If you set up Shell pumps every 20 feet, you’d be helping the Dutch as well. We’d be delighted. 
Wait, this is Kuwait we’re talking about, right?
It’s true that Saddam had to be removed from Iraq, but what they put back in place wasn’t a cowload better.
The substantive issue is whether or not Iraq has or soon has WMD. Without those, Saddam is powerless to harm other countries – we’ve shown him what a joke his army is against a real army – and he knows it.
There’s no proof of the existence of WMDs but Saddam has been so recalcitrant on this issue that it’s hard to believe some huge cache doesn’t exist somewhere in Iraq. My suspicion is that shortly after Saddam threw the inspectors out a massive but secret WMD development program was started, and that somewhere in Iraq are facilities for developing a WMD stockpile that will give all of us a serious case of the heebie-jeebies if and when we find it.
Whether this justifies going to war is hard to say. Sending kids off to get killed, however valiantly, is something we should never do lightly. And I have always taken great pride in the fact that for most of the twentieth century, America has not been an agressor nation – despite the fact that we are a superpower, other nations can go about their business without worrying about us sending in the troops. I hate the thought that we are threatening to invade Iraq even though it has committed no overt act of aggression.
But there is ample historical precedent for the notion that with some governments, it’s a case of “kill me now or kill me later.” Saddam’s administration has all the earmarks of being such a government. If we do not attack Saddam now, we may find outselves forced to fight him when he’s equipped with WMDs.
So I reluctantly say that we probably do have to go to war with Iraq. I also think that if we do so we have a moral imperative to take apart the elements of the Iraqi culture that made it possible for Saddam to rule, not the usual cheap CIA power games that got us into the Middle Eastern mess in the first place. Something like what we did in Japan. Unfortunately, I do not think the Bushies are up to this. Once the shooting is over and the oil fields are ours, George will lose interest.
Because I still think Bush’s main goal is oil.
That simply never happened.
You say this as the two positions in this are war or leave him alone to go on about his business. This is not the French, German or the Russian positions. They want the fucker dealt with but do not see a reason to go to all out war yet.
- There is a proposed pipeline for oil that was to pass across the southern tip of Afghanistan and very close to the northern border of Iraq.
Prior to the Afghan invasion, building it was a dead issue. Amazingly, that project is almost a real possibility with the draw back that it would be exposed to northern Iraq. If the regime in Iraq changes, however, that project is a shew-in and the oil industry will reap BILLIONS in profit via it.
-
European Media isn’t as controlled as ours is (ever notice the points of view & even the phrases attributed to the same story are the same on every channel?). This has been reported widely and independently in Europe. The people there know that all this WMD ‘dispute’ is nothing more than Bush-it.
-
This administrations policy of following pre-programmed agendas regardless of changes in circumstances is well documented:
Economy is growing , budget surplus = cut taxes
Economy is stagnanting, some surplus left= cut taxes
Economy is in the crapper, Deficit war spending rampant = cut taxes
This attack was scripted by Cheney & Bush prior to the 2000 election. It doesn’t matter what Sadam does; we’re still going in.
Erm, **quietman1920/b], do you mean Iraq or Iran? Iraq’s nowhere near the Afghan border.
yes, scripted years ago by the Illuminati, because they knew in advance who would be president.
I’m not even going to ask who you think controls our media.
Can open, worms everywhere!
Coldfire:
This is not true at all. Some US corporations sold germ samples to the Iraqis - who supposedly did not use them for biological warfare purposes according to the anti-war movement - and somehow “Big Guns” are invoked.
The US sat back and allowed the French and the Soviets to arm the Iraqis: true.
Yes, but right now the UN is somewhat in disagreement as to whether Hussein has thumbed his nose enough to warrant getting bombed.
The United States Government and ~ %50+ of its populace think so, but the UN seems pretty much on the fence.
The United States != United Nations.
Well hang on a cotton pickin’ minute. It pretty much seems like it was scripted - by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle, and Cheney was a member of their consortium at the time too, I think. Check the link I provided above.
How here’s where it gets murky for me. (excellent post, BTW, Derleth).
It seems as though the US (specifically the Bush administration) may be about to go against the will of the UN. If Bush does invade Iraq against the will of the UN (let us say without a further resolution), then he’s putting us in the same “rude” position, and may well be demonstrating to the rest of the world (well, except Britain, Spain and was it Angola???) that the USA is dangerous to the neighbors.
Now we can argue (and clearly have been) that what we’re doing is right, and “morally justified” and a “good thing”, and I think there is little doubt that the people of Iraq would be better off under a more benevolent leader (although I hope that “benevolent” in this context doesn’t just mean “supports American interests”).
Given that (for all his bluster) Hussein has been contained within his own borders for a decade or so, and is more or less besieged; I would argue that he isn’t much of a threat. But Bush seems hell-bent on demonstrating that the US administration (and especially Rumsfeld, who should just shut the fuck up until the medication kicks in) are more of a threat to the world than a pissant dictator up the end of the Persian Gulf.
And for Tristan, the real reason for war in a nutshell is:
(a) Bush/Cheney during their election campaign promised that, if elected, they would deal with the Iraq problem once and for all.
(b) Bush/Cheney got elected.
© A Saudi-born terrorist, based in Afghanistan, with connections to Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, committed a heinous attack on American soil.
(d) Bush used the events of © as a lever to fulfil his promise in (a).
But at least a politicial is keeping a campaign promise – I guess we’re going to have to pay more attention to these things.
SNORK
If you think the media here are any different than their american counterparts, then you are sadly mistaken. You missed the fun here in Germany during the last American presidential election. Every station in Germany was running pieces on Bush and Gore, and every single one of them treated Gore like God’s gift to the world and Bush like the devil in person. Not that they might not be right, but it is rather suspicious when everyone spouts the same opinion.
Most TV stations are state supported/run over here, and they can protest their independence all they want. Their money is controlled by the state, and him what pays says.
To slow down China’s economic growth.
MLC, Scruff, (Damn. Busy thread.) I’m aware that Bush is on the verge of dumping the UN and going to Iraq alone. I don’t agree with that for the same reason I don’t agree with Iraq wiping its ass with Resolution 1441. But when I posted here (so very long ago), this thread was Tristan’s bitch about the inanity of the `No blood for oil’ catchphrase, not about when and under what conditions the US should oust Saddam.
I think the UN has every right to stay America’s hand, but claiming that any US action against Saddam is purely profit-motivated or will only benefit oil interests is either remarkably stupid or remarkably cynical.
My problem with the OP is that on the one hand Tristan says the “blood for oil” slogan is wrong (I agree) but on the other hand says that European actions are motivated by oil. I think this assertion is as nonsensical as the peaceniks’.
I’ll grant you that Kuwait isn’t a place keen on human rights. Is any government in the region, except possibly Israel? I didn’t read your posts very closely, but I didn’t notice anyone being stoned in the streets (as in Saudi Arabi) or nerve gassed by their own government (as in Iraq). I think Kuwait’s current regime was the lesser of two evils, especially given Saddam’s record for dealing with foreigners.
Morally, we should probably have cleaned up Kuwait’s government while we were there. Politically, that would have brought down a shitstorm and a half on the heads of us and the rest of the Western world.
Sorry. Links, not posts. And I will look over them more closely, especially the State Department one.
Derleth
Duly noted and agreed upon. I misread your intent, and instead saw another example of US Manifest Destiny. Appologies.
I think that’s what makes me queezy. The US says to Iraq “You are flouting the will of the UN. You must comply with the will of the international community” The when the UN looks like it will not support its request for military action “We will not be dictated to. We are a soverign nation and can do what we need to despite the will of the international community”
I know that we have France claiming it would veto any request taking away any real idea of what the world consensus is but damn it’s not like the United States hasn’t used their veto.
I’m confused and waiting for this to end one way or another… I’ve given up fighting what has now become a given.