It was certainly a consideration, of course. A large one, of course, since the *world's* economic well-being depends on a steady flow of oil from the region. Never denied that. My objection was to the argument that the main reason we were going in was in order to steal/take control of Iraq's oil. That's just ridiculous, and I think current events are proving it to be so. I'd just like to hear our resident "it's all about oil" people try to defend their arguments now, when it is clear that the war was about far more than oil alone. A terribly inaccurate description of Ansar al Islam's situation. They were located in the northern region, which is mostly controlled by the Kurds. Their particular area was not under Kurdish control; if it was, then they would not have been fighting the Kurds, would they? And they were supported by Iraqi Intelligence. Are you denying that? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, I get it - this is 1984, right? Only not quite so dreary a set? Or is it Wag the Dog? A mix of both, I guess... This is not a movie, Heretic. Or a book. And the government doesn't operate that way. Democracy, remember? Checks and bal;ances. Free press. Ring a bell? Is it remotely possible that the American public actually understood this issue clearly, and agreed with the administration on this one? That they are not stupid enough to grasp onto this issue and simply avoid the 1984-isms you're referring to?
I have one question, how did you get my stance, beliefs and political standing from this statement "I find it funny when people find something that defines or backs up how they view things and its "truth" Yet when it does not back up what they think it is "garbage" or left/right wing propaganda. I dont think a person here needs to justify their feelings on the war because of an article written by someone that may or may not agree with someone elses position." I mean you are just trying to put words in my mouth, you dont know where i stand politically, you are just trying to lump me in some convinet catagory. I dont think you could get that I 1. deny that the Iraqi people *do* in fact support what we have done? 2. deny that in fact there has not been a large addition to the current global terrorist pool as a result of our action 3. still think it's "all about oil"? 4. still believe that the war in Iraq has been a "diversion" from the war on terrorism? 5. deny that the situation between Iraq and the UN and Iraq and Israel were/are not equivalent? Your post is one of the most ignorant things I have read. You assume that I hold these views becuase I disagree with your way of presenting "fact'. Thats what annoys the most about these idiotic debates, people think that since I disagree with one idea or method you use, I am against everything you think is right. Fine, live like that, continue to assume, it will get you far in life.
Perhaps Chemical Ali didn't have any on hand, since they are reportedly all buried around Baghdad? Again, buried. Meaning, "not all too accessible", not something you just whip out of your hip pocket. Also, Chemical Ali apparently did not have authorization to use them; that came from the very top, and only for specific instances. Even when he earned his nickname gassing Kurds back in '88, the orders came from Saddam. It's called centralized control, something the Iraqis were known to have used. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Look, no one disputes that there were shells loaded with chemicals already; we know that he had some at least at some point (the 122mm shells found by inspectors, for example). But they are not just sitting around some artillery battalion's ammo dump; they were locked up in buried bunkers. They are not easily accessible, and for good reason: Saddam never trusted his subordinates with them out of fear that they would be turned against him. They were only handed out for specific missions, and well ahead of time. Was there? How many days passed between the departure of the inspectors and the start of the war? Four days maybe? Five? You have to remember that while the inspectors were poking around, those weapons would be tucked away where no one could find them. He did not have enough time to get them to front line units. He did? Then why go through the entire exercise in the first place? Why obfuscate and mislead the inspectors if he had nothing to hide? And why not just give up the weapons if he knew that not doing so would mean his demise? No, he actually thought that he could win. It is the only possibility that makes sense. It was not exactly the first miscalculation he ever made wrt to us... But it was his last. You seem to think that we have a spy satellite aimed at the Iraq-Syria border 24 hours a day. We don't. They have smuggled billions of barrels and billions of dollars of black market booty and armaments over that border over the past 12 years. There is no denying that, it is fact. They could smuggle a few truckloads of chemicals across it, too. Yes, I guess you know more about that than the troops who are actually there. What was I thinking... Of course it's a problem. If it ends soon it will not turn out to be a significant one, if it keeps going for weeks it will turn out to be a major one. But right now? They're tearing down the visible signs of the government that repressed and stole from them for 25 years. They're taking something back. I say let them. Well, there are other reasons that it was legitemate, but I agree - they need to be found to satisfy world appetites, ours included. I for one am confident that they will be, but I also think that it may take some time. We'll see... I suspect that when they start throwing war crimes charges at al-Saadi (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...re_mi_ea/war_science_adviser&cid=540&ncid=716), then they'll start turning up.
I already said it was an economic annexation, not a physical one. Oil companies don't care who owns the land they're drilling as long as they're allowed to make money drilling oil without being interfered with by a hostile government. Where is the evidence that you're talking about linking the terrorist group to the iraqi government and linking that to 9/11? What a big shock that they found a terrorist group in a mideast country right? I'm not saying they are wrongfully accused. I'm just curious as to why we haven't heard more follow up stories on this. Is this going to be another Bush administration investigation where they tell us to shut up and trust him? War is distracting the population from noticing that the Bush domestic policies are almost criminal in their negligence of a balanced budget and actively increasing the deficit. That's just the main economic issues, combine that with the patriot acts and you have a very serious situation. This administration is a runaway train of conservative and business special interest groups doing everything they can to shape the country in the image they believe is correct. Where's the democracy at these days? Legislators listen to whoever funds their campaigns, and that isn't you or me. The American public isn't stupid, they're just intellectually flacid.
IVFL: I mean you are just trying to put words in my mouth, you dont know where i stand politically, you are just trying to lump me in some convinet catagory It works both ways. I simply assumed (possibly incorrectly) that you were an antiwar person who probably held some of these beliefs. Then why exactly *do* you disagree with this position? Why don't you argue the case instead of jumping in and making pointless comments deviod of substance such as your first one? Why don't you argue some of these "facts" you seem to believe are not facts? Contribute something to the discussion? Heretic: That still implies US control of the oil. I would say that since the Iraqis will control the oil, and they as well as the rest of the entire friggen world will profit from it, "annexation" is not the correct word - or concept. "Liberation" is, I think, accurate in every possible way. Dispute that? Ugh... You must be in the "I don't believe it" camp. Powell already presented it; I refer you to his presentation to the UN. If you don't believe it, that's your problem. It's solid. Well, for starters, might I remind you that the war is not over? Do you expect all to be known before the dust settles? Oh, and most of them are dead now. Further information will probably come in the form of former Iraqi officials defecting at a later date... Oh, gobbledygook. Everyone knows about the tax cuts. Increased military spending. "Infringement" (as it's called by detractors) of our personal liberties by Ashcroft. It is not as if the American public has forgotten about the world around them simply because CNN has some interesting stuff on TV now. Perhaps much of the American populace genuinely doesn't have a problem with these policies? What, is it the congress you're concerned about? They will pass or veto his domestic drives regardless of the international situation, because they understand that the American public pays just enough attention to hold them responsible for the way they vote. Put the book down. Back away from the conspiracy theories. It is not real. Nice. Really nice. "They're not stupid, they're just a bunch of ignorant yokels"... Yeah, real nice...
Treeman, I think you missed the point. I am just getting sick of people posting these articles that are "fact" because they present their view of what's going on, this goes both ways, you will notice that in my first post i said left/right propaganda, essentially saying that both sides are doing this. Its getting tired on this whole bbs. The only thing really being discussed is J-lo's butt and war stuff. the left finds an article that backs up their views and posts it, usually with a nice, see everything isn't going rosy. the right post an article with the attitude, the left had better start fessing up to being wrong. I am just sick of it and that is what my post was about. Now in your wisdom, you think that since i disagree with how you and I should say most people here present their arguments that i must be on "the other side". When i try and clarify what i said, you look for more info that would put me on "the other side" I swear its always a competitive thing, my side is right yours is wrong, you must be an idiot for thinking that way. Since my side appears to be right, i must be a smarter person, I chose the "right" side. no pun intended.
Tree, So you agree the inspectors were working If they can ship Chem. Ali conventional shells they could also send him chem shells. If Iraq had them available to use he would have had them and would have used them without remorse. I don't think Saddam would possibly doubt our ability to rout him. We routed him at the peak of his strength, during the santion years there was no way he could improve or rebuild on any major scale. We controlled 1/3 of his country, smuggling serious weapons in trucks and cars is limited at best. The United States have at least 2 keyhole spy sats in a Lagrange orbit above the middle east at this time. We monitor them especially any major movements of cargo across the borders to Syria 24/7. The rolleyes on the looting issue come on - so the media is presenting perfect coverage of the statue removal (still no wide angle views of the event) but providing slanted liberal motivated coverage of the looting? Thats a poor argument, the same position could be used to describe looting after a riot in a poor section of our country.
Iraq getting rid of WMD was part of the cease-fire in 1991. At last count it seems he hasn't lived up to his agreement...thus, no more cease fire. It's a tad obvious really.
Sorry about last empty post...my computer is doing odd things.. A) re: your points to IVFL...1)Some do, some don't...as expected.2) Way too early...Example..Osama Bin Laden objected to US troops remaining in SA after Gulf War, as he predicted they would...and his 1st anti-US terrorist action wasn't for years. How can we conclude that there has been any effect either wat, let alone that they are 'cowed'? 3) Hard to say otherwise...only so many resources, and only one thing can get top priority, by definition. Now whether the lowering of the war on terrorism on the priority scale has had any tangible effect on it is another issue. 4) Yes, in many ways. There are direct parallels w/regards the issues we have had with the UN over it. b) Re: resp. to underoverup...1)Isn't an easier explanation that he either never had them, had gotten rid of them by the time we began this, or had no intention of using them in the 1st place? Certainly it would seem that the imminent peril the world was in due to SH's WMD was, at least, overblown, wouldn't you agree? If he couldn't, even under your reasoning, muster a single WMD in the face of his own destruction, and at least, as you say, part of the deterrent for previous ability to mobilize in the face of UN inspectors, than how was the need for war due to WMD so immediate? 2) Looting...have seen reports of looting of hospitals, and many private businesses. That said, am unsure what the looting has to do with the pro or anti-war argument. C) re: rezdawg...this statement of yours..." the fact that we use our WMD more responsibly ( more accurately, that we don't use them at all. )".... Is this a joke? We have killed more people with WMD than 5 Husseins...Are you forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Please don't dismiss this as ancient history...It happened during the lifetimes of many of our parents, and is understandably a factor in much of the world's perception of just how 'responsible' we are with WMD. In fact, a quick look at when we did and when we didn't use them might easily be construed as coinciding with when we could use them without fear or reciprocation, and when we couldn't...Certainly that was the motivation for the USSR and others desire to get them, and that continues today with the Korea/Iraq double standard. And I don;t get how this is irrelevent. d) Re: me...Your points, while somewhat dismissive, I can live with. We agree to disagree, and i am impressed that you recognize that the issues, as far as i am concerned, are not evident/non-evident in any military success. I do disagree with the convenience of our dismissal of the UN after years of making and or demanding that others support it whn it was against their best interests, only to turn our back on it when we find ourselves in a similar position, but as you say, another discussion.
Why I didn't favor undertaking this war and while somewhat mollified by a better than worse case outcome so far am still not entirely convinced that this move will net positive: Case History #1 Ronald Reagan vs. Libya: In 1986 the US bombed Tripoli, the capital of Libya in response to terrorism. Libya was a state that clearly sponsored terrorism and the move was considered by many people to be a positive, proactive "get tough" response. The problem? The next 3 or so years saw a dramatic increase in the incidence and scale of terrorist activities associated with Libya. This includes the memorable Locharbie Pan Am 103 incident. Libya really faded from prominance as a nexus of terrorism in 1991 with the institution of a favorite pejorative for those in favor of bold action, sanctions. Despite the fact that many people find less agressive/more diplomatic moves to be less emotionally satisfying, the evidence is clear. Whether you want to argue there was no relation, the fact is that: a. agressive action (bombing) -> bad outcome (increase in terrorism) b. containment action (sanctions) -> good outcome (less terrorism) The lesson here? Libya seems to indicate that sometimes, if you punch someone in the nose, it only makes them want to hit you back. If in, say, six months to a year there isn't a marked rise in terrorism, I'll consider this point to be invalidated sufficently. Case History #2 The US vs. communism around the world: Durring the cold war, the clear and overriding goal was always the short term neutralization of communism above all else. Examples which come to mind include: 1. Supplying arms to Israel in response to Russian weapons in Syria and Iraq. 2. Supplying arms to religious insurgents in Afghanistan. 3. Supporting ethically challanged dictators or corrupt monarchs in Iran, El Salvidor, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Congo, etc. simply because they were the only alternative to communism. So, where's the problem? In all of these instances, the goals were accomplished... The problem is that from these situations arose an even greater problem resulting in a net loss for American intrests. Supporting religious zelots in Afghanistan got us the Taliban, alligning ourselves so closely with Israel has drawn the hatred of a much larger group of Arabs, and supporting bad autocrats has resulted in the Iranian radical religious state, widespread distrust of American motives and increases in drug trafficing from South America and strengthing of nominal allies whose population becomes radicalized against us, in the case of Saudi Arabia. The lesson here? Narrow short term focus and overconfidence our ability to control nonlocalized effects has resulted in a history of foreign policy decisions where we met objectives, but ended up in a worse position over time. In this case, we have again achieved short term goals with clear success. I think that the long term cost/benifit analysis, however, is much more of a gamble in this case. While it could turn out incredibly well, it could also result in some truly horible and even unexpected effects which may not become evident for many year. One unexpected outcome, for instance, has been the balkanization of the France-Russia-Germany Axis which has to play itself out. So while I agree that the mission was wonderfuly successful, I'm still not convinced that it was an entirely good move. I hope my fears are proven to be unfounded.
The arabs are cowed? They are embarrassed because their arab brothers in Iraq got their asses kicked quickly and US tanks are sitting smack dab in the middle of an Arab capital. They are saddened by the civilian casualties. We look at just numbers and say things like "that's acceptable," but the Arab people see young children on tv with their arms blown off and are saddened by the suffering of their borthers and sisters, because they view all muslims as being connected like family. And of course they are scared that their country is next. I know the desired response to the fear is, "oh ****, did you see what the US did, we need to force our govt to change and do whatever the US tells us." Well, that ain't gonna happen. I supported the war because I wanted to see Iraq free from Saddam and to see if we could actually set up a stable democratic country this time, you know, buck the trend. Still, I do believe there will be ramifications that we won't see for a while. New terrorists are gonna pop up who are ready to get their payback and are patient enough to wait for the right moment to strike. Anyways, the ME hates us right now, probably more so than ever. I don't know how to change that. Doing a good job in Iraq, IE rebuilding and stabalizing the country could help, of course, progress with the Israell/Palestine thing, but Israel doesn't look ready to cooperate. Honestly, if anybody thought that we'd be safer after this war, they are just setting themselves up for a big surprise. We still have a lot of work to do.
Happy Palm Sunday Morning everyone! I just thought I would throw some kerosene on the fire. Treeman - your arguments are great and I agree with you on everything. Everone else, except those that agree with tree - I don't agree with you. Have I mentioned lately that the UN sucks? OK..going to church now to thank God that I live in the greatest country the world has ever had the priviledge of floating along its crust. Tootles!
IVFL: Again, no substance. Feel free to chime in again when you have something to say. underoverup: I would agree that the inspectors were working. The inspections were not. Forcing the Iraqis to hide their WMD was not exactly productive to their ends. No, every artillery unit in the Iraqi army has its own conventional ammo at all times. None of them keep WMD on hand at all times; that is issued out for specific missions. Every nation with WMD operates that way, and Iraq was no exception. Why are you not understanding that? It's not that complicated. Ours are kept locked in bunkers too. Which brings up 3 possibilities: 1) Iraq had no WMD. No one seriously believes this. Not even the French. 2) They were not available to use, as I have been saying. Inacessible, in bunkers... 3) Commanders refused orders to use them, which as I also said is most likely. We can go around in circles all day. Then why did he repeatedly claim that he would send us home packing when we reached Baghdad? And why didn't he flee when it started looking bad? And why start it in the first place? No, he thought he could win. I said this before the war started, and events have proven me correct. He really was a very stupid man. Didn't understand America at all. What are you talking about? They smuggled in hgundreds of thousands of tons of armaments, with items as large as SAMs and ballistic missile launchers, across the Syria-Iraq border. They smuggled billions of barrels of oil across the border. That is a friggen fact. They could smuggle a few truckloads of chemicals if they wanted to, no denying it. That is simply not true. We have *no more than 2* Keyholes watching the entire ME at any given time, and they have more than one friggen area to observe on a given pass. They may take a picture every hour of a section of the border, but they cannot watch the whole border 24/7. Simply not possible, read up on your satellites if you don't believe me. The Iraqis are well aware of the methods used to evade our spy sats. The Russians taught them how to do it. All you have to do is figure out when the sats are overhead, and act like normal or hide during those times. At any given time of the day, there is usually not a sat overhead. The Keyhole, at any rate, was primarily designed for maritime observation. It is not a primary land-tracker. So the media is not prone to sensationalization? Do you think they're always evenhanded and accurate in their reporting? No thanks, I'll trust what the troops say. They have no incentive to sensationalize. MacBeth: Oh please. Don't sugarcoat it, be honest. The large majority do, a few Sunnis who profited from Saddam's regime don't. Don't obfiscate the obvious just to try to defend your position. That is exactly the sort of tripe I expected to hear. Have you been watching the Arab reaction to this? It hasn't exactly emboldened them. At any rate, please point to upswing trend indicating more terrorism as a result of this? Nothing? Thanks. Way too early? Possibly, but the Arab reaction so far gives no indication that more will develop. It indicates that if anything, it will lessen. Oh please. I said before the war that Afghanistan and elsewhere required only a miniman military commitment, and the recent offensive in Afghanistan, the largest since the start of the war, proves that I was correct in saying that we've got plenty to deal with that front. As for nonmilitary assets, how many resources do you think the FBI had to divert towards Iraq? Practically none. The CIA? DIA did most of the work on this one. It was a bogus argument and you know it. One was an order, the other a recommendation. One nation was occupying territory it grabbed in a defensive war, the other was violating UN sanctions it incurred due to an offensive war. One is a democracy, the other was ruled by a brutal despot. No comparison. Please elaborate on your answer. Don't give me this "America is just as bad as Saddam" BS. The last time we used WMD was 58 years ago during a war not begun by us that we didn't want. We used nuclear weapons in order to avoid a likely million US casualties and likely several million Japanese casualties. We probably saved millions of lives by using them to end the war, and you, Mr. Fancypants Military Historian, are well aware of that. You are being academically disingenuous here. Saddam has used them in A) a war of territorial ambition that he started (Iran), and B) against his own countrymen (Kurds). How can you compare the two and still respect yourself as an academic? Imminent? I don't remember anyone saying the threat was imminent. Inevitable? Highly probable, given past history? I would not say that was overblown. Do you seriously think that a Saddam with nuclear weapons would not have been a threat to global security? Would he not, based on past history, have resumed his territorial ambitions with a nuclear shield? Think, Mr. Big-Brain... Immediate? I wouldn't say immediate, just something that had to be done before he acquired nuclear weapons. And sooner rather than later, to minimize the possibility that WMD were handed over to terrorist groups, which he is known to have supported. As for why he couldn't muster them, those reasons have already been discussed ad naseaum - no reason to repeat myself, just scroll up - and I think that you get that part. I didn't bring it up. underoverup did in an apparent attempt to rain on the victory parade... Cool. Another discussion, then... Ottomaton: Uh... Quite a few of the guys we're catching in Afghanistan have cited our sanctions against Iraq as a reason they joined the fight. Sanctions do not always produce good results. In fact, I think it would be very, very difficult to argue that any positive outcome at all resulted from the sanctions against Iraq, aside from somewhat limiting the conventional armaments Iraq was able to procure during that period (had to smuggle weapons and parts in). As far as Libya and an aggressive stance goes - the Lockerbie bombing has been about the only significant act by that nation since the 86 action. Previously, they were far more active in the terrorism game. I think it's safe to say that Qhadaffi was cowed when that Tomahawk landed in his house and killed his daughter. Their terrorist activity level markedly declined, not increased, after that event. Lesson: Arabs understand and respond to force. They take sanctions and embargoes as a sign of weakness, a sign that their enemies are afraid to fight. Percieved weakness of enemies is what emboldens them, not acknowledged strength. They fear strong enemies, they do not challenge them. How do we defeat Arab terrorism? We kick their asses militarily, spread democracy and capitalism (prosperity - prosperous people seldom resort to terrorism), and then get the f*ck out of their corner of the block. The last part is very important; they resent our presence there, and we must attempt to minimize it wherever possible. Getting out of Saudi now that we have a base in Iraq - where we are largely welcome for the time being - would be a very good start, IMO. It would remove at least one of Osama's purported gripes.
Tree Sorry you just dont get it. I dont think I can be any more clear. Then again when you are talking to someone that thinks everything is "us vs them" what can you do. Then again you seem to thrive on this contention so I wouldnt want to ruin that for you by not being on one side orthe "other".
