Justification for war in the Middle-East

[Greebo]

*** Mod's note: Split from another topic - sN ***

Without getting into a debate on the Iraq war, I reject your claim that we initiated force against another nation.

Out of curiosity, how do you propose to do the latter without the former happening?

Iraq was the initiator of force against us,

When?

other nations

We're not the global police

and its own people.

At the time we weren't the Iraqi police either.

It was perfectly moral to take out Saddam.

I agree him being gone isn't bad. Us going in to do it, however, is another story.

I was, at the time, a Conservative Republican who was widely outnumbered when I stated opposition to invading Iraq. There was no tie to Al Queda, there were no WMDs, we'd been non-violent with them for 10 years. I believed then and I believe now that we are the aggressor nation in Iraq.

However, that said - we are there NOW - we made a mess, and we have to clean it up. Just leaving w/o finishing the job (however the hell we do that) is not acceptable.

[khaight]

I was, at the time, a Conservative Republican who was widely outnumbered when I stated opposition to invading Iraq. There was no tie to Al Queda, there were no WMDs, we'd been non-violent with them for 10 years. I believed then and I believe now that we are the aggressor nation in Iraq.

In a way, this misses the point. Do you know what the first nation invaded by the United States was in World War II? Morocco. They hadn't attacked us, or threatened us -- but they were strategically located as a base of operations for further movements into Europe against a true threat -- Nazi Germany. In a similar way, Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East. It would be extremely difficult to wage war against Iran, for example, without establishing prior control of Iraq. Back in 2002/2003, I supported the invasion of Iraq in that context -- as a first step in a broader campaign against the more dangerous theocratic regimes in the area that have been waging proxy war against us for decades.

Since then it has become clear that the Bush administration has no (and perhaps never had any) intention of waging that broader war, and the invasion of Iraq has morphed into the altruistic morass we all know and love today. The war we received was not the war we were (at least implicitly) promised.

Ayn Rand's analysis of the Vietnam War in the first half of "The Wreckage of the Consensus" is strikingly applicable to Iraq today.

[fletch]

there were no WMDs

That is a fact that only became certain after the invasion, not before. Prior to going into Iraq virtually every intelligence agency in the world believe Saddam was hiding WMD's. At the very least, he was not cooperating with the inspectors. In fact, if I remember right, he kicked them out of the country.

[Greebo]

That is a fact that only became certain after the invasion, not before. Prior to going into Iraq virtually every intelligence agency in the world believe Saddam was hiding WMD's. At the very least, he was not cooperating with the inspectors. In fact, if I remember right, he kicked them out of the country.

"only became certain" is right - it was a belief of not a few of the inspectors that there were none, prior to the invasion. They couldn't prove it, even if they were there, because you can't prove a negative.

I paid close attention to the song and dance of the Bush/Powell crusade to get sanction for invasion. We were going in no matter how thin (transparently so) the evidence. All the rationalizations they've come up with since don't change one simple fact: after 10 years, we struck first.

[gags]

When?

After Gulf War I, when the "No-Fly Zones" were established and we began to police them, the Iraqis frequently shot at our aircraft. These were acts of war and they shot first.

We're not the global police. At the time we weren't the Iraqi police either. I agree him being gone isn't bad. Us going in to do it, however, is another story.

While we're not the global police, Iraq threatened global oil supplies, making them a threat to our national security. As I said before, we had a moral right (but not necessarily an obligation), to remove Saddam.

I was, at the time, a Conservative Republican who was widely outnumbered when I stated opposition to invading Iraq. There was no tie to Al Queda, there were no WMDs, we'd been non-violent with them for 10 years. I believed then and I believe now that we are the aggressor nation in Iraq.

While there were no ties to Al Queda, there were certainly strong ties to terrorism. Hussein openly supported and funded suicide bombers who attacked Israel. As far as WMDS are concerned, Saddam had them and he used them against the Iranians as well as his own people. After Gulf War I, the UN destroyed his WMDS, but Saddam purposely made it look as if Iraq still had WMDS. The 60 Minutes interview with his US interogator is quite revealing on this point:

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

"Not initially, no," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page4.shtml

Clearly this was a disasterous miscalculation for Hussein but it was something he brought upon himself, not a fabrication of US intelligence agencies and politicians.

However, that said - we are there NOW - we made a mess, and we have to clean it up. Just leaving w/o finishing the job (however the hell we do that) is not acceptable.

Bush certainly did make a mess of it, now I believe that the best chance we have of cleaning it up is presented by the deeply flawed candidacy of John McCain.

"only became certain" is right - it was a belief of not a few of the inspectors that there were none, prior to the invasion. They couldn't prove it, even if they were there, because you can't prove a negative.

It was a belief promoted by Saddam himself, so I find it bewildering that you and others continue to blame us for the charade that he perpetrated. You might also be interested in knowing that Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD program when the attention died down.

(CBS) In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.

"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...494_page6.shtml

I paid close attention to the song and dance of the Bush/Powell crusade to get sanction for invasion. We were going in no matter how thin (transparently so) the evidence. All the rationalizations they've come up with since don't change one simple fact: after 10 years, we struck first.

Absent 9/11, we would have never invaded Iraq. However in the aftermath of those attacks, this government had an obligation to pay greater attention to foreign threats as they were forming. Given Hussein's bellicose rhetoric, his attacks on our planes, his demonstrated willingness to use WMDS and the deceptive games he played with WMDS, his funding of terrorists, etc..., the Bush administration should have been impeached if it ignored this threat.

[EC]

That is a fact that only became certain after the invasion, not before. Prior to going into Iraq virtually every intelligence agency in the world believe Saddam was hiding WMD's. At the very least, he was not cooperating with the inspectors. In fact, if I remember right, he kicked them out of the country.

This still isn't "a fact that became certain". We did find small caches of biological weapons here and there, and I still think there was a good chance the real bad stuff was shipped out of the country pre-invasion--probably to Syria.

[Mammon]

This still isn't "a fact that became certain". We did find small caches of biological weapons here and there, and I still think there was a good chance the real bad stuff was shipped out of the country pre-invasion--probably to Syria.

You know, I heard this repeated about 6 million times. Are we ever going to get any proof that they shipped to Syria? I can see it now, we invade Syria and... they just aren't there, must of being shipped to Morroco! Bring democracy to Morroco and what do you know, the WMDs got shipped somewhere else.

Those tricky WMDs sure now how to hide!

Anyways, after researching some more I found another interesting thing Rand didn't like Reagan at all. And all conseratives of our day pratically worship the man, where do you think that would leave Rand?

[fletch]

Absent 9/11, we would have never invaded Iraq. However in the aftermath of those attacks, this government had an obligation to pay greater attention to foreign threats as they were forming. Given Hussein's bellicose rhetoric, his attacks on our planes, his demonstrated willingness to use WMDS and the deceptive games he played with WMDS, his funding of terrorists, etc..., the Bush administration should have been impeached if it ignored this threat.

I think that is exactly right. Based upon what we knew (or thought we knew) I think it would have been irresponsible for the president not to act. Yet, what we have this year is a candidate for president who would have done just that. The entire justification for the Barak Obama campaign was that it was he and he alone who "opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning." What he is saying is that in spite of 9/11, inspite of "Hussein's bellicose rhetoric, his attacks on our planes, his demonstrated willingness to use WMDS and the deceptive games he played with WMDS, his funding of terrorists," the overwhelming support of congress and the best judgement of the intelligence agencies, he would have done nothing. Well, probably not nothing. He would have given Saddam a face-to-face meeting at the White House perhaps after a State Dinner or something. I dont think this guy has the judgement to run a local Boy Scout troup let along the US government.

[Greebo]

After Gulf War I, when the "No-Fly Zones" were established and we began to police them, the Iraqis frequently shot at our aircraft. These were acts of war and they shot first.

And not one US Pilot was injured.

While we're not the global police, Iraq threatened global oil supplies, making them a threat to our national security. As I said before, we had a moral right (but not necessarily an obligation), to remove Saddam.

So, the US has a right to foreign oil by force?

While there were no ties to Al Queda, there were certainly strong ties to terrorism. Hussein openly supported and funded suicide bombers who attacked Israel.

We're not Isreal.

As far as WMDS are concerned, Saddam had them and he used them against the Iranians as well as his own people.

We're also not Iran and until we invated, we weren't Iraq.

Absent 9/11, we would have never invaded Iraq. However in the aftermath of those attacks, this government had an obligation to pay greater attention to foreign threats as they were forming. Given Hussein's bellicose rhetoric, his attacks on our planes, his demonstrated willingness to use WMDS and the deceptive games he played with WMDS, his funding of terrorists, etc..., the Bush administration should have been impeached if it ignored this threat.

He would have been impeached if he'd ignored the threat that he drummed up?

Don't misunderstand me - I never liked Hussein, and maybe Iraq really was a threat. However, the argument that we should have invaded because they posed a potential threat is no more valid than the argument that we should eliminate gun ownership in this country because the guns MIGHT be used improperly. We instituted a no-fly zone over Iraq after a conflict in which we aided an ally in defense against Iraq as the aggressor. Whether we had the need or right to institute the no-fly zone in the first place is debatable, but to maintain it for nearly 10 years and then use the fact that, after all that time, the Iraqi Government wanted their own airspace back, as justification for us to invade just doesn't hold up for me.

[gags]

And not one US Pilot was injured.

Whether any were actually injured or not, firing on our planes was an act of war.

So, the US has a right to foreign oil by force?

We have a right to defend our interests. Where are we taking oil by force? Plenty of governments have taken oil by force in recent years, but we're not one of them. Are you approaching this issue from a Marxist perspective?

We're not Isreal.

We're also not Iran and until we invated, we weren't Iraq.

Iraqi actions against these nations demonstrated their willingness to support terrorism and to use WMDs. Only a fool would ignore such evidence.

He would have been impeached if he'd ignored the threat that he drummed up?

Don't misunderstand me - I never liked Hussein, and maybe Iraq really was a threat. However, the argument that we should have invaded because they posed a potential threat is no more valid than the argument that we should eliminate gun ownership in this country because the guns MIGHT be used improperly.

Sorry, but I don't come from the school of thought that says we can never defend ourselves unless we're first the victim of a devastating attack. As disappointing as the Bush presidency has been, this is one aspect of his foreign policy that actually makes some sense.

We instituted a no-fly zone over Iraq after a conflict in which we aided an ally in defense against Iraq as the aggressor. Whether we had the need or right to institute the no-fly zone in the first place is debatable, but to maintain it for nearly 10 years and then use the fact that, after all that time, the Iraqi Government wanted their own airspace back, as justification for us to invade just doesn't hold up for me.

The Iraqis continued to violate the terms of the Gulf War I cease fire all the way until we invaded in 2003. That alone should have been justification enough for us to take out Saddam Hussein. I suppose we'll just have to disagree as to when there is sufficient evidence to allow us to defend ourselves. I don't want to see more Americans sacrificed because we ignore real threats until it's too late.

[Greebo]

We have a right to defend our interests. Where are we taking oil by force? Plenty of governments have taken oil by force in recent years, but we're not one of them. Are you approaching this issue from a Marxist perspective?

No - I was responding to this:

'While we're not the global police, Iraq threatened global oil supplies, making them a threat to our national security. As I said before, we had a moral right (but not necessarily an obligation), to remove Saddam.'

The implication here seems to me that we had a right to invade Iraq because we need oil. Force for oil. Its not our oil till we buy it. What would we be justified in doing if the Saudi's decided to stop selling oil to us at all? Invade them?

Iraqi actions against these nations demonstrated their willingness to support terrorism and to use WMDs. Only a fool would ignore such evidence.

What acts of aggression not involving airplanes over their soil had Iraq committed against us?

Sorry, but I don't come from the school of thought that says we can never defend ourselves unless we're first the victim of a devastating attack. As disappointing as the Bush presidency has been, this is one aspect of his foreign policy that actually makes some sense.

Then you are advocating for the initiation of force, are you not?

[softwareNerd]

Its not our oil till we buy it. What would we be justified in doing if the Saudi's decided to stop selling oil to us at all? Invade them?

Does the Saudi royal family have a right to that oil? If so, how did such a right arise? It is not our oil till we buy it...fair enough; but, by what right does it belong to the Saudis?

[gags]

The implication here seems to me that we had a right to invade Iraq because we need oil. Force for oil. Its not our oil till we buy it. What would we be justified in doing if the Saudi's decided to stop selling oil to us at all? Invade them?

Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. If any nation attempts to disrupt its free flow, we are justified in countering that effort.

What acts of aggression not involving airplanes over their soil had Iraq committed against us?

Is that your standard for action? How many Americans have to die before we defend ourselves or even act to prevent an attack?

Then you are advocating for the initiation of force, are you not?

If a thug points a gun at my head and I respond, that's not the initiation of force.

[Mammon]

Whether any were actually injured or not, firing on our planes was an act of war.

And I wonder how many acts of war have happened without us doing anything about it. Could it possible be that they were looking for the smallest excuses to start this war.

We have a right to defend our interests. Where are we taking oil by force? Plenty of governments have taken oil by force in recent years, but we're not one of them. Are you approaching this issue from a Marxist perspective?

Yes. He disagrees with you, therefore, he is looking at it from a Marxist perspective. I agree with his assessment of your statement, but I'll get to it later.

Iraqi actions against these nations demonstrated their willingness to support terrorism and to use WMDs. Only a fool would ignore such evidence.

Too use WMDs on us? Or our interests? Our allies maybe? What evidence is there that that was there intended purpose?

Sorry, but I don't come from the school of thought that says we can never defend ourselves unless we're first the victim of a devastating attack. As disappointing as the Bush presidency has been, this is one aspect of his foreign policy that actually makes some sense.

So you come from the school of thought that thinks if an obscure and tiny threat exists anywhere on the earth we should triple nuke the country it's in and anyone the countries associated with it in the last 20 years?

Don't put words in Greebo's mouth.

The Iraqis continued to violate the terms of the Gulf War I cease fire all the way until we invaded in 2003. That alone should have been justification enough for us to take out Saddam Hussein. I suppose we'll just have to disagree as to when there is sufficient evidence to allow us to defend ourselves. I don't want to see more Americans sacrificed because we ignore real threats until it's too late.

We could of had a skilled sniper take out Saddam and accomplished the exact same results we have today. Saddam was not a major threat to us, that's what the evidence is looking like right now.

[Mammon]

Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. If any nation attempts to disrupt its free flow, we are justified in countering that effort.

If John Galt's motor powered our economy and he decided to take it away, should we force him to stop because it's a threat to our national security? You need to choose your words better.

Is that your standard for action? How many Americans have to die before we defend ourselves or even act to prevent an attack?

Millions, as long as we have people that think we should throw our troops out like human shields to every tiny threat out there.

If a thug points a gun at my head and I respond, that's not the initiation of force.

Was Saddam pointing a gun at us? Or was he looking at a gun, so we decided we needed to go get him because he obviously wants to shoot us with it?

This thread has drifted seriously off-topic. Thanks gags.

[fletch]

Millions, as long as we have people that think we should throw our troops out like human shields to every tiny threat out there.

Millions??? Are you offering yourself up to be in the first wave of causualties? What do you suppose the purpose of our troops is? As far a tiny threats go, how much of a threat could, say, 19 men with box cutters and boarding passes possibly pose?

[Greebo]

Does the Saudi royal family have a right to that oil? If so, how did such a right arise? It is not our oil till we buy it...fair enough; but, by what right does it belong to the Saudis?

At this point, you seem strongly to be suggesting that two wrongs make a right - the right being, we need oil, the wrongs being, we can do whatever we want to keep it flowing, even when its not on our land, and is currently owned by someone else.

Do you imagine this to be some kind of comparison to Ragnar Danneskjöld? Are the Saudi's supposedly stealing the oil from hard working capitalists and we're going in and rescuing it for them for later?

Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. If any nation attempts to disrupt its free flow, we are justified in countering that effort.

If Country A owns the oil, and we buy it, and Country C attacks or overtly threatens A, we can defend A, sure. Where was the direct, imminent threat to Saudi Oil by Iraq? Do you not remember that, during the whole buildup, "This is not about oil, this is about WMDs!"?

Is that your standard for action? How many Americans have to die before we defend ourselves or even act to prevent an attack?

If a thug points a gun at my head and I respond, that's not the initiation of force.

As Mammon said, you are distorting my argument. You are straw manning.

What was the direct, immediate, provable, imminent threat to the USA from Iraq?

Where was the gun to our head? Seeing as we rolled over that country, destroyed their infrastructure, overturned their economy, created a quagmire and have destabilized the region as a result, is the threat to us now lesser, or greater? How many died as a result of Iraq in the year before we invaded? How many died as a result of Iraq this year?

Millions??? Are you offering yourself up to be in the first wave of causualties? What do you suppose the purpose of our troops is? As far a tiny threats go, how much of a threat could, say, 19 men with box cutters and boarding passes possibly pose?

I think you missed his point.

Mammon's right tho - this has gotten way off topic, and I will stop here.

[softwareNerd]

Does the Saudi royal family have a right to that oil? If so, how did such a right arise? It is not our oil till we buy it...fair enough; but, by what right does it belong to the Saudis?

At this point, you seem strongly to be suggesting that two wrongs make a right ...

I suspect that you mistook my post as being by Gags, because this was my first on the topic.

...- the right being, we need oil, the wrongs being, we can do whatever we want to keep it flowing, even when its not on our land, and is currently owned by someone else.

The question of the right of the Saudi royal family to that oil is central and fundamental to the rest. So, the key question is: by what right does the Saudi royal family own that oil? If this question is unanswered, we'll never know the rightness or wrongness of the situation.

I think one can make some arguments for Saudi royal-family ownership; but, what are they, and are they strong? Are they stronger, weaker or similar to claims that Chavez makes on Exxon-Mobil's facilities in Venezuela?

[Greebo]

First, thanks for splitting the thread out.

I suspect that you mistook my post as being by Gags, because this was my first on the topic.

No - i was using the multiquote feature to respond to several posts at once. My apologies for the confusion.

The question of the right of the Saudi royal family to that oil is central and fundamental to the rest. So, the key question is: by what right does the Saudi royal family own that oil? If this question is unanswered, we'll never know the rightness or wrongness of the situation.

I don't understand how Saudi oil ownership is fundamental to whether or not it was ok to invade Iraq. Can you please explain why this question is so key?

[softwareNerd]

I don't understand how Saudi oil ownership is fundamental to whether or not it was ok to invade Iraq. Can you please explain why this question is so key?

It isn't. It is more relevant to any general U.S. policy to ensure that the supply of middle eastern oil is not disrupted. Specifically, I asked that in response to your rhetorical question, where you asked:

What would we be justified in doing if the Saudi's decided to stop selling oil to us at all? Invade them?

In general, I do not think the U.S. needs to defend oil-supplies, because most future dictators will still want to sell oil to the world-market. However, that's quite different from saying that the Saudi's or Sadaam or Chavez have some type of right to that oil, which was taken away from European and U.S. firms in the first place.

[Greebo]

It isn't. It is more relevant to any general U.S. policy to ensure that the supply of middle eastern oil is not disrupted. Specifically, I asked that in response to your rhetorical question, where you asked: In general, I do not think the U.S. needs to defend oil-supplies, because most future dictators will still want to sell oil to the world-market. However, that's quite different from saying that the Saudi's or Sadaam or Chavez have some type of right to that oil, which was taken away from European and U.S. firms in the first place.

I think nationally it goes without saying that the Saudi's right to own and sell us the oil has been conceded by the fact that we buy from them.

However, the point of the rhetorical question was whether or not we had a right to invade Iraq because of the claimed-but-unproven threat to our oil supply.

The question still stands - if invading Iraq was justified because of our need for oil, by what right to we have claim to the oil in the first place? If we don't have a right to have sustenance provided, how do we have a right to have oil provided?

We need oil, so we'll invade Iraq to protect our oil isn't Marxim - if I'm not very much mistaken, its Will to Power - it's Neitzcheism (sp?).

[DarkWaters]

This post is in response to a very recent post by Greebo where he claimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an "initiation of force". I would quote the post directly, but I cannot seem to locate it since this thread became split.

What is your standard in which this is an initiation of force? Who is the force being initiated against?

Saddam Hussein was an armed dictator who routinely used his military might to torture and murder political dissidents. Even if he posed absolutely no threat to American interests, killing him is not an initiation of force. It is use of retaliatory force, possibly on the behalf of a third party.

[Greebo]

This post is in response to a very recent post by Greebo where he claimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an "initiation of force". I would quote the post directly, but I cannot seem to locate it since this thread became split.

What is your standard in which this is an initiation of force? Who is the force being initiated against?

We initiated the force against Iraq by launching a military invasion.

Saddam Hussein was an armed dictator who routinely used his military might to torture and murder political dissidents. Even if he posed absolutely no threat to American interests, killing him is not an initiation of force. It is use of retaliatory force, possibly on the behalf of a third party.

Were we asked to retaliate? Do we, as a nation, have the moral authority to act as a police force for crimes committed in other nations or by other nations against their own citizens? If we have that right, why can't Canada invade us for, say, Guantanamo Bay, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge?

Do we have a moral obligation to act on behalf of a third party? To sacrifice our own troops for the sake of others?

Are we saying that altruism justifies this monstrosity we've created in Iraq?

[themadkat]

I think a false alternative is being presented here. Taking out Saddam Hussein is in NO way equivalent to the military actions we have taken in Iraq. I do believe the US, or anyone else, would be entirely justified in killing Saddam Hussein, but that is a whole different animal than making war on a whole country and slaughtering thousands of their citizens who did nothing, as well as needlessly putting our soldiers in harm's way. If anyone can explain to me why the trillions of dollars we have pissed away on this moronic endeavor could not have been saved but for the price of one bullet from one talented sniper, I'll be amazed.

Yes, Saddam was a piece of human waste. I don't think anyone will seriously argue that having him gone is a bad thing. But we could have popped him, left, and saved a whole lot of lives. This war business is nonsense and a pure waste. Even the guys who've been over there know it. I've talked to enough of them, they get how they've been gamed. It's a damned disgrace to this country.

[softwareNerd]

I think nationally it goes without saying that the Saudi's right to own and sell us the oil has been conceded by the fact that we buy from them.

In general, don't agree with that, because the mafia that collects protection money could also claim that those who pay have conceded the mafia's right to collect. I agree that estoppel and time-based limitation a valid legal approach, but I don't think it applies in this case. By the same reasoning of estoppel, one could make the case that the U.S. allowed the middle-eastern countries to expropriate oil on the implicit understanding that they would allow the supply to flow to the U.S.

We need oil, so we'll invade Iraq to protect our oil isn't Marxim - if I'm not very much mistaken, its Will to Power - it's Neitzcheism (sp?).

It is not need that makes it right, it is the simple fact that much of that oil is ours.