So, it looks like Gulf II is accepted and done with, the french and germans and russians have rolled over, so the world may go back to normal…
I am not proud. Or content.
I still feel that Bush was wrong to choose this war. Unless, of course, the Security Council knows something we don’t. Which is always a possibility.
Still, having chosen, he waited until the likely last moment to start it… I do not deny that. Nor can I fault most of the events that occured during it, it was well done.
But I still believe that it was the least important issue facing him in the world today.
And I still hope, having done this, we use it properly, to build a shining new future for Iraq.
I’m happy to see France, Germany, and Russia recognize that there is no point in ignoring reality. No point to punish Iraqis for their (Europe’s) disagreement with the US.
And, yeah, what is the debate? I don’t see that this indicates any recognition that the war was justified.
Seems to me like France & Co. rejected the war before the war and now are accepting the fait accompli. Unlike the USA who 44 years later still holds a grudge with Cuba. And, speaking of grudges:
The article then mentions the Western Sahara. Some time ago I started a thread on that topic saying it was a shameful sellout by Spain, France and the USA. I still think so and the article agrees
Personaly, I think the war on Iraq was a cover-up for something bigger. I have proof, too.
First of all, North Korea has a hostility with us (not that Saddam doesn’t), they are MUCH more powerful, and are even suggested of having weapons that AREN’T ALLOWED…More than Hussein would, anyway.
And think about this as you pick your nose or whatever you do when you’re bored: Iraq is whre we get practilly almost every drop of oil from. Petroleum is also the most used energy source in the US. If Bush was so exited to get rid of Saddam and Iraq, why not North Korea instead? Any morons who have not read all of my letter, read the paragraph on N Korea. And come on, don’t tell me NORTH KOREA, at the most, half the size of Texas, can beat one of the most powerful nations in the world? Either Bush is oil hungry and using the war as an exuse, or he is too ignorant to the outside world. That is all the griping and complaining I will do-for now-
Do you have a citable source for this assertion? I’ve been under the impression that almost all of the petro products consumed in the US comes from somehwere *other[i/] than Iraq.
Well, I have to agree with most of what 98467 said in his second post.
As for the OP, I fully agree that what the United States needs to do now is to lead an international effort into rebuilding a better Iraq. If ten years down the road, Iraq is as well off as Germany or Japan were in 1955, no one will question the American motives for invading.
Yes. Oh except for Mexico. And Canada, but that’s it. No, wait…Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Hey, then there’s Alaska, Texas, the Gulf of Mexico…But, then pracically every other drop…
Obviousl;y the USA has not been getting a lot of oil from Iraq in the last ten years but that does not mean the USA has no interest in Iraqi oil. Securing a guaranteed source of cheap oil would be very desirable, especially since it looks like Saudi Arabia might become unstable and unreliable. I have no doubt that the USA went to Iraq looking for what it may well soon lose in Saudi: oil and military bases.
I have no doubt that Bush went to war there because he needed to show that he was doing something. Anything. Because the economy is biting him in the butt. Terrorism is biting him in the butt. And unrest across the country in general.
Also he had to keep the money men happy and as it looks like Haliburton is going to get rich, he at least covered that debt he owed.
It’s all about oil? Nah, I have no doubt that it is not about oil.
Why not? I didn’t think so either until I saw how swiftly the US Govt. has moved to sweep the WMD issue under the carpet. It’s like they’re trying to burn their strawman and sweep the ashes under the rug as quickly as possible before the people call their bullshit.
Besides, the justification for the French, German and Russian actions in delaying the war was always “That they were just protecting their oil interests.” If the French and the Germans can gear their entire foreign policy around oil, why can’t the US?
I’m serious. I want a point by point justification for the statement that this was not about oil to a large degree.
Well, I’d like to apologize, firstly, I was a bit sleepy when I posted this thread, and I seem to have… er… forgotten the second half.
What happened? I can understand the retroactive legitimizing of the invasion… realpolitik and suchlike, though I could have seen a Taiwan situation happening.
But what I don’t understand is the sudden rollover of the UN. Why are they not giving the US a harder time about governing?
Why are they not asking for more in the governance of Iraq?
Regardless, this is a way to make sure the US and UK pay the price for their actions. Iraq is now officially our problem, and the rest of the UN is not going to bail us out.
Persoally I wonder if ol’ George had wished the courts had decided against him in the whole Vote count thing. He won that battle but is losing the war. El Predicto says… another One Term Bush who couldn’t be bailed out on the homeland support for war with Iraq.
Not to stir things up, but a quick question:
Would it have been possible, legally, for Haliburton (and the others) to begin work in Iraq if the sanctions had not been lifted?
If not, it seems to me this is perhaps part of the big rush and sudden interest in getting this resolution passed and the sanctions removed - to allow money to start flowing from Iraqi oil wells into American hands.
