As if invading & taking over Iraq wasn't about oil

  • News
  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Oil
In summary, the Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons and OPEC is the winner. Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. However, by February 2003, a hundred-page blue-print for the occupied nation, favored by neo-cons, had been enshrined as official policy.
  • #1
fourier jr
765
13
:rolleyes:

BAGHDAD COUP D'ETAT FOR BIG OIL
Monday, March 28, 2005

Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons ... and OPEC is the winner.

"For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil ..."

Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

From the exclusive Harper's report by Greg Palast:

Within weeks of the first inaugural, prominent Iraqi expatriates -- many with ties to U.S. industry -- were invited to secret discussions directed by Pamela Quanrud, National Security Council, now at the State Department. "It quickly became an oil group," said one participant, Falah Aljibury. Aljibury is an advisor to Amerada Hess' oil trading arm and Goldman Sachs.

"The petroleum industry, the chemical industry, the banking industry -- they'd hoped that Iraq would go for a revolution like in the past and government was shut down for two or three days," Aljibury told me. On this plan, Hussein would simply have been replaced by some former Baathist general.

However, by February 2003, a hundred-page blue-print for the occupied nation, favored by neo-cons, had been enshrined as official policy. "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth" generally embodied the principles for postwar Iraq favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Iran-Contra figure, now Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams. The blue-print mapped out a radical makeover of Iraq as a free-maket Xanadu including, on page 73, the sell-off of the nation's crown jewels: "privatization [of] the oil and supporting industries."

It was reasoned that if Iraq's fields were broken up and sold off, competing operators would crank up production. This extra crude would flood world petroleum markets, OPEC would devolve into mass cheating and overproduction, oil prices would fall over a cliff, and Saudi Arabia, both economically and politically, would fall to its knees.

However, in plotting the destruction of OPEC, the neocons failed to predict the virulent resistance of insurgent forces: the U.S. oil industry itself. Rob McKee, a former executive vice-president of ConocoPhillips, designated by the Bush Administration to advise the Iraqi oil ministry, had little tolerance for the neocons' threat to privatize the oil fields nor their obsession on ways to undermine OPEC. (In 2004, with oil approaching the $50 a barrel mark all year, the major U.S. oil companies posted record or near-record profits. ConocoPhillips this February reported a doubling of its quarterly profits.)

In November 2003, McKee quietly ordered up a new plan for Iraq's oil. For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan, but when I threatened legal action, I was able to obtain the multi-volume document describing seven possible models of oil production for Iraq, each one merely a different flavor of a single option: a state-owned oil company under which the state maintains official title to the reserves but operation and control are given to foreign oil companies.

According to Ed Morse, another Hess Oil advisor, the switch to an OPEC-friendly policy for Iraq was driven by Dick Cheney. "The VP's office [has] not pursued a policy in Iraq that would lead to a rapid opening of the Iraqi energy sector that would put us on a track to say, "We're going to put a squeeze on
OPEC."

Cheney, far from "putting the squeeze on OPEC," has taken a defacto seat there, allowing the cartel to maintain its suffocating grip on the U.S. economy.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=418&row=0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The neocons always over look economic variables, as well as history... Aside from never believing Bush to be a man of great vision, and that he wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11 for reasons that had nothing to do with freedom and peace, he and his family are in oil--nothing to be suspicious about.
 
  • #3
Was Iraq importing 2 million barrels per day part of the plan?

The number of cars has doubled since the US invaded and gasoline sells at 5 cents a gallon in Iraq. Smugglers can buy gas at the pumps for 5 cents a gallon and take it to Jordan, where they sell it for $1.00 a gallon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7265600/
 
  • #4
I was going to say 'gee, I didn't realize Harper's was so left wing', but then -- its should be pointed out that though the original story is from Harper's, most of those quotes and the link are from Greg Palast's website, not Harper's.

Edit: interesting, apparently Palast wrote the article for Harper's. It'll be interesting to see how the article reads as compared to his website's account.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
I was going to say 'gee, I didn't realize Harper's was so left wing', but then -- its should be pointed out that though the original story is from Harper's, most of those quotes and the link are from Greg Palast's website, not Harper's.

Translation: I was going into my patented knee-jerk scare-word smear tactic when I noticed a glitch; but not to fear, I have discovered a new way to implement the tactic.
 
  • #6
selfAdjoint said:
Translation: I was going into my patented knee-jerk scare-word smear tactic when I noticed a glitch; but not to fear, I have discovered a new way to implement the tactic.
As I was saying, I'll be interested to see what the actual article looks like - I doubt Harper's would go for such inflammatory rhetoric.
 
  • #7
russ_watters said:
As I was saying, I'll be interested to see what the actual article looks like - I doubt Harper's would go for such inflammatory rhetoric.

i haven't read the harper's article either, but i don't understand why ANYTHING palast has ever written is/was worse than stuff that ann coulter or bill o'reilly has ever said

"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, & convert them to christianity" -- coulter re: attacking & taking over afghanistan

"they NEED us; they better hope the US doesn't roll over one night & crush them" -- coulter again, re: Canada
 
  • #8
It's interesting that this was posted right after having conversation with someone who refers to himself as a neocon along with someone I would refer to as a fundamentalist conservative, and someone who is a moderate conservative. The conversation began with whether 9-11 was connected to Saddam and whether WMDs existed.

The neocon said Saddam offered money for suicide bombings, so there was connection to terrorism, but then admitted not directly to 9-11, and that other countries have clearer connections to terrorism than Iraq has.

Then the fundamentalist conservative said the war was justified because of Saddam's atrocities, but backed off this remark when reminded of the number of dictators the U.S. has supported, including Saddam.

Then the neocon said the WMD did exist, but were moved to Syria/Iran (proof for this I have not seen). And he continued saying that it was necessary to deceive the American people in order to invade Iraq and begin the spread of democracy in the area.

When asked how lying could ever be justified, all three people agreed lying is justified in order to achieve freedom and peace. Though the fundamentalist conservative did agree that she doubted the agenda is Bush's great vision, after which the neocon agreed Bush is greatly influenced by people like Wolfowitz.

Anyway, the conversation concluded with how oil has never been a factor...
 
Last edited:
  • #9
I can't say I see how the conclusion follows from the discussion, could you elaborate?
 
  • #10
fourier jr said:
i haven't read the harper's article either, but i don't understand why ANYTHING palast has ever written is/was worse than stuff that ann coulter or bill o'reilly has ever said
When did I say it was? I'm not a big fan of rhetoric, regardless of where it comes from.
 
  • #11
kyleb said:
I can't say I see how the conclusion follows from the discussion, could you elaborate?
It's interesting how Bush supporters can fit everything into their world view, justifying everything, even the use of deceit if it is necessary to achieve a "greater goal." At the end of the conversation the neocon in the group said oil was never a factor in Bush's invasion of Iraq. Whether this article is indeed true or not, that the Bush family business has been oil, has always made me skeptical about how oil plays in Bush's agenda. But I'll bet you if this is true, Bush supporters will find some way to rationalize it.
 
  • #12
You think "Bush supporters" are the only politically minded people who believe it justified to lie in order to achieve a greater goal? That's so broadly stated that I could imagine almost anyone agreeing to it.
 
  • #13
It’s more a matter of the spectrum of things (and I’m not a Clinton worshipper, if that’s what you’re eluding to), beginning with the 2000 presidential election:
"George W. Bush took office as the 43rd President after one of the closest and most disputed elections in U.S. history..."
To the present (in reference to the Schiavo case):
"…the President himself, along with Congress intervened in an “extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday…”
And everything in between:
"In a controversial decision, Bush also directed a U.S. invasion of Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power…"

"...the national debt, now at a record $7.6 trillion and growing..."

etc., etc.
As has been stated in other threads, Bush takes the blue ribbon. With regard to my original post in this thread about my conversation, the one Bush supporter maintains that Bush will go down in history as the greatest president in U.S. history…
 
  • #14
SOS2008 said:
With regard to my original post in this thread about my conversation, the one Bush supporter maintains that Bush will go down in history as the greatest president in U.S. history…
Its obviously far too early to tell, but if peace breaks out in the middle east, his name will be attached to it. Greatest in history would be an exaggeration, but that would put him in the top 10.
 
  • #15
Peace would be great. However, per the thread about giving credit where credit is due, and whether peace would be attributed to Bush--that is already being debated.
 
  • #16
SOS2008 said:
Peace would be great. However, per the thread about giving credit where credit is due, and whether peace would be attributed to Bush--that is already being debated.

Justified or not, history would give him credit.

It’s more a matter of the spectrum of things (and I’m not a Clinton worshipper, if that’s what you’re eluding to), beginning with the 2000 presidential election:

What does this or anything else you posted have to do with your contention that Bush supporters are more likely than non-supporters to believe that lying is justified to achieve a greater good? Do you feel it is? I certainly do. The example from an old ethics professor of mine comes to mind: You're waiting outside of your professor's office for him to finish meeting with someone when a man with a gun approaches and asks "Is he in? I'm going to kill him." Do you tell the truth or do you 'lie to achieve a greater good.' That's what I mean about the question being so broadly worded as to be something that anyone who is thinking straight should answer positively.
 
  • #17
"On the spectrum of things" Bush has been a very controversial president, and the invasion of Iraq and justification for it created a divisiveness in the U.S., which many feel has never been so extreme (since slavery) in the history of the country. Are you saying the ongoing debate regarding Rice's comments that "the ends justify the means" is not a philosophy connected to the Bush administration? And those who disagree with this statement (and who questioned/opposed the war regarding false connection to 9-11 and claims of WMD) do not tend to be anti-Bush? Those who are anti-Bush may agree with deceiving the American people for the greater good, but it's more likely they would prefer it wasn't necessary (i.e., that the American people could support actions/policy with real/true information as a well-informed population).
 
  • #18
Informal Logic said:
"On the spectrum of things" Bush has been a very controversial president, and the invasion of Iraq and justification for it created a divisiveness in the U.S., which many feel has never been so extreme (since slavery) in the history of the country.

Many people feel this way? You think the country is more divided now than during McCarthyism? The civil rights battles of the 60's? The Great Depression? Reconstruction?

Are you saying the ongoing debate regarding Rice's comments that "the ends justify the means" is not a philosophy connected to the Bush administration?

Her statement is, but the general sentiment is one shared by any politician alive today. The entire process of campaigning is all about doing whatever it takes to achieve a certain end. That said, to answer your question, no, that wasn't what I was saying. I was responding only to the contention that Bush supporters are more likely to think it justified to lie to achieve a greater good, and to the implication that thinking so is wrong.

Those who are anti-Bush may agree with deceiving the American people for the greater good.

That's all I was saying. I'd even go so far as to say that 90% (rough estimate based on no stats, admittedly) of the people out there agree in practice (if not in principle) with deceiving, even for their own good.

But it's more likely they would prefer it wasn't necessary (i.e., that the American people could support actions/policy with real/true information as a well-informed population).

You don't think Bush, or even his supporters, would prefer that it wasn't necessary to deceive every now and then? Do you think that they just enjoy lying to people?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
loseyourname said:
Many people feel this way? You think the country is more divided now than during McCarthyism? The civil rights battles of the 60's? The Great Depression? Reconstruction?
These were times of division as well, but yes, what I said was that "many feel" this way. Regarding a CNN Poll/Article, Wednesday, January 19, 2005:
"Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider" - On the eve of President Bush's inauguration, a poll shows the nation is split over whether he has united or divided the nation.
The irony is that the nation is split on whether the nation is split. There are books, documentarys, articles, web sites, etc. too numerous to source on the topic. How extreme the division has been can be debated, such as whether Americans wanted to immigrate to Canada after an election, or people got divorced, etc. The main point is that Bush has been very controversial beginning with his election in 2000, and it seems his supporters don't find this in itself as something to question.
loseyourname said:
Her statement is, but the general sentiment is one shared by any politician alive today...I'd even go so far as to say that 90% (rough estimate based on no stats, admittedly) of the people out there agree in practice (if not in principle) with deceiving, even for their own good.?
I wasn't sure exactly what you were saying. But does this make it okay? Is this the kind of world we want or should accept? Where are our "values"?
loseyourname said:
You don't think Bush, or even his supporters, would prefer that it wasn't necessary to deceive every now and then? Do you think that they just enjoy lying to people?
If you mean people are ignorant and don't know better so must be deceived, I think the Bush administration has capitalized upon it, and rank at the top at doing it.
 
  • #20
Informal Logic said:
I wasn't sure exactly what you were saying. But does this make it okay? Is this the kind of world we want or should accept? Where are our "values"?
It would be ideal to be able to consider what is right and wrong a simple matter. But it isn't. If all people were good people then there would be no question as to whether or not it is wrong to lie. As long as there are people out there who will do wrong there will be a need for a grey area in determining whether or not it is ok to do something to protect yourself or others that may otherwise be considered wrong.
Informal Logic said:
If you mean people are ignorant and don't know better so must be deceived, I think the Bush administration has capitalized upon it, and rank at the top at doing it.
I don't remember an administration that hasn't capitalized on it. Both sides of the fence lie and twist the truth in order to get what they want. The difference I have seen is that the right say they are protecting the "greater good" and the left say they are protecting you/<insert popular interest group here>.
 
  • #21
loseyourname said:
Justified or not, history would give him credit.
No one can say this now...this will be written in the future. What has already been written is how controversial Bush has been.
TheStatutoryApe said:
It would be ideal to be able to consider what is right and wrong a simple matter.
If you're talking about debate on moral issues, such as abortion, no it isn't a simple matter. But when elected officials deceive the American public, there are no gray areas--lying is not acceptable. Clinton was headed for impeachment over this--why do you think?
TheStatutoryApe said:
But it isn't. If all people were good people then there would be no question as to whether or not it is wrong to lie. As long as there are people out there who will do wrong there will be a need for a grey area in determining whether or not it is ok to do something to protect yourself or others that may otherwise be considered wrong.
The posts such as this show that Bush supporters will justify anything, and as long as there are people out there who think like this, we do have a problem.
TheStatutoryApe said:
I don't remember an administration that hasn't capitalized on it. Both sides of the fence lie and twist the truth in order to get what they want.
I don't see where anyone has said otherwise. I only see statements that it is a matter of severity (maybe frequency, seriousness of effects, etc.).
 
  • #22
loseyourname said:
What does this or anything else you posted have to do with your contention that Bush supporters are more likely than non-supporters to believe that lying is justified to achieve a greater good?
Are you a Bush supporter?
loseyourname said:
[...to believe that lying is justified to achieve a greater good]...I certainly do.
Thus my contention, which has been echoed by at least one other Bush supporter so far.
loseyourname said:
The example from an old ethics professor of mine comes to mind: You're waiting outside of your professor's office for him to finish meeting with someone when a man with a gun approaches and asks "Is he in? I'm going to kill him."
The moral of the story is it is still a lie, a different kind of lie, but like "little white lies" still a lie. Some religions will go so far as to say that it is cheating even if only in your heart (thoughts). This is not what I'm debating.
loseyourname said:
Do you tell the truth or do you 'lie to achieve a greater good.'
And once again the main point is lost... What I propose is that Americans become better citizens by making politics a higher priority--spending more of their time becoming informed, so that their government doesn't deceive them (or as Bush supporters argue, won't feel the need to deceive them?).
 
  • #23
also i think we're missing a few key points from intelligent philosophers - of which, it is unwise to allow the military and those who produce good for the military within the governmental ranks, for they shall only encourage the invasion to increase there own personal profits

And personaly i think that had a lot to do with it, not just the bush families personal gain, but a lot of major financial donations come from military oriented organizations also...
 
  • #24
SOS2008 said:
Are you a Bush supporter?

No, but does it matter? An informal survey of four or five people on an internet forum isn't going to result in any meaningful numbers to prove your point.

Thus my contention, which has been echoed by at least one other Bush supporter so far.

I contend that it should be echoed by anyone. Lying to achieve a greater good should be done. I think that you just don't like that Bush lied to achieve something that you feel isn't in the interest of the greater good. Your problem isn't with his lying.

The moral of the story is it is still a lie, a different kind of lie, but like "little white lies" still a lie. Some religions will go so far as to say that it is cheating even if only in your heart (thoughts).

Kant would say the same thing. In fact, the example from my professor came up during a discussion of the categorical imperative. According to Kantian ethics, if we universalize lying, then no one would ever believe anything he is told and so lying would cease to be effective. As such it is inconsistent with the categorical imperative to lie, regardless of the circumstances. I think that Kant, and any religion that agrees with him, is wrong. If you agree with him, I think that you are wrong as well. A person should lie if he can honestly achieve a greater good by doing so. Period.

And once again the main point is lost...

While I do agree that none of what I have posted addresses your main point (excepting my comment about why you truly don't like Bush's actions), I think that this is because you don't state your point explicitly and what you do state you don't state very well. If your problem isn't with 'lying to achieve a greater good,' then don't criticize Bush because you feel he lied to achieve a greater good. Criticize Bush for taking the nation into a war that you don't feel serves the greater good. That's what you're really after, isn't it?

On a side note, you really don't have to throw in the constant attacks on anyone that supports or voted for Bush. I would imagine that you insult quite a few people in doing so. Disingratiating yourself in such a manner to half the forum isn't the best way to conduct fruitful discussion.

What I propose is that Americans become better citizens by making politics a higher priority--spending more of their time becoming informed, so that their government doesn't deceive them (or as Bush supporters argue, won't feel the need to deceive them?).

While I can't address a comment directed to Bush supporters in general (another thing about your posts that makes them difficult as discussion-starters), I can say that I haven't been arguing that the public needs to be deceived because of their ignorance. I won't make a case for the actual war, but as an analogy imagine a situation in which taking action X results in consequence Y that is desirable for the greater good. However, the factual case for action X is not enough to compel those who would authorize that action. In that case, I believe that overstating the argument for action X is justified, even if doing so is a deceptive tactic. This is a tactic used by all politicians and I don't have any problem with it.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
While I can see everyone's point, this is what I've ascertained so far:

1) All politicians lie, therefore what's the big deal if Bush lies.
2) It's okay to lie if it's for a greater good.
3) It's not okay to lie when it's a leader you don't support, or visa versa.

The first conclusion I cannot accept no matter what. The second conclusion is dependent on a person's definition of the "greater good" so I also cannot accept it. As for the third conclusion, I would like to know if Clinton supporters felt it was okay for him to lie, because I don't believe they did. If not, than how can it be that they don't like Bush to lie only because they don't like Bush?

Americans should expect an honest government and honest leaders no matter what party, etc.
 
  • #26
2CentsWorth said:
While I can see everyone's point, this is what I've ascertained so far:

Once again, I can't speak for everyone (and I wish because of this that I could be directly addressed more often), but I can at least clarify my own position.

1) All politicians lie, therefore what's the big deal if Bush lies.

Not at all. I'm not defending the specific actions of any specific person. I'm only making the argument for the case that I explicitly stated above:

Imagine a situation in which taking action X results in consequence Y that is desirable for the greater good. However, the factual case for action X is not enough to compel those who would authorize that action. In that case, I believe that overstating the argument for action X is justified, even if doing so is a deceptive tactic.

I've never specified whether I believe Bush's or any other politician's specific lies to be such a case. If they are, however, then I feel they are justified.

2) It's okay to lie if it's for a greater good.

This one is pretty faithful to my own position. I'll elaborate below.

3) It's not okay to lie when it's a leader you don't support, or visa versa.

I don't get the feeling that anyone has presented this position, not even SOS. It's okay for any leader to lie so long as it is in accordance with my generalized case from above. According to me, anyway. Take it for what you will. I have a good deal of experience with ethics but I'm no professional.

The second conclusion is dependent on a person's definition of the "greater good" so I also cannot accept it.

But you do accept it, at least in limited cases. Everyone does. Who would honestly say that they would not lie to save their professor's life, given the example I gave earlier of the gunman looking for him? That is a greater good, no? It is my contention that everyone can agree that it is okay in limited cases such as these to lie for the greater good. The difficulty lies in determining what circumstances we will allow such lies to take place in and how we can adequately generalize to provide an abstract ethical rule. I will extend it as far as the bold outline above. I hope you don't feel this is completely arbitrary.

Americans should expect an honest government and honest leaders no matter what party, etc.

Americans should expect from their leaders the same behavior that they themselves display. This alone does not make this behavior right or justified, but it shouldn't exactly come as a shock. Maybe that isn't what you mean by "expect," though. You seem to just mean that we should use complete honesty as an absolute ethical standard to which our leaders should be held. You should qualify this position because it is open to several very obvious attacks, even aside from the abstractions I have presented.
 
  • #27
loseyourname said:
No, but does it matter? An informal survey of four or five people on an internet forum isn't going to result in any meaningful numbers to prove your point.
I agree. My posts in this thread have been a continuation of my original post and the conversation and thought process of people I know who support Bush, which I try to understand.
loseyourname said:
Your problem isn't with his lying.
It is one problem, but not my only problem with Bush. On this point, for example, I personally did not like that Clinton lied about having an affair.
loseyourname said:
A person should lie if he can honestly achieve a greater good by doing so. Period.
As stated previously I have no desire to get into a philosophical debate about what constitutes lying (any more than what constitutes "sex"?). Once again, I criticize Bush for lying, and you are correct that I disagree with the neocons in his administration and their determination of what is the "greater good" as well.
loseyourname said:
...I think that this is because you don't state your point explicitly and what you do state you don't state very well. If your problem isn't with 'lying to achieve a greater good,' then don't criticize Bush because you feel he lied to achieve a greater good. Criticize Bush for taking the nation into a war that you don't feel serves the greater good. That's what you're really after, isn't it?
My apologies for any failure to communicate. Because of the many previous posts exchanged on this topic, I assumed you knew my stance about Bush taking the nation into war, so did not think it needed repeating. I do not believe the "greater good" (war on terror or freedom and peace, etc.) was Bush's vision. I believe Bush took our country to war for other reasons, and used deceit to achieve that end (personal agenda--which per the original post could well involve oil). NOW everyone is rallying to the cry of "freedom and peace." Yes, I have a problem with this.
loseyourname said:
On a side note, you really don't have to throw in the constant attacks on anyone that supports or voted for Bush. I would imagine that you insult quite a few people in doing so. Disingratiating yourself in such a manner to half the forum isn't the best way to conduct fruitful discussion.
I respect your feelings and personally enjoy your opinions, so I will try to be more mindful. However, I don't think "half the forum" has been insulted, and hopefully most realize these debates are not directed at anyone person.
loseyourname said:
I won't make a case for the actual war, but as an analogy imagine a situation in which taking action X results in consequence Y that is desirable for the greater good. However, the factual case for action X is not enough to compel those who would authorize that action. In that case, I believe that overstating the argument for action X is justified, even if doing so is a deceptive tactic. This is a tactic used by all politicians and I don't have any problem with it.
I see a slippery slop, because I believe that if the current foreign policy was being purported by a leader these people did not support, it would not be referred to as a "greater good."
 
Last edited:
  • #28
2CentsWorth said:
The posts such as this show that Bush supporters will justify anything, and as long as there are people out there who think like this, we do have a problem.
Oh? And what Bush supporter would you be referring to in this statement because I am not a Bush supporter.
At any rate, I believe you had a problem then with this statement...
Someone who is not a Bush supporter said:
As long as there are people out there who will do wrong there will be a need for a grey area in determining whether or not it is ok to do something to protect yourself or others that may otherwise be considered wrong.
Now I would say that most people probably feel it is not a good thing to kill someone right? But... if someone is trying to kill you would you then feel it is ok to kill that person? Would you have a problem with lying to someone if it may save your life or that of another? Or is this just a horrible symptom of the Bush supporter mentality and I should check myself self into a clinic just to be sure that I am not one?
2CentsWorth said:
I don't see where anyone has said otherwise. I only see statements that it is a matter of severity (maybe frequency, seriousness of effects, etc.).
In regards to frequency, though I hardly have a verifiable tally anywhere, I doubt Bush has lied any more than any other president in recent history. In regards to seriousness of effects and severity those are a matter of opinion. If you don't feel that the country should have gone to war with Iraq then you may feel that any lie that took us there was severe. If you believe that it was a good idea to go to Iraq then you may not give a crap about any lie that took us there.
 
  • #29
Apparently there are no Bush supporters in this thread, so now I am quite certain I have not offended "half the forum."
 
  • #30
SOS2008 said:
Apparently there are no Bush supporters in this thread, so now I am quite certain I have not offended "half the forum."

I'd like to think that no one actually gets offended by anything said on an internet forum (I know it isn't true, but I'd like to think so anyway). It's just that I have a lot of experience with formal debates and writing formal philosophical papers and I've been trained extensively to argue facts and abstractions, not the mentality or intellectual capacity or motivation of the person making the opposing argument. As such, it bothers me when this is done, even if it isn't directed at me. This whole idea of the "culture war" bothers me as well. Everyone wants to find an "other" that they can vilify and blame the world's problems on. It's obvious that you've found yours. I don't like to think that way. I prefer to think that all people are on basically equal footing here. It is the ideas they subscribe to that I blame, because I suppose I have this crazy belief that, through reason, any idea that is false can be proven so. It is far more difficult to convince a person that he is a bad person. For that reason alone, even if I am in fact incorrect, I still think that my methodology produces a more practically efficacious form of dialogue.
 
  • #31
loseyourname said:
The example from an old ethics professor of mine comes to mind: You're waiting outside of your professor's office for him to finish meeting with someone when a man with a gun approaches and asks "Is he in? I'm going to kill him." Do you tell the truth or do you 'lie to achieve a greater good.' That's what I mean about the question being so broadly worded as to be something that anyone who is thinking straight should answer positively.

This is nice rethoric :biggrin:
So you mean that authorities have to consider their citizens as criminals and that all "information" endorsed by the state only serves one purpose: (mis)guide the citizens so that their inherently criminal attitudes are mislead in achieving finally greater goals. But if that is true, then why have "liberty" and "democracy" and "right to free speech" and so on ? In that case, tricking elections is a right thing to do. After all, the one who tricks the elections is maybe trying to achieve a greater good, so you should not complain about that. Also justice shouldn't be "just": after all, condamning you, even if you are innocent, is maybe "part of achieving a greater good" such as scaring off others...
We have known such situations in the past (think of the Inquisition, for instance), and in fact, Saddam's regime applied it perfectly. They were all "achieving a greater good". Macchiavelli ?
 
  • #32
Read my posts in context, Vanesch. The example from the ethics class was meant only to point out why I thought the original question posed by SOS was too broadly worded. I posted in quite a bit of detail how I feel a ruling regime should behave with respect to honesty and deception separately, and the two are not related. Respond to each in turn.
 
  • #33
TheStatutoryApe said:
Oh? And what Bush supporter would you be referring to in this statement because I am not a Bush supporter.
loseyourname said:
No, but does it matter? An informal survey of four or five people on an internet forum isn't going to result in any meaningful numbers to prove your point.
So neither defender of lying for the “greater good” in this thread is a “Bush supporter.” Sorry about the incorrect assumption, and I suppose it also would be wrong to now assume you both voted for Kerry? Does it matter? It does from the original line of reasoning regarding justification of lying for the “greater good” as specifically connected to Bush and those who support him.
loseyourname said:
Once again, I can't speak for everyone (and I wish because of this that I could be directly addressed more often), but I can at least clarify my own position.
There were general concepts being put forth by more than one member, so sometimes a general reply is appropriate. I’ve read the forum rules, but can’t help notice criticism about how other members post, and how you would like members to post, including this:
loseyourname said:
Read my posts in context, Vanesch. The example from the ethics class was meant only to point out why I thought the original question posed by SOS was too broadly worded. I posted in quite a bit of detail how I feel a ruling regime should behave with respect to honesty and deception separately, and the two are not related. Respond to each in turn.
The idea of forums is that members will have different ideas, different styles for expressing ideas, and different ways to express their ideas. As long as the rules of the forum are followed, why should everyone cater to your dictates? Maybe you really just don’t like what these members post.

So back to the thread…a new conclusion would be that Bush supporters are not the only people who feel lying is justified if for a “greater good” (though I have yet to hear this from “left-wing” members or otherwise), but it remains a point I disagree with.
 
  • #34
if invading irak was really for the greater good then bush didn't had to to lie... and may be, its ok for me or you to lie, but it's not ok that the president of the world most powerfull nation to invade countrys based on lies... and more when his actions cost tousands of inocent lives, and mooore when you are invading the 2nd world oil producer... acoording to looseyourname example about the teacher and the men trying to kill him... you lie to the men with the gun,, no to all the students...
I still can't believe that you are asking to be lied by your politicians... it's nonsense...

After all, it's supposed to be a democracy and what the mayority wants should be done.. if the mayority decide ,express themselfs or vote based on lies,, then it's not a democracy. it's a dictatorship
 
  • #35
Because he lied, it's hyproctical, because he supports his invasion based on Christian values, but Jesus (peace be upon him) scorned lying, so Bush is going against his own values and morals..

people will respond by saying that if it is for the good then lying is justified, but you can't show me it's good, because the deaths caused by the invasion are just unexcusable, the rate that civilians are dying because of American military "accidents" is higher than it ever was during Saddam's entire rule. Freedom? People always mention that freedom is being brought to the people, but freedom from what? The only thing I see here is that the Iraqi people are experiencing a freedom from life at the hands of the forces..
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
54
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
51
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
133
Views
25K
Replies
45
Views
8K
Replies
32
Views
4K
Back
Top