Dave I guess the issue is that when you say “it’s not only about the oil, it’s about this and that and the other thing too”, and we all demonstrate that ‘this, that and the other thing too’ can also be said about a number of other places who aren’t about to be invaded, we’re all wondering what’s left besides (mainly) the oil?
See, dragging up Isreal ignoring U.N. mandates or human rights abuses in Chetznia is a red herring. They have nothing to do with Iraq. If the discussion you want to have is “Inconsistancies in U.S. foreign policy”, have at it, that’s not the discussion we’re having. Personally, I think we’d be doing the exact same thing if Iraq had less oil than Rhode Island, because I think the real driving force behind the war is Dubya being too damn pig-ignorant over what to do after Afghanistan, and Saddam makes a nice target. I also think he(Saddam)'s going to have to be deposed, by force, sometime in the next few years and now is the time to just get it done. Even if you could point to a situation that was exactly the same in every aspect as the one in Iraq except for the oil and the U.S. was doing nothing ( Which I doubt, G.W. would be salavating over another “just war” to feed and reaffirm his twisted world view), it still wouldn’t meant that the war on Iraq was just about the oil. It would mean that in the administration’s mind the combination of factors (including oil) justifies the use of force and the combination of factors in the other situation didn’t. The tendency of otherwise inteligent people to try and reduce complex issues to simple 5 word catchphrases rather than attempting to understand them amazes me.
well, to balance that, the attempt of other folks to suggest that a big reason are invading Iraq is because of the human rights violations and poor, poor downtrodden people there is mind boggling in its duplicity.
when I think it’s ‘mainly’ 'cause of the oil, it’s cause it’s clear to me that we don’t care (generally) about genocide in other countries (certainly not to the extent of invading them w/o UN resolution), we don’t care (generally) about other countries ignoring UN orders (we generally don’t give a shit about the UN at all,) etc.
I agree w/you that this is Bush’ attempt to divert attention from the Afghanistan situation (which, remember is still going on) and the WoT, etc.
Let me ask you a question:
Are the stated reasons-I don’t care if you believe that the Govt means them or not-for war a good thing? Assume for a minute that Iraq has stockpiles of WMD ( Which I DO believe), that Saddam is killed fairly quickly, that civilian casualties are moderate or light, that the Iraqi people are freed from the reign of terror of a brutal dictator. If these things were true, would the war be justified?
I wish all countries were run by people who didn’t mass murder their citizens. I believe in humanitarian aide and diplomatic, international sanctions to assist in those cases. the WOMD thing is a red herring (IMHO) since quite a few other nations have them (including Pakistan, India and N. Korea, all of whom have been known to threaten their use, IIRC)
Given what we know here, I do not think the US is justified to invade. The length of time of the war doesn’t (IMHO) contribute to the morality/immorality of the war itself.
See, that wasn’t the question. I said IF the reasons were true. Throw out the one about the length of the war, then and assume the others were true. Would an invasion be justified then? Suppose several members of the U.N hadn’t given in to their selfish financial interests and the U.N had authorised force. Justified then?
see, I’m looking at that like the ‘have you stopped beating your wife’? game.
turn it around and see how it feels -
what would it take for you to admit that it’s being played out for GWB goals irrespective of what’s best for the US? Proof that he fabricated his evidence? Proof that SH did not have nukes?
the coincidence of who gets oil and contracts post Iraq?
I am generally very leery of an invasion of other countries. ISTM that was the ‘why’ for the last gulf war, that SH invaded Kuwait.
and I’m especially leery of invasion of other countries when (as is the case here) the UN hasn’t agreed that it’s the only solution.
see, the US has weapons of mass destruction. The US has the death penalty (which many around the world see as human rights violations**), the US has specifically threatened another nation with invasion, and, there’s quite a bit of evidence to suggest that we’ll follow through (what w/all those troops and ships and planes and everything hovering around Iraq). and the US flaunts UN regs whenever it decides that the UN reg isn’t in the US’ best interest. and some people would even question the legitimacy of the current administration, what with all the scandalous and questionable stuff that happened in the last election.
but I think it’d be really wrong of any other nation (or group of nations) to invade us.
** no, I am not equating the death penalty with the ‘disappearing’ of Iraqi citizens. I’m saying that our concern about human rights violations is in fact something that other people have complained of re: the US (admittedly not even in the same scale of a ballpark).
No, that wasn’t the point I was trying top make. The point I was going for was that the stated goals-removal of SH, destruction of WMD, etc…( And for those of you who say he dosen’t have any, I’m just flabergasted. He’s used WMD, many times, against his own people and Iran and has for the last 10 years done everything in his power to get around U.N sanctions, yet you find his “Oh, we dumped the agents out in the desert 10 years ago. No I can’t show you where” credible? It boggles the mind!) are probobly going to be served by this war, no matter what the “real” reason is. How about an analogy: I see a guy sneeking up behind you with a knife. As he raises his hand to stab you, I shoot him. You thank me for saving your life, and I say, “Oh, I shot him because I didn’t like the shirt he was wearing”. Tell me, do you care? I still saved your life. There is plenty of evidence of SH’s wrongdoing. What’s being debated is weather the evidence supports a war. I think it does, and even if Dubya has a totally hidden agenda that’s the “real” reason for the attack, getting rid of SH is a worthy result of the war.
As to ignoring the U.N…everybody does that to one degree or another. France kneecapped the ability of the U.N to act because Iraq owes them billions of dollars.
but dave, wadr and all, the analogy isnt’ you see the guy about to stab me and you shoot him, it’s you spend a whole lotta $$ (shorting your own family’s needs) to go across the city, passing by a dozen or so other would be stabbers, so that you can shoot the guy who may be about to stab me (or might be trying to protect himself from the guy next to me - Iran- who’s had it in for him for years), and pretend that it isn’t 'cause I happen to have this wonderful fur coat that you’re hoping I’ll be grateful enough to give you so you can give it to your mistress…
signed,
wring, queen of analogies.
OK… I’m sorry for the sycophantic hijack post, but I gots to RECKANIZE dat!
wring, you are the Queen of Analogies!
So be it. Are you any less grateful that I shot the guy who was about to stab you?
Dave
Blithly keeping on topic. 
I’m keepin’ the coat, dave
Wow–we thought the Somalis would be push-overs too. Don’t recall that being the case, however, do you? Point of fact: that was the last time we fought an urban campaign and we got our asses handed to us. Now I hope you’re right, I really do, but going into a war with blinders on is just foolhardy. The only people that can prevent this from getting nasty now are mid-level Iraqi bureaucrats and military officers. It’s in their hands and I hope and pray to whatever supreme being there is that they do the right thing.
Oh, and to all you furriners 
worried about the current US regime: I hear you. I live here and Bush and Co. scares the bejesus out of me. Just keep in mind that it is going to be Americans who are (by and large) going to be dying in this idiocy and who are going to be stretching to make ends meet after our economy tanks. We’re getting screwed over here too. I just ask that you keep that in mind, that’s all.
I think they’ve been sympathising with us since November 2000.
“You’re Americans? You have George W. Bush as a President? You poor dear!”
Maybe now we’ll finally find out about what happened to GeeDubya second year of service in the Texas Air National Guard. Right now it seems he got tired of protecting the sky above Amarillo from the Viet Cong Air Force and simply went walkabout.
Do you wish Saddam were your president?
Wow, sure, Lib! What a penetrating insight! Anybody who believes, on whatever foolish grounds, that our president made a bad mistake starting this war obviously prefers Saddam. Duh; no brainer. Hey, screw complexities. It’s a black and white issue, and all we have to do is pick which color hat to follow.
This is the attitude that baffles me. Given a regime that murders its citizens, the right action is aid and sanctions??? Sanctions only work if the ruler actually cares that the country’s economy is being ruined, do you really think a leader like that cares? Aid is wonderful, and would be completely unnecessary if the government actually worked for the people instead of the leaders.
Given the option of:
A) living under a murderous regime for decades with grinding poverty, starvation, mass murder, and no hope for freedom until your leader’s death (assuming his murderous son doesn’t take power)
or
B) living through a war to overthrow this evil government
Which would YOU choose? I would guarantee that most people, after experiencing A, would choose B in a heartbeat. In fact, if they could manage B on their own, they would, but given that they live in A, there is no hope to start up B.
Deep down, I believe that we are doing the right thing for the people of Iraq (regardless of the reason), they’re scared now, but they’ve been scared for decades, hopefully they can be free from that soon, and rebuild their society.
Cheesey the key word was international. International sanctions have, in the past at times, included miltary action.
we’ve got a bad history of ‘deciding’ that some leader is bad for their country and that we need to help get rid of him. especially in the MIddle East. Hell, we helped Saddam when we thought Iran was the ‘worst guy over there’.