Artistically great, pollitically i dont agree. Feel free to think whatever you wish though, just do me a favor; gather some non-michael moore knowledge before picking up a pencil or tablet or whatever again.
Amen. Michael Moore's shady "omg wtf oil connexxxionz" between Bush and the Sauds (or Iraqi oil) are nearly completely BS. Bush has some ties to oil, but does that make one evil? How much do you want to bet that many people here or their parents own stock in Texaco?
I especially love reading the comments of all the people out there that find this offensive or accurate and the wars that accumulate from the views.
I wish I could explain what the deal is with it all.
But I am clueless.
I fear, just like the rest of us.
How many US soldiers have died in this war so far? 1000 and something right?
wonder how many more the people of USA will tolerate before real action is taken.
I mean against your US Government. link= [link]
thats an interesting read on the subject.
And with the elections coming up.
who will you vote for?
democracy has become a vote for A or B for you in the US ? that seems kinda stupid right?
and either candidate seems the same style: Rich, Militant Arrogant etc...
but yeah, I doubt if Kerry can be played like bush has been
anyway nice drawing man. I can imagine you releasing this and then sitting back and watching the people fight over it. (you never seem to respond )
Cynicism is occasionally useful, but it's often pointless. It serves to make one feel superior. This piece, while well-drawn and quite clever in construction, is simply being cynical and demonizing (no pun intended). As Christoph has pointed out numerous times, we haven't TAKEN any oil! It seems to be based on the idea that you don't want to believe the reasons given for the war (understandable), so you infer from the worst of human nature that it was without a doubt the greed of one man, with little to no substantial evidence behind it. The hyperbole in this piece is taken to the extreme, but most people don't recognize the hyperbole and end up saying things like "I was pondering this morning, when I woke up (and was still only half awake), what if he really *is* Satan?"
Do you actually believe that Bush is LITERALLY the devil? I know a lot of people love to say so, which serves no purpose than to demonize someone who certainly doesn't deserve it.
LMAO! Wooot, that's funny. I was pondering this morning, when I woke up (and was still only half awake), what if he really *is* Satan? If he sprouted horns and a tail one day, and his skin turned a terrible sunburn red, would half of all Americans still vote for him? Sadly, I think so. And then Jesus would come down and be like WTF, America?! And then God would smite him, and I would laugh... er. Mind you, I was half asleep......
dont want those oil wells destroyed, then they cant pay halliburton the 1.9billion [link]
another link [link] about why we had to import oil in there. although it says that no oil was exported from iraq, yet, it clearly shows that we are detirmined to do it, and they are determined to stop us. youll probably dismiss it as "moorish," but then again, you are a republican.
keep running that line Christoph, it's funnier every time I see it.
I am actually still waiting for you to explain what precisely the US Strategic interest in the Middle East actually is, since you seem to think it's not oil. Been waiting a while now... since 2 fridays ago actually. You seem to be unable to speak in other than single line, unsupported statements.
Being "on message" and being factually correct are not the same. Exceptional use of the Big Lie strategy though; you keep it simple and say it over and over again. Goebels would be proud.
"keep running that line Christoph, it's funnier every time I see it."
Please, show me when we took oil. And if we ever did take oil, gas prices would be a hell of alot cheaper, and our economy would be in much better shape.
Our intrest in the mid east is complicated. We're friends with the goverments in hope that we'll win over support from the people. As with our other allies, we trade goods, but theres nothing really we can get from those countries except oil. So yes, our relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on oil, cause if they stop the oil, we stop the money, and both of our countries turn to crap for a while. Its a way to keep friends with eachother, or else we both lose.
We want friends in the mid east, and at this point, money is the only thing working. So to answer your question, our intrest is to keep friends, and avoid making more enemies, espesialy with the goverments.
I don't think I worded that correctly, so if I find a way to do it better, I'll post it.
Excellent. Thank you.
To this I can say, you are factually correct, in that the goal of our policy in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular is the actual seizure of the oil for free, like pirate booty. The goal is long term access to the oil at the best possible terms. At this pont, the best possible terms is not as good as we are used to, but with China becoming a real competitor with the US on the oil market in terms of consumption, those terms are likely to get tougher from here on in.
I don't mean to be a wiseass, but I don't think you were born yet in 1973 when OPEC actually imposed an oil embargo on the US. That was some shit, and the goal of US policy since then has been to make sure that that never happened again. Nothing makes elected officials more agitated than angry voters complaining about gas rationing, which actually did hapen.
So when you look at it in this context, the stated goal of installing a democratic government with good relations with the US in the #2 or whatever oil producer in the world, which just happens to sit next to number 1...well, I think you can see how someone of good will might possibly come to the conclusion that the invasion may have something to do with oil.
Personally, I am kind of a history geek, and really cynical by nature. Rhetoric of the "making friends" or "spreading democracy/liberty" variety makes me really suspicious in international affairs. Nations and their governments simply do not do things on that sort of basis, or more precisely, those terms are just so vague that you can stretch them around any horrible action. The Japanese said they were invading China in order to bring the benefits of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere to the people there. I don't think that anyone at this point would argue that that invasion was about anything other than resources.
So to sum it up, oil is a strategic interest that i can understand, and which historically has and does figure prominently in US policy in the middle east. Strategic advantage i understand. "Spreading freedom", while I don't doubt the good will or sincerity of the people who do belive that that is the reason for this war, I just don't buy as a strategic objective.
(The very fine webpage, The National Security Archive, contains a ton of declassified US Govt documents mideast policy. I recomend this one: [link])
The Iraq war has cost us 150 Billion dallors. Even if we sucked Iraq dry, it would take a looong time before we get that 150 billion back. If we took the oil, someone would notice, Al Jazeera and Michael Moore would be on it like flys on horse shit. And if we took the oil, what would we do with it? It would save us money if we keep it for ourselves, but that would take a long time once again to make up for the 150 billion.
The international community would notice us stealing oil, and would do something about it. The UN might impose sanctions, or kick us out of Iraq cause no one would just let us take the oil.