U.S.A. to Invade Iraq

Ssssshhhh. They're gonna label you an oil-monger! Look at my posts 3 or 4 pages back. This war is really about FREEDOM. What a fool you are to think anything else!

 

That sounds more like an occupation than a regime change. You will forgive me for suggesting that the US might gain a lot of oil on the cheap if something like this happened.

For the last time, NO. This is not an occupation. I suggest you do read the past pages, and that Bush speach. That oil is going to become OPEC oil, and just like the last Gulf War, prices are going to increase. We have no intentions of conquering Iraq, we just want Saddam out. Just to follow your logic, if we did such a thing the whole Mid-east would turn against us, not to mention the whole world. If we really wanted the oil, why couldn't we just buy it from Saddam? Of course we would soon be blackmailed or dead, but that's another story.

 

For all you who are against going into Iraq for a regime change (let's just drop the oil for a second): Were you all for Clinton and his regime change in Iraq when he was president?





Ssssshhhh. They're gonna label you an oil-monger! Look at my posts 3 or 4 pages back. This war is really about FREEDOM. What a fool you are to think anything else!

Uh huh. It's all about oil. Yup, that's what it's all about. We don't care that he's got chemical weapons when he has USED them in the past. We don't care that he will sell his WMD's to terrorists. It's ALL about oil. It's really about our greed for oil. That's what it's about.


*end sarcasm*





...and a Jango

 

Of course, you DO know that the U.S. knew of and allowed Saddam to test and experiment with those chemical weapons for YEARS before he ever used them. I had posted a link to cnn on this, many many pages ago. But, I'm sure that'll be written off as "propaganda". If we weren't in a hurry to be involved then...why now? ?

 

Iraq is not about oil.

The U.S. gets only about 15 percent of its oil from Saudi Arabia--the rest comes from other locations around the world. We've diversified our oil supplies away from the Mid East.

It's about preventing an evil dictator from building WMDs and using them himself or (more likely) giving to someone else to use.

Secondly, the people of Iraq would be set free. We do this now to some exent (but in a schizophrenic way, IMO. We've let this drag on too long since the Gulf War.) We fly the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds from Iraqi air attacks, which started up after the Gulf War.

 

For all you who are against going into Iraq for a regime change (let's just drop the oil for a second): Were you all for Clinton and his regime change in Iraq when he was president?

For the record, no. The problem is not that it's Bush/Cheney now instead of Clinton/Gore. I blame Clinton for much of the current situation (by maintaining the no-fly zones, supporting sanctions, sabotaging the UN inspections process, etc.) Hopefully, for people on either side of the issue, it is about the principles behind the policy, and not the party that carries them out.

 

Here's some info on some OTHER nations known or suspected to have chemical and biological weapons (including Israel, of course). Strange that no actions have been taken against these country's (including Syria...one of the world's LARGEST supporters of terrorism).

Chemical and biologicial weapons

 

Of course, you DO know that the U.S. knew of and allowed Saddam to test and experiment with those chemical weapons for YEARS before he ever used them. I had posted a link to cnn on this, many many pages ago. But, I'm sure that'll be written off as "propaganda". If we weren't in a hurry to be involved then...why now?


Once again, you succeed in avoiding the question.

Yes, so he tested them. Could we have possibly known he would have used them against his own people and other countries?

The reason we weren't in a hurry back then was because Clinton was only doing it to cover up for the Lewinsky thing. Another thing, Saddam wasn't as advanced as he is now. He was still under progress of making the WMD's and other chemical/nuclear/biological weapons and/or getting supplies to make them.




...and a Jango

 

Iraq is not about oil.

The U.S. gets only about 15 percent of its oil from Saudi Arabia--the rest comes from other locations around the world. We've diversified our oil supplies away from the Mid East.

Right, true, but I though most of the US' oil is coming from Texas? But where does Japan get their oil from?

I agree with DarthKarrde and Feralwookie on this one. I dare anyone to suggest the 1991 conflict was about "liberating" Kuwait and not oil too. Go on, dare ya!

If it's about Freedom why did Bush Snr encourage the Iraqis to revolt, only to (IMO cruely) deny them the support he promised? It's like offering a dog a morsel of food till it wimpers, then eating it yourself. Cruel. And why did Iraq suddenly become an issue again? And what's the difference between Israel, who also have WMD and have said if push comes to shove, they will use them; and who've beem condemned by the Security Council more times than I could be bothered listing; and who have killed thousands of Palestinians in the last two years? Is the only difference that Iraq isn't a democracy? Neither is Pakistan or the PRC - they both have WMD, (Pakistan doesn't even have a nuclear doctrine!!!), aren't democratic - when is their regime change.

Sorry, I don't swallow Bush's speech hook line and sinker. It's probably my fault for knowing the Middle East well.

E_S

 

The reason we weren't in a hurry back then was because Clinton was only doing it to cover up for the Lewinsky thing. Another thing, Saddam wasn't as advanced as he is now. He was still under progress of making the WMD's and other chemical/nuclear/biological weapons and/or getting supplies to make them.

This was in 1988-89 under Regan, then Bush. I'll dig up the link eventually. Well, here's where it WAS unfortunatly, it's been removed. Anyone know how to dig something like that back up from if it's been moved on cnn.com? Well, here's a little something on how the CIA supported Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran. And, more info on the u.s. "approving" of iraq's use of wmd during the iran/iraq war: iran/iraq

Anyway here's one about DUYBA having knowledge of bioterrorist testing in Iraq and not acting because it was "too crude and small" Bush knew of bioterror tests If it wasn't a threat then, what's so different NOW?

Meanwhile, he's some opinions from the HEAD OF THE CIA: Tenant says Saddam might not use WMD unless provoked Interesting.

Also, some reasons why the U.S. is NOT planning for a regime after Saddam

 

Jonah Goldberg has two excellent articles (link, link) debunking some of the cliches used against our invading Iraq. Rather than restate them, I might as well cite them, as needed.

Well, here's a little something on how the CIA supported Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran. And, more info on the u.s. "approving" of iraq's use of wmd during the iran/iraq war: iran/iraq

Anyway here's one about DUYBA having knowledge of bioterrorist testing in Iraq and not acting because it was "too crude and small" Bush knew of bioterror tests If it wasn't a threat then, what's so different NOW?

This falls under the cliche of "We helped Saddam in the 1980s/We ignored his gassing of the kurds." Jonah's reply?

The simple response to all arguments along these lines is: "So what?" Even if were wrong to support Saddam (or the Taliban, etc.), does that mean we should stick to the wrong policy for consistency's sake? According to this view we should have turned a blind eye to the Holocaust because we'd turned a blind eye to the events that led up to the Holocaust. This is a byproduct of a culture which considers hypocrisy a greater crime than, well, real crimes. We've supported lots of bad characters in the past, for reasons which, in fairness, need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Al Qaeda, for example, may be some blowback from our support of the mujahedeen in the 1980s ? but that doesn't mean we were wrong to support the mujahedeen. There was a Cold War going on, after all. And even if we were wrong, how does that excuse al Qaeda for 9/11? Blaming America first may feel good, but it hardly absolves the bad guys for their actions, any more than slavery justifies a black guy murdering a 7-Eleven clerk.

Even if you stipulate that we did wrong before, does that mean we shouldn't do right now? Antiwar types throw around these non sequitors as if the implied hypocrisy settles the current argument, when all it does is imply hypocrisy.


Tenant's are interesting indeed. You seem to think that means we shouldn't attack.

IN OTHER WORDS, Saddam's weapons of mass murder would even now be effective in deterring us from interfering with his plans. Isn't that a GOOD REASON to attack now BEFORE he gets a nuke?


Finally, we didn't have a clear plan for regime change before we entered WWII, and it's not clear we had a plan before attacking Afghanistan. Didn't stop us then, shouldn't stop us now.

(Besides, announcing Hussein's replacement would hurt our alliances within Iraq's different dissedent movements AND turn the successor into a marked man.)

 

Yes, so he tested them. Could we have possibly known he would have used them against his own people and other countries?

Yeah, you did. And you still called him a "competent" leader AFTER he had already used them. He only became a "maniac" after he attacked Kuweit (for which he though he had a green light from the US, who said to him that they would think of it as a "pan-Arabic" matter.)

EDIT- I do not mean that you shouldn't act because you didn't act then though. I just think it'll be the wrong move and that we'll regret it. Let's hope I'm wrong eh?

 

Ender-Sai (ferelwookie),

"I agree with DarthKarrde and Feralwookie on this one. I dare anyone to suggest the 1991 conflict was about "liberating" Kuwait and not oil too. Go on, dare ya!"

Ender, I posted a reply to this twice before in here and not a peep was heard. This time I will post it directly to you in hope of an answer.

Yes, in 1991, the United States along side UN forces stopped Saddam Hussein from successfully "acquiring" Kuwait. The most vocal detractors of the time called out, "No blood for oil!". I am sure you remember. In any case, the Coalition forces made short work of Saddam's military forces and through the UN, sanctions were imposed upon Iraq.

Since the Gulf War, the United States has not only markedly decreased the import of Middle Eastern oil, but it has also vetoed many attempts by major European members of the UN to lift such sanctions, allowing them to increase their own importation of Iraqi oil.

So here are my questions to you?

Did any US oil company benefit greatly from the first Gulf War?

Which countries have increased their import of Iraqi/Kuwaiti oil?

 

Yeah, you did. And you still called him a "competent" leader AFTER he had already used them. He only became a "maniac" after he attacked Kuweit (for which he though he had a green light from the US, who said to him that they would think of it as a "pan-Arabic" matter.)

EDIT- I do not mean that you shouldn't act because you didn't act then though. I just think it'll be the wrong move and that we'll regret it. Let's hope I'm wrong eh?


? I don't remember the US saying that it would be a pan-Arabic matter. Do you have any links to something to clarify, because I'm totally in the dark about this.



And here's another question for those against going into Iraq, which I've asked many times, and it has been cleverly avoided: Have you ever stopped to think if you're wrong? What if you're wrong? Why are you willing to take the risk of allowing this guy to live?




Kudos, ob!





...and a Jango

 

I don't remember the US saying that it would be a pan-Arabic matter.

Washington did in fact send Saddam mixed messages. I read it in my National Security Policy class. I had to write an essay on it.

Anyway, one thing I've heard people say is that we're going to war over oil and money.

Even if this were true, so what? 90% of all wars have to do with money.

The Revolutionary War. People say it was about freedom and democracy, but it wasn't.
The straw that broke the camel's back was the Stamp Act. Anyone ever here of the Boston Tea Party? That was economic based terrorism.

And I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with going to war for econmoic means. Countries need money to survive.

But this war isn't about oil or money. It is about taking down an evil man who has used WMD against his own people, a man who has threatened his neighbors repeatedly, and a man who thumbed his nose at International Law time and again.


EDIT: And IMO, we are going in to rectify a huge mistake we made year ago: not taking him out sooner.

 

I don't remember the US saying that it would be a pan-Arabic matter. Do you have any links to something to clarify, because I'm totally in the dark about this.

The US Ambassador in Iraq at that point said that to Saddam when asked how the US would view a possible invasion of Kuweit.

I'll again respond to you with the same question, have you considered what *will* happen when you invade Iraq? You honestly believe that the people there are going to be all happy and say "thank you for saving us from big evil Saddam mr. Bush, now we're going to start our own little democracy and live happily ever after!"?

 

It's going to be tough to set up a democracy in Iraq, but it can be done.

 

It can be; but as you said it'll be tough. There is no real group or groups with which to work; that is, there are exile governments who haven't set foot in Iraq for decades and thus have no popular support. I really do hope there is a plan up someone's sleeve; though I'm still doubting there is.

E_S

 

If I may cut in here real quick, I have a question.

Might another thread be a good idea? This one is starting to get rather long by Senate standards, and I'm wondering if it's keeping new people or others from joining in.

Just a thought.

 

a new thread wouldn't hurt. go for it!

cheers!

 

"So what?"

WE put the guy in power, AND equiped him and allowed him to have the very weapons that we're now complaining about. That's not hypocritical at all.[rolls eyes]

Anyway, on a totally unrealted political front: Check this little article out. Now, THIS is dedication to one's party!

These people are our "allies"?!? There is no future.

 

WE put the guy in power, AND equiped him and allowed him to have the very weapons that we're now complaining about. That's not hypocritical at all.[rolls eyes]

SURE it's hypocritical. The article admits as much, but why should that keep us from acting here and now?

 

Because, why wasn't he such as "threat" back then, when he had (and we ALLOWED it) the same weapons? How is he any MORE of a threat than back then? Is it just because he doesn't suit our purposes anymore, or that he is INDEED a threat to "America"...more like "American interests" IMHO.

But, in the 80's he was "O.K." because he was killing the "evil" Iranians at the time...suited the U.S. at the time. It's the same thing as us supplying and equiping the Taliban and Bin Laden to fight the U.S.S.R. It always comes back to bite you. BOTH of these "threats" were created by the UNITED STATES. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

We were wrong then, we are right now. That is the difference.

 

Oy!

"We" thought we were right THEN, though! What makes you think "we're" not wrong again? ?