

[BlueEyedSon]

28. $200 billion would have bought a LOT of oil!

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

31. He says he's a Christian in his e-mail

But a true Christian would not display such greed as he has done.
(There are no true Christians in the * administration, IMO)

Oh, and mail him an enlistment form or send some recruiters to his house. Surely he's old enough to enlist, or has sons and daughters thant can enlist, or perhaps other family members? In his own words "as a Christian, I realize that we have a responsibility to protect people"
If he declines, then his entire argument is moot. If he can't "put up", then he should "shut up".

I re-read my post, and at first, I hesitated to post it, becuase attacking someone's faith is not something I'm comfortable with. But your acquaintance has completely contradicted his "beliefs" with his previous words: "so what?" That makes him a hypocrite, and I can't stand hypocrites.

[mac56]

33. I agree, but for the most part RW'ers aren't as bothered by hypocrisy

as most normal people are.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

40. I have a "friend" who fits that to a tee..

He's a bus driver (union) who loves his job because of the excellent benefits, but refuses to accept that it's unions and liberal policies that got him those benefits.
He will always vote straight-ticket repug, too.
We don't have much to talk about.

[Junkdrawer]

32. I just wish that the NeoCons were as honest...

Then at least we could debate the issue.

[PATRICK]

34. needs therapy

or a very very patient guardian angel to hold up a mirror to this violently stupid poser.

How can you argue intelligently with someone like this? This is exactly the sort of person that Jesus said "Don't cast your pearls before swine. They won't appreciate it and will only attack you like animals."

Protecting people in the Gospels never includes use of force. And oil is such a pathetic transitory and feeble dependence compared to dependence on God's mercy.

A goat and people like him on any side is what has filled the graveyards with the murdered, the textbooks with wars. Unnecessarily.

[Jim__]

36. Dependence on oil is a choice

There are other energy sources availbale. Back in the late 70's Jimmy Carter has the government doing research on alternative energy sources. Reagan cancelled that research.

The republican bootlicking of corporations flies in the face of American security. Our only option is to find an alternative energy source.

[MUSTANG_2004]

43. Already found it

Nuclear. Combine that with electric cars and you've solved the emissions problems.

[CBHagman]

37. Doesn't sound terribly steeped in the Gospels.

The writer self-identifies as a Christian and admits that we must protect people, but the overall impression the message leaves is of ruthless and cold pragmatism.

However, it's also rather short-sighted. One, we are making new enemies through our current policies in the Middle East, and it's unclear how many lives this is going to cost and how long the damage will last.

Two, I'm uneasy with the degree to which a few corporations exercise considerable control over the lives of millions. Has this guy read much about the situation in Nigeria, for instance? Food for thought...

[ClassWarrior]

38. So he's saying it's okay to be a junkie?

"Oil is the product upon which global civilization is totally dependent." Perhaps a Christian would better protect people by gettting them to kick their deadly habit. Hydrogen anyone?

[fob]

41. You'll have to search for it, I think bush* said in one of the debates

or somewhere else maybe, but he did say it, that as president he would lean on his saudi buddies to just open the spigots. He was implying, well not so much implying as asserting, that since he has better saudi connections he could get the oil flowing and more cheaply to us and all he had to do was pick up a phone, that Al Gore couldn't do THAT.

So find the quote and ask your "christian" friend why bush* didn't just pick up the phone instead of starting a war? Was bush* lying then or now?