Hilarious!!! Maybe Iraq would be willing to commit its fine fighting forces to make sure N. Korea is in line with UN regulations!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54031-2002Dec30.html Iraq Accuses U.S. of Double Standards with N.Korea Reuters Monday, December 30, 2002; 10:21 AM By Nadim Ladki BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq accused the United States of double standards Monday, contrasting the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf with Washington's decision to use diplomacy to try to settle a nuclear arms crisis in North Korea. Oil prices hit two-year highs after the United States ordered more troops, aircraft and ships to the Gulf for a possible war against Iraq in the new year. U.N. weapons inspectors scrutinized more suspect sites in Iraq, including a water treatment facility south of Baghdad and a communications center near the Iranian border. The Al-Thawra official newspaper, mouthpiece of President Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party, said it was unfair that Washington was preparing to go to war with Iraq which was cooperating with U.N. arms inspectors, but seeking a peaceful solution in North Korea, which had just expelled them. Pyongyang ordered inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Friday to leave the country and said it would reopen a reprocessing laboratory which can produce weapons-grade plutonium. "Look how Washington deals with the two situations. How it threatens to invade Iraq which has no weapons of mass destruction...at the same time the U.S. administration is saying it wants a peaceful end to the crisis with North Korea," al-Thawra said. The paper said Baghdad was cooperating fully with the U.N. arms experts, who had found no evidence of banned weapons. "So why do America and Britain continue to threaten it? Is it because Iraq is an Arab country? Or because Iraq is an oil country? Or because the Zionist lobby inside the U.S. administration wants to settle old scores?" the paper wrote. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered thousands of troops, dozens of strike aircraft and probably two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Gulf, starting early next month. The deployment would at least double the 50,000 U.S. military personnel already near Iraq. But Secretary of State Colin Powell said President Bush, facing the distraction of North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship, had taken no decision on whether to launch an attack on Iraq. He discouraged talk of crisis or conflict with North Korea, saying Washington was ready to give diplomacy a chance.
No worries you nailed it. I have a friend here in Houston from Ethiopia. His brother was tortured by the hideous regime there who called themselves Marxists, back in the day when it got you some Soviet aid to call yourself that. My friend said he wished that the US would go over there and do some regime change. I told him tough luck, you don't have oil. Reluctantly he agreed that we wouldn't bother to change that regime.
It's got nothing to do with oil. If it did, the US would be invading Venezuela. They even have a wannabe commie dictator. And besides, Bush isn't ignoring North Korea. He's ready to drop some bombs on them too if the need arises. Let's be honest, who do you think is the bigger threat- Iraq or North Korea? Where did this oil stuff come from anyways? I don't remember Vietnam having oil.
There are African civil wars everyday. We don't give a crap. Millions of people have died. Do we care? There are 2 reasons why we focus on Iraq 1. They have the capacity to to put a serious hurt on Israel 2. Oil Both reasons are economical and political.
how are african civil wars relevant to weapons inspectors and the concern of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists in the wake of 9.11??
It is simple really. North Korea has nukes now, Iraq doesn't. Which is precisely why Saddam wants them so bad. Nukes give you a bit of parity. Sad, but true. Oh, and also because North Korea has not invaded another country in the last 15 years. DaDakota
Actually again glynch speaks with NO knowledge of US foreign policy. PL 480, the US sends ship after ship after ship filled with food to Ethiopia during the Mengistu regime. Those ships were on a mission one would think glynch would be all over. And yet he criticises the very foreign policy one would envision him supporting. 'WHAT?' He says. 'They sent FOOD AID to starving people??? They should have bombed the crap out of THAT regime!' What a joke. Way to be consistent, glynch. Just so you'll know, most of that food aid rotted in the ships while docking preference was given to Soviet weapons transports. But then, the Soviets never really were that bad, were they glynch? Just as illusion created by those ol corporations... And strange to think some indigenous people might WANT US intervention, huh, glynch?
The answer is that neither is relevant to Iraq. The White House has disingenuously stated that Saddam violation of his own citizens' human rights (Save the Kurds!!!) is reason enough to "liberate" Iraq (and its oil). But the human rights violation in Central Africa and elsewhere do not rate the White House's attention??? The White House has also posited that Iraq may help terrorist by supplying them with WMD. The little problem that conversative, militant Islamic groups and Saddam hate each other did not stop the White House from pushing this theory. Bush stated in his presidential campaign that he would take care of the Saddam/Iraqi mess. There was no terrorist angle to the Iraqi regime change story at that time. The only credible motivation for the Gulf War and the UN actions following the war is the OIL. It is all about the oil. This is not a necessarily bad thing. The US needs to protect its business interests. The only question is how far should the US go to protect its interest.
what nation doesn't "pick its fights?" the primary motivation is not oil...it's weapons of mass destruction. the guy is in violation of UN mandates....that's why it will ultimately be a UN coalition pulling this thing off. just as it was back in the early 90's when we heard it was all about oil. but maybe if you keep saying that, it will be true.
1) How can you say that weapons of mass destruction have nothing to do with Iraq? After Desert Storm, I believe experts said Iraq was within 10 years of building a nuclear weapon. 2) Someone please show me some proof that the motivation behind this is oil.
I have to agree totally. It's absolutely about oil which I actually don't have a huge problem with as long as our President doesn't lie his ass off concerning why we're building up for war. If Rawanda or the Sudan had the second biggest oil reserve in the world we'd be there right now kicking ass and taking names. North Korea is a much much bigger threat than Iraq. They actually have nukes, have something like 600,000 troops near their southern border, and are still in a state of war with South Korea. Why aren't we hearing about liberating the starving, oppressed masses of North Korea?
Iraq invades Iran and we pat them on the back. Iraq invades Kuwait and we b**** slap them stupid. And why was that? The US (and the rest of the world) saw that the remaining oil producing nations in the region did not have standing armies that would have prevented Saddam from annexing their oil fields. It was in the business and economic interest of the US (and the rest of the world) to act. After the war, the UN tied WMD disarmament with lifting the embargo. The US did not. They tied regime change with lifting the embargo. The Bush Sr started that policy. The Clinton Admin continued it. And finally (drum roll please) Bush Jr also saw fit to continue that policy. WMD is not the current issue. OIL is. If you have trouble reconciling Bush's lies with reality, so be it.
I don't blame Iraq for being ticked off about our focus on them, not North Korea, and seeing Colin Powell running around to 5 news programs Sunday morning declaring that the situation in N. Korea was not a crisis. Actually, I have a lot of respect for Powell and I'm sure it was very hard for him to say what he did with a straight face. I could care less about Iraq's feelings and would dance a jig if Saddam dropped dead tomorrow, but in '94 the much reviled (by many) President Clinton started moving forces in and around the Korean Peninsula and said we would take military action if the N. Koreans didn't stop their nuke program. They did. Now, with what they see as a dovish government elected in South Korea and our imminent war with Iraq coinciding with what many see around the world as a baffling foreign policy, they see a chance to restart the nuke program, make more and smaller nukes... something that will fit their increasingly sophisticated missiles... and make themselves free of threat from the U.S. That's a hell of a thing.
the difference had nothing to do with iran's relationship with the USSR, did it? that pesky cold war! bottom line...if saddam were to disarm, the UN would not go in and push it...he hasn't..instead he's lied the whole way through and obfuscated the truth with piles of worthless incomplete documentation.
All of these can be true: -Iraqi WMD, espcially nukes, are a threat to global stability -Iraq is a threat to Middle East oil access for the West -the Iraqi regime is heinous in terms of human rights and committing genocide on its peoples. There is not a problem there. Iraqi nuclear capability means any further aggression by Iraq will be much more difficult to stop, endangering the supply and access of oil to the rest of the world, engandering the world economy, and hence world peace on a much larger scale than any potential Middle Eastern conflict sans oils relevance to the world economy. There are both strategic and humanitarian reasons to remove Saddam. If OIL is the DECIDING factor what difference does it make? Saying 'Iraq is a threat to world peace' is THE SAME as saying 'Iraq is a threat to world oil supplies.'
Its as much about Israel as it is about oil. I think both are factors. We will protect Israel at all cost.
