(in Elvis accent) Well, thank you, thank you very much. Kudos all around!!!



I won't argue that there wasn't a movement at least beginning against Iraq prior to 9-11. But I think the correlation between Iraq and WMD afterwards was perfectly understandable--we had just suffered an enormous attack, and were VERY concerned about any other situation we might have been overlooking that could cause it to happen again. I will state that I firmly believe this would have been the case regardless of who was sitting in the White House at the time--security is the PRIME responsibility of the President, all other issues are secondary, and 9-11 changed the framework from which we determined what 'secure' meant. So, while I grant your right to be suspicious, I think the situation justifies the change, and that it would have occurred regardless of who was in the White House.




Well, that would be a wonderful turnaround from the current situation, wouldn't it? But the onus for this, as you mention, is for all these people to first embrace the civil disobedience route as opposed to violence. This response has been embedded in their society for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years--it wasn't going to just change by itself. In fact, I submit that the very action we took is much more likely to bring about the situation you describe than any other. They were unlikely to change by themselves, so we went in and set up an example for them to follow (yes, it was started militarily, but it is starting, isn't it?). I really do believe this will initiate many dramatic changes down the road which might not otherwise have occurred at all, or at the very least would have taken much, much longer. Now, of course, we have to follow up on this but stopping all the stupid, selfish things we had done to create the situations you describe in the first place. If we don't do that, you will find me just as upset about that as you would be. (this is one of the reasons I argue so strongly against all the criticism of the war--justified or not, it is likely to detract from our willingness to win the peace, which is not in anyone's best interest).



First, allow me to better explain my thinking. I think general dissatisfaction came first, then an avenue to vent it. While we certainly put ourselves in a position to be that avenue, if there weren't general dissatisfaction to begin with, there wouldn't be terrorists. Consider the rampant terrorism in Egypt. All of it comes from impoverished areas, yet it is directed against the Egyptian government, not us (and they are much closer to Israel, and just as fundamental as any of the other terrorist groups). Further, when the underlying social conditions there were addressed in certain villages, the terrorist sentiment went away--even though the policies of the government, which they were against, hadn't changed at all. I think the same is true throughout the Middle East. What is that saying; 'people with full stomachs don't join rebellions?', or something like that. If the underlying conditions weren't causing unrest, the terrorist movement would have no base of support. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. Despite all the oil, the economy their is very depressed. Further, the people are very limited in their ability to influence their government. These are the conditions creating the unrest. The Saudis allow (sponsor?) that unrest to be directed at the United States, out of fear (very justified) that it would otherwise be directed at them. Now, given that, consider how a thriving democracy in Iraq might influence others in the Middle East. It would show that their is another way. It would also help deflect many of the criticisms against us, redirecting much of that sentiment. I don't see how that will result in anything other than an increased chance of democracy in the region--or, at the very least, the governments there becoming much more concerned with the plights of their citizens, and thereby addressing the root causes of their unrest.





I think, Quark, that you and I have the same vision in mind. This is part of the 'winning the peace' that I think is essential. While I, too, wish there were another way to achieve it, I think achieving it any way possible is much better than not achieving it at all. If we don't change the fundamental conditions there, we will be involved in the WOT for a long, long time--preventing your visions form ever coming about, and causing many, many people to be killed. If invading Iraq speeds that process up, and I think it will if we stay committed to it, then I am willing to support it and further think it could be argued that it is actually the humane thing to do.



The topic of that thread would, I think, be 'Sanctions--can they ever really work?' I have long believed that it is the solution you put forth that best solves many of the international problems the world faces. Many, many years ago I was in the debate class in high school, where foreign policy was the topic area. My affirmative plank was quite simple--eliminate sanctions as a means of enforcing change. Instead, emphasize trade and relations. We only lost one case (everyone can have a bad day, I guess ). Iraq is a perfect example (Cuba is another) of the flawed reasoning that leads to sanctions, and their failure to achieve any of the changes desired. The opposite stance, as you suggest, is always much more likely to be effective, and is certainly going to be the better long-term solution. Of course, this leads to the culture exportation so often cited in the 'why do they hate us' threads. Ok, off soapbox now--gosh, still fired up about the topic 20 years later!

I'd say it does but I'll explain more later. For now, your idea of Iraqi setting up sate-run oil companies is a couple of decades late. Iraq has had sate-run oil companies dealing with nearly all internal oil work for years. Outside development work can be contracted, but only with government approval and only to work on government approved plans.

Heh, I'd take that bet.

We are a benefactor of many oil producing countries, but what the US gives Iraq in terms of long-term support will be a drop in the bucket compared to oil sales (this was true even during the occupation). Iraq could easily seek investment form other nations, as they have done for years. Not to mention Iraq's continuing membership in OPEC. If this is about US say in the direction of oil flow, I'd definitely say it's barking up the wrong tree.

The Iraqi government will operate in its own self interest. A set of interest the US simply cannot dominate.

..and I would re-iterate that this is impossible. Iraqi oil flowing to any of its neighbors will still be sold to America's "rivals" if Iraq, or whatever nation has bought the crude, wishes to do so.

To say oil is not important is to be daft of the subject and that is being nice. When saddam came for the oil in the nations around him, the first gulf war, it was about 24 hours for the world to react with force and so on. I dont think this goes on for genocides or any other nasty thing. Its not to say that the world is generally conservative, though you could make that claim, mine is more on how important that resource is due to how most nations live and so on. To put it bluntly oil as a resource is vital, really vital. Towards the end of WW2, the axis was fighting to gain such a product(oil) in order to battle on with the allies, or however you want to word the sides of that conflict. The advancement of materialism, or technology, and the relations of such to anything, from economy, to going on a drive for fun, may at somepoint touch or require oil to do such. Again, my claim is that oil is very important, control of such would be very powerful to say the least, it would be like being the only crack dealer.

Do i think this war is only about oil, no, but do i think the u.s relation to the iraq war had much oil on the minds of such that wanted it, yes i do very much. You dont have to look very far into the current administration to see its make up, and then the all of a sudden need to get into iraq post 9-11. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia both work with the u.s and so on, and now with iraq, we will really have mideast oil, big oil in our pocket so to say. Is it bad or good i dont know or cant say, but i do believe very much that oil was prime in the thoughts on iraq from our side.

Its not so much of which nation will have claims to the oil, but who also, this point is left out many times. The u.s did attempt to blackmail france into being more on our side with oil contracts, the blunt fact of it all is oil is important, its like an energy source for something that needs it to live, very black and white in that case. If you dont eat you die, something like that. I wont try to paint a image of world companies and so on, but its known that groups like such do exist, and are in power and try to expand on such.

To go on the war against terror claim against iraq, sure you could make all the speculation and assumptions you want, you can listen to some information and say its true while some is not and so on, i think if you have paid attention to a variety of news sources its all visible and so on to went all went on post 9-11 into iraq. To be old school anthropology, what does iraq have in terms of assumption over iran as a target, as far as i can see, iran has a much larger case history of "terror" support, and now has a "civil" atomic program. For as long as we have been in iraq, has the u.s been able to support its claims for the pre emptive strike. I wont rant on that being good or bad? I just dont think massive stockpiles and programs that we knew of and general locations should have turned up something by now is all, though i know it still could.

So my overall position is oil and iraq do have something in common with the attention it gets and of course the u.s being there as I write this.

Pardon me if I find this hard to follow...

The war is not about oil, but it has a nebulous "something" to do with oil?

Oil was "prime" in the minds of war planners...

Wouldn't that mean the war was about oil?

The only thing I seeing here is the:

"Iraq has oil... we're in Iraq.... must be the oil" reasoning that has (I believe) shown itself to be specious at best.

HOW is the war about oil?

Answer that and we may possibly have something to debate.

I think that the war on Iraq was to get rid of Saddam.
I've heard that Bush's father also went to war against Iraq before, and Saddam (the same one), defeated him, somehow.

I think that the 911 thing was set up by Bush himself, so that he could have an excuse to attack Iraq, adding an "Intellegence" thingy saying that "there are WMDs in Iraq". He wanted to avenge his father.

In the meantime, to cover things up, he also says that he is going to set the Iraq people free. YES YES, indeed! FREE! some people, because of the bombing, are so FREE that their houses are even gone! how FREE is that?

If that had happened, Bush could act like a control person, control Iraq with the oil. How convienient!
But Bush under-estimated the effect of everything that was about to happen now, I suppose.

This is a crazy theory, but I believe that it the reason.

I still find this argument difficult to follow. To me, it has no substance. There are vague insinuations, and the stereotypical 'Republicans are for Big Oil' mantra, but that's about it. How do any of the US oil companies benefit from Iraqi oil? They have no control over the drilling, no control over the production, and no control over the delivery. They do do some of the refining--but have you looked at the spot price of oil lately? Highest its ever been. So, the argument seems to be that they are going to benefit by driving up the cost of their raw goods. That's a new one for me--please help me understand.

Of course, I am not discounting the oil's importance in this. Chances are, were Iraq not in the Middle East, and the Middle East not such a dominant supplier of such a key resource, that we wouldn't be involved. That's because the US (in every administration) has long declared that access to the oil there is in the United States' national interest. I don't think there's any arguing that it's not. If you doubt this, try going a day--just one day--without using any of the following

1. electricity (much of it is generated from oil burning power plants)
2. any synthetic clothing -- almost all synthetic fabrics are derived from petroleum
3. driving -- not just the gas, but the roads as well are made from petroleum
4. any other product (all use electricity in their manufacture, or fuel/roads in their delivery)

So, that covers everything but air, I guess. If that doesn't strike you as being of national interest, then I would be greatly interested in just what does? And its not Big Oil that benefits--it's everybody.

And what of the Iraqis? I was watching an interesting documentary last night produced my Michel Trudeau, and they asked an interesting question: why were all of the hospitals (and other points-of-service for Iraqis) left completely unguarded while the Ministry of Oil was barricaded and kept under tight watch?

Now I don't believe for a second that Iraq was invaded for oil. But it seems pretty clear from the fact that there was no real disengagement plan, no plan for interacting with the surviving authorities, and no plan for the reconstruction that the interests of Iraqis wasn't the top priority either; or else they would have figured in to the grand scheme of things at some point.

I'd have to say I find this argument hard to follow. Certainly we need oil, certainly Iraq has oil. Now what that has to do with the war, I really don't know.


Likely because they didn't realize hospitals would be targeted, they didn't guard uranium disposal sites either. You know, the kind that could be used for dirty bombs ....

Bad planning perhaps, but it proves nothing above motives for war.

What's hard to follow? We are involved there because it is a an area of national interest to us. No national interest, no war--we are not in the business (despite what some seem to think) of just blindly going about attacking everyone we dislike willy nilly. So, when people say we are there for the oil, they are partially correct--if it weren't for the oil, we wouldn't have any need to be there. Does it then follow that we're there specifically to get the oil? No. You're getting pretty defensive here, Turnea, I'm on your side on this



I disagree--I think there was a plan. But I think that, in formulating it, almost all of the answers were "I don't know, it depends on how things are". Disengaging from who? Which surviving authorities? Reconstructing what, exactly? Starting when? We couldn't know exactly what the state of anything would be after the war, so the plan was left ad hoc. Which would give the appearance of having been unplanned, true, but I find it almost impossible to believe that these issues weren't discussed--its just that the discussions couldn't have reached any conclusions until after the fact.

I bolded the portion I'm having a problem with.

There are two question raised by this assertion.

1. How did the war improve our position with regards to our interest in Iraqi oil?

2. Why does the absence of oil necessarily mean we wouldn't be there?

Well that's pretty obvious, US Contractors and oil companies stand to make a huge amount of money by engaging in the infrastructure building that will need to take place over the next few years. Additionally, with a free Iraq, the United States doesn't have to turn solely to Saudi Arabia for oil. Now that the oil is not sanctioned, the supply has effectively increased and once things stabilize the price will go down.


How many other countries in the world have engaged in genocide, have horrible human rights violations and have even invaded other countries and we have hardly batted an eye? I'll give you a hint, many of them are in Africa.

So why wouldn't we help out? Because there is no motivation to do so other than to be "morally good" which does not usually translate to profits. The United States frequently uses the military to protect its interests, oil is most definitely an interest.

I've discussed this before so I should have known to be more clear.

The problem with that is that such interests increased no more from the war than they would have from an end to sanctions (an action with considerably less risk to the administration).

Development projects in Iraq remain in the control of the Iraqi government directly.

This of course doesn't not really answer the question. There are more than two options as possible causes. What about fear of proliferation of Iraqi WMD, the root of US policy towards Iraq for a decade?

You didn't ask about WMD, you asked about oil and I think we all know how weak of an argument the whole WMD thing is.


So you really think that if we had ended the sanctions in Iraq and suddenly started buying oil from Iraq again that it would be the same situation as now? I would very much disagree.

First, we have a friendly regime right now, Hussein while he might have traded with us certainly wouldn't have cut us any deals and probably would have looked for every opportunity to pull a fast one.

Halliburton wouldn't be working in Iraq in near the capacity they are right now if we simply lifted sanctions. There is a chance they could have gotten some work out of it, but it certainly wouldn't have been a "no bid" thing and companies from around the world would have had a share of the pie.

Your claim that things would have been as good as they are now in that respect if sanctions were simply lifted is not valid.

1. Actually I asked why someone thought that that if Iraq had no oil we wouldn't be there. The implication of course is that there are other reasons, reason that actually have something to do with the the reasons for war, like WMD.

2. I think you're missing the point, the reason for war was that the US thought Iraq had WMD. Their actual presence really isn't the issue.

Aren't all businesses?

Saddam wouldn't really matter, he himself could occasionally clamp down on the company that controlled the oil, but I doubt he micro-managed it. Evidence includes continued economic relation with France, a government that had joined in the Gulf War and did patrol the no-fly zones for quite some time.

Oil would be sold at greatest profit, Saddam would benefit more from that than from picking fights with his customers.


Evidence that this is about Halliburton is um... lacking at best. You think the adminstration would go to this kind of risks just so that one the company could make a little money? They have there own pocket books (and re-elections) to worry about.


I think it is but another dimension to that is a full cost/benefit comparison of both options.

Concerning oil the administration could have chosen an enormously less risky method to gain what are, essentially, the same benefits.

The state run Iraqi oil businesses that have been in place for years are a far cry from the ones envisioned by people in the oil industry and our government.

I am not 20 years late on my idea of state run Iraqi oil business.

Saddam's state run oil business was not an open door to the West.

In the same way that oil companies in this country have incredible influence on legislation and the economy, so too will the new versions of Iraqi oil interests. This is surely one of the goals of our administration. If any American, after the Enron scandal and the Energy Task Force scandal, stil ldoes not believe that oil companies have the power to determine policy in this country then..well, it would be sad. The goal of our country is not necessarily to control the oil industry in Iraq politically. Rather, by having an open "free market" industry in Iraq it will be open to the same manipulations as is ours. In this way, through the power of capitalism, the U.S. hopes to direct the flow of Iraqi oil. Why control with policing when you can control with the profit margin?

Our big industries have long learned the methods of manipulating a democracy to suit their ends. They simply intend to spread their methods to the Middle East in order to "control the flow". If any group can control a large enough percentage of oil production they have the power to control prices. OPEC formed because the "seven sisters" refused to buy oil form anyone who raised the price. In repsonse the major Middle Eastern suppliers joined together to regain some control over the market. In a long but very detailed article about Pan-Arabic issues the method of economic control through oil is discussed as "TACTIC NUMBER THREE: ECONOMIC COMBINATION. OPEC- A WEAK BOURGEOISIE ATTEMPTS TO FIGHT BACK"

Scroll down and read the section about the battle for oil supremacy. It is a very interesting read and well cited. It begins with :


The US, in order to control its oil intersts in 1951 was already fiddling with the leadership of nations in order to obtain their compliance. The article goes on in DETAIL explaining the method and purpose of the complex game of imperialism and price manipulation.

To get one example of how and why we might want to have a large percentage of the world's oil market undewr our auspices take a look at Chiina. As an ever increasing consumer of energy the Chinese will surely be the most affected by fluctuations in world prices of oil. If we find the need to hamper them economically we can simply use our passive control of the market to spike prices. In the article they detail how this was done and to what purpose in the 1970's.
I beg everyone to give it a read...very interesting.

As I have been saying, this IS NOT a simple game of "get a lot of business for U.S. oil companies". It is bigger than that. Market control, social control and the balance of world powers is the name of the game.

You mean the WMD they don't have and they haven't had since the Gulf War?

And whether they actually were there is completely the issue. Because since they weren't there our primary reason for invading fell through and Iraq war apologists have sought to justify it in numerous other ways. The legal basis for invading was because they had WMD. Thus invading when they didn't in fact had them makes the action illegal. Pretty simple.


I didn't suggest this was about Halliburton. You stated that we would be getting the same benefits if we had simply ended sanctions peacefully. You are incorrect because Halliburton wouldn't be over there making money hand over fist. Whether the war is about them or not, they are certainly profiting from it and they wouldn't have profited nearly as much with a peaceful solution.

Afraid that assertion is inarguably false. The first UN inspectors were finding WMD throughout most of the nineties.

I'll post a link to their finding, they can also be found at the UN's website for disarmament.
UNSCOM Reports

I meant it wasn't the issue for this thread, it still isn't.

... but this thread is concerning what the war was "about." I was merely pointing oil that the idea it was for "oil" has some huge logical problems.

How? The pipelines are already in place, and we were already buying Iraqi oil in a fully controlled market. So, by invaded we've got less control now than we had before. Again, this argument just doesn't hold water (or oil). If you wish to continue with this line of reasoning, please include a scenario, from oil in the ground to consumer, in which US companies will benefit.

CJ--What is the real problem with Halliburton getting the contract? Why would we be so much better off delaying things through a bid process (isn't one of the arguments that the whole process is taking too long already?) and outsourcing to foreign countries over which we would have less control (again, delaying the process already being criticized for slow movement)? I really don't understand the gist of this argument, beyond 'Cheney used to work there, so therefore bad.'



No, it's not. Actual existence is completely irrelevant--it is the threat of their existence and probability of their use. You can't determine actual existence until after the fact--which is inarguably too late. Saddam did everything in his power to maintain both the threat of existence and probability of use...and received, eventually, the known consequences of that.

Point of information, there, CJ: There was no legal basis for this war - whether Iraq had any WMD or not. Invading Iraq was illegal, period. The presence of WMD would in no way have suddenly changed international law, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the Nuremberg Protocols.

turnea is partially right, then: the actual presence of WMD really isn't the issue. But he's also missing the point: the "reason" for war never had anything to do with WMD - except as an expedient means of selling it to a gullible American populace.

Hobbes:

This may be one of the reasons why Halliburton should not have gotten the contract

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...d%20Halliburton



I believe $8billion is enough. And that is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think such a blanket statement regarding legality can be made at all. I think a very good case could be made based simply on Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN resolutions alone was sufficient--since those were what came out of the armistice that ended the hostilities the first time. If you fail to live up to what is, in essence, your surrender agreement, that basically renders that agreement null and void....thereby meaning the first set of hostilities was essentially still ongoing. And no one is arguing their legality.

Even without that, there is certainly wording in several UN documents that could at least be argued as justification for invasion. Simply because there wasn't was one last final ultimatum delivered by the UN which specifically authorized the use of force doesn't automatically preclude legality. Now, you might still think the preponderance of evidence might fall on your side, but it is certainly a grey area, especially when considering just what, exactly, 'legalizes' a war? Do we require the UN's explicit consent before we can commit troops? No. Did Bush get the proper authorization domestically? Yes. Those two statements alone make a powerful case for legality of the action, regardless of anything else. Has the UN taken any meaningful action against the US for its actions? No. This either points the validity of their legality, or the uselessness of the UN (which further reduces the need for getting their permission before acting or their need for approval to gain 'legality').


<Whew, that felt good--was agreeing with you far too often lately, Wertz >

I am continually amazed at how the UN resolutions are important, but the UN itself is not. We didn't join the UN in enforcing the resolutions - we went against it.

But thre real kicker is, Iraq complied. They provided a 12,000 page dossier showing compliance and even apologized for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

They showed what Rice and Powell stated before 9/11 - most of the weapons had been destroyed and Saddam was no longer a threat to the region. We know now what we knew before 9/11.

And yet you keep hanging these UN resolutions out to dry? Pulleeeeze....that reason was debunked long ago. Stick with something more creative please.

Really? Please cite the resolution we went against.



Really...then, pray tell, why was this even being discussed in this decade? Oh, that would be because of the pattern of non-compliance, wouldn't it? I'm glad you are so quick to ignore past history....trust me---every evil despot in the world wishes every night there were more with such memory loss.

Speaking of evil despots....why so staunch in your support of one?



The original assertion, was :



My rebuttal to that still stands, regardless of its supposed lack of creativity.

1)what is the war in Iraq truly about?
i personally think this war IS about weapons of mass destruction, i do believe like so many Intel agencies of the world that saddam had them and WAS developing them.hans blix own report to the UN security council on 27 jan. stated "no convincing evidence" that any had ever been destroyed and instead that there is "strong evidence" that IRAQ had produced more anthrax than it had declared "and at least some was retained" blix's report stated that IRAQ possesed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media" enough for "production of 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax"
and yes, i believe all those agencies could have been wrong.the german intelligence may have been wrong about the 2001 report that saddam was four years away for the ability to build three nuclear weapons and have a missile with range enough to hit europe.perhaps chirac was wrong when he said there "were probably weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ and that we have to find them and destroy them"
or AL GORE who said "hussein had stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"
or even what former PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON called IRAQS "offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum,which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled S.C.U.D. warheads; and 157 aerial bombs"
quoting directly from the UN inspection reports.
it took the UN almost thirteen years to find the little they did find, and IM willing to give the US the same time to find evidence that will make everyone happy,regardless of the facts that THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited under U.N. security council resolutions"
I also think it enables the US MILITARY to fight terror in its own backyard rather then in ours. We can `t win a war fighting in defensive battles. if the war was for oil I think we would be swimming in cheap crude right now, and fuel prices would not be at record highs.

2)how is buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

buchanan in my opinion is seeing this in an extremely narrow view.
"Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs."
Justice for Palestinians means basically encouraging the Israelis to sit back and take the bombings.
removing our "imperial presence" means forgetting our ally or in some cases the will of those who asked the US MILITARY to be there. Kuwait and quatar are excellent examples of countries who want a US MILITARY presence and by our leaving the region all together our foreign policy and allies would be dictated by those who dislike us.

3)are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/ecomonical reasons.are we truly interested in these people having democracy.

i would say yes,we are trying to install leaders who are friendly to us, its a standard practice, i mean why would we just put an enemy back in power under a different leader.
i think the reason for democracy in IRAQ is twofold. mainly because a democracy in a monarchist/theocratic region will vastly change the regions politics. also it will remove power from the terrorists' base of recruiting and help change the overwhelmingly negative view of the west in that region of the world.
imagine the mullahs in IRAN trying to maintain control of the thoughts of they're subjects while the younger IRANIANS see freedom in IRAQ, it's difficult nearly impossible for them to do that, the iron curtain is a very good example of that.

i would also like to point out that the Iranian revolution was backed by a very small percent of the overall population of IRAN and that the theocratic rule that followed was a smaller revolution in itself that most were actually against, and still are but its impossible to stand up against it now and quietly ask for the help of the US.the US didn't step in then because of the hostages and we were fairly busy with the Russians and our own economy at the time.
buchanan seems to leave some gaps in his analysis, some historic and some of opinion.

I think better questions to ask instead of "What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for?
would be. Are we fighting hard enough, what are we fighting against, who else may be the enemy and how many of them will we have to fight?
we are at war with people who are power hungry, the same as Hitler the only difference i see is the terrorists are reading from an older book. they seek power to force they're agenda on more people. i would go so far as to say it's a holy war and they are the ones pushing it on others. they have bent a well meaning and inspirational religion to a call to arms and seek to alienate and remove all those who disagree with they're interpretations of the KURAN.
i think pat buchanan has forgotten that under osama or saddams rule, he would be stoned to death as an infidel.
GOODLUCK

Ah, it feels good to be getting back to this.
I've only one think to say to that kind of sentiment, prove it.

Or at least come up with evidence to support the assertion that the Bush administration knowingly used WMD as a false pretext in order to achieve some other shadowy goal.

Meanwhile, I'll take a swipe at the theory that Wertz has espoused on the topic, which I think takes great advantage of anti-Bush partisan's gullibility.

Thae idea that PNAC and those involved drove the war as a way to further US dominance in world affairs through manipulation of Iraqi oil requires a much greater amount of faith than the WMD theory.

At least years of UN inspections of Iraq suggested the idea that Iraqi retained banned weapons. On the other hand the oil war theory fails through lack of feasibility.

Just how does the US plan to manipulate Iraqi oil to its advantage?

(One of the many questions worth answering here).

1.)What is the war in Iraq truly about?

The only long-term solution to the threat of terrorism (the Arab/Muslim brand of it, anyway) is to build a free, democratic society in the Arab world unimpeded by the intolerance and brutality that it has known since the dawn of time. It is this system that has fostered, educated and trained these extremist murderers who are defined only by their intense hatred of America. They literally have nothing else, and it is what the system produces. The war in Iraq is about affecting fundamental change in this volatile part of the world. To expose and remove the counterculture that creates quantifiable (9/11, Chechnya, Spain) threats to the interests and well-being of the entire world. True "mission accomplished" in Iraq will be achieved only when we have aided the citizens by delivering (what we can) of the building blocks to a free society. Removal of the long-standing dictator (Hussein) and his network was just the first step. Currently we are engaged in step two - neutralizing the "insurgents" and teaching them that their resistance will be a failure. Active, orderly and lawful participation in the emerging democratic processes is their only chance. They resort to resistance, disruption and murder because they know a free society does not share their extreme and self-destructive belief system. In a mutual exchange of ideas and values, they will be forever marginalized to the minority, ineffective. They fight to the death because they know that once free societies take hold in Iraq, it will quickly become contagious, and citizens will accept no less than the same freedom enjoyed by close neighbors. They will rise against their oppressors to achieve it, and when the leaders fall back on their time-tested measures of containment (torture, brutality and killing), the liberated neighbors (who will one day possess formidable armies) will be equipped, able and willing to come to their assistance. What I am describing here will transpire over a protracted period of time (we’re talking generations, here), and as it happens the citizens will enjoy a quality of life which would have been unachievable without American intervention as the catalyst. Though civilian Iraqis may be mistrustful of our motives, or fearful of the baggage embedded in our way of life (disrespect of elders, gratuitous sexual values, violence in our entertainment, etc.), all human beings yearn for (relative) freedom and justice. As perspective develops, a life of freedom will be known to all that experience it to be the superior way of life. Do not misunderstand me, for I am not suggesting that Iraq or any of the future affected sovereign nations should or will become "mini-Americas". They will shape the freedom and opportunity delivered to match their culture, which is obviously much different than America's. In a society of pluralities and tolerance, the production of terrorists will not have the traction that it does today. Again, the terrorists know this, and they fear it. Their time is passing. To conclude, the war in Iraq is first and foremost about protecting the lives of our own citizens on the homeland. We will do this by destroying the system that produces our current enemies. As a byproduct to all of this, we will stabilize the world by seeing that liberty and freedom is offered to the deprived. Long-term, lives will be spared and prosperity and hope magnified.

2.)How is Buchanan correct or incorrect in his analysis of what the war is about?

I agree with Buchanan’s basic portrayal of the ideology of our enemy. He is dead wrong, though, in characterizing the war as a struggle for rule in the Islamic world. Our presence is for the purpose of protecting our citizens. We can do this only when we cut out the production of evil terrorists at the source. Closed-minded, intolerant and oppressive government and religious leaders are the source.

3.)Are we trying to install rulers who are friendly to us for commercial/economic reasons are we truly interested in these people having democracy?

America must correct the sources of influence that create extremists. America also often has multi-layered agendas. Sure, if we can pursue national security objectives and commercial opportunities simultaneously, we will. Both make our country stronger, and not necessarily in a parasitic way. Business deals involving Iraq can and should be mutually beneficial, just like most business deals are. And yes, we are interested in democratizing these areas. It is fundamental to the national security agenda, and is also vital to any commercial aspects. Democracy is the key to sustaining the short-term advances we make in dismantling the current terrorist headliner, Al-Qaida.

Question smarsquid if the Arab world has had intolerance and brutality since the dawn of time what makes you think we can change that what they only know even it is the right thing to do. As well as where is it our place to force it on them, did we even ask them what they wanted or are we just telling them what they want. Also if Bush senior actually followed up his promises or did not even make promises to the Kurds then Saddam would not have retaliated against them.



Iraqi insurgents execute 12 Nepalese hostages- Sept 1,2004



If we want to quell the insurgents we can't let them keep leaving to fight another day and then saying you want their heads. How are we teaching them that their resistance will be a failure I ask you?



Actually I would argue smarsquid with your argument that a middle east country cannot become a democracy without American intervention. Qatar is a successful Islam country that is practicing democracy brought on by their own efforts instead of being forced which seems is a lot better way to create a form of government. In fact the Sheikh Hamad has turned his country from a dictatorship to a democracy on his own because he saw that it would benefit his people better. Which also has the possibility of him being voted out of office which was a very risky move on his part, but shows you change has to come from within because now his people are better for it.

Qatar: Embracing Democracy



Saddam regime was not producing terrorists against us, it is Al-Queda.

Congressman Ron Paul - Opposing Force against Iraq

I wish more politians would have listened to Ron Paul's speech on the floor in opposition to the war in Iraq here's some quotes from his speech.

Let me be the first to say, welcome to A.D.! Your response is a very thoughtful one and has many points that perhaps our own president should've used.



So you believe it is to establish regimes and rulers who are more friendly to us? which way did you vote in the poll if I may ask?



So the forces that oppose us do not see us as a roadblock to setting up an Iranian inspired Islamic republic which successfully overthrew a western puppet(i.e.-the Shah) and created the "perfect" government at least according to their own dictates?

[QUOTE]
Question smarsquid if the Arab world has had intolerance and brutality since the dawn of time what makes you think we can change that what they only know even it is the right thing to do. As well as where is it our place to force it on them, did we even ask them what they wanted or are we just telling them what they want. Also if Bush senior actually followed up his promises or did not even make promises to the Kurds then Saddam would not have retaliated against them.

Over generations, free societies who develop and incorporate tolerance and plurality in their culture will not produce the hate that inspires the terrorists of today. As far as forcing this on the Arab world, well, the human heart yearns for the liberty and opportunity that unbridled freedom gives. It just has to happen according to the terms of the subjects. As I mentioned before, all we can and will do is to deliver the building blocks. The Iraqi citizens will shape it from there. We are not forcing an objectionable ideal on these people. We share fundamental common ground in that the citizens of Iraq should be free, and secure from largescale indiscriminate violence or brutality. I am certain this represents the desires of reasonable Iraqi citizens. Today we are strongarming this process. I agree, the opporunity with Bush Sr. in the first Persian Gulf War was squandered; a failure to follow through with promised action. If only we had the vision then of installing democracy that we have today, this process could have been executed in a manner far more agreeable to the world than what is occurring now. Bush Sr. made a mistake, but at the same time we must acknowledge that 9/11-style terrorism on the homeland was not present as an impetus as it is now.

[QUOTE]
If we want to quell the insurgents we can't let them keep leaving to fight another day and then saying you want their heads. How are we teaching them that their resistance will be a failure I ask you?

America is showing a restraint during this election year that I hope and believe will be lifted in a Bush second term. America will get nasty. But even in a continued give and take scenario, over a long enough timeline, the insurgents cannot bring it to the level that we can, and will be marginalized.

[QUOTE]
Actually I would argue smarsquid with your argument that a middle east country cannot become a democracy without American intervention. Qatar is a successful Islam country that is practicing democracy brought on by their own efforts instead of being forced which seems is a lot better way to create a form of government. In fact the Sheikh Hamad has turned his country from a dictatorship to a democracy on his own because he saw that it would benefit his people better. Which also has the possibility of him being voted out of office which was a very risky move on his part, but shows you change has to come from within because now his people are better for it.

I absolutely agree with you that positive change and reform from within Arab countries is a superior alternative to America as outside force. I also agree that it is within the realm of possibility. However, history shows that overall this outcome is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, I believe that such a scenario would play out only over an even longer period of time than we already have on our hands. In protecting America's self-interest, we do not have the luxury of waiting this out. The threat to our citizens is now. The time to initiate this reform is now.

[QUOTE]
Saddam regime was not producing terrorists against us, it is Al-Queda.

This is not an absolute truth. I do not believe there was a direct link between Hussein and 9/11. Contrary to popular belief, that concept was never presented. I also do not believe that there was no link whatsoever between Al-Qaida and the Hussein-led Iraq. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Factual evidence highligted friendly relations between Iraq and Al-Qaida. What is important to know here is that Hussein ran a terrorist-friendly country. Hussein's main focus with these connections were of regional scope (Israel) and not towards the U.S. homeland, I'm sure, but Israel is an ally of the United States. Also, the terrorist seeking to kill Jewish citizens is a terrorist who could quickly shift his focus to the war on America. These terrorists, no matter what their particular specialty or persuasion is, are all part of a continuum that are a direct threat to the health and well-being of American citizens.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm new to the site, but in reviewing a few conversations I am impressed that folks representing a broad range of belief systems can engage in mutually respectful discussion of contentious topics like the war in Iraq. I agree, George W Bush should himself present some form of the vision I have described. Efforts thus far have been half-measures. The WMD and Al-Qaida reasoning for Iraq have turned out to be embarassments, for sure, but the country would have never united behind this war in the first place if Bush spoke of "nation building". Also, I believe the Bush Administration acted in good faith, and that they did not push the CIA to come up with war-friendly intelligence. The 9/11 Commission agree with me. So, we ended up in Iraq over bad intelligence, but I feel there is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. We have the opportunity now to sell our people on the idea of installing democracy as the reason for Iraq because it ties in to a long-term solution to the problem of global terrorism.

At the time I read your post, I had not yet voted in the poll. When I went to do so, it seems I have already voted. I am not quite sure how this happened. Truth be told, there are elements from four of the five (the top four) choices that I believe are at play. Since I must choose one, I would of course go with "Stopping Al-Qaeda and terrorism at large." Runner up is "Toppling anti-western leaders & governments", followed by "Preserving our presence in the Middle East" and "Maintaining $$$$$$$$$$$$ and oil barrels". Of these four reasons, the oil issue is most likely to be completely refused, but as mentioned in my original post, I believe American leaders latch on to secondary, less-than-pure-and-wholesome objectives even when pursuing goals which are overall just, good and humane. The commerical prospects (including oil) behind the war in Iraq are an example of this. I do not believe that it is in any way a primary motive (there is no evidence), and furthermore I don't feel it trumps the virtue of our main goal.

I do not believe that Iran should be used as an example of successful Arab reform from within. If this is the way the opposition sees it; that we are an obstacle to something they can accomplish of their own devices (citing the Iranian model), I am afraid they are misguided in their views, and that America cannot afford the cost of their learning this for themselves.

How? simple....

anyway, after a "good" iraqi goverment has been set up, Bush would "threaten" the Iraq goverment, somehow, to nudge the flow of the Iraqi oil, or somwthing bad would happen. That's why Bush just HAD to get rid of Saddam. Not only to continue his father's work, Bush also wants to have a very "good" government in Iraq, that will listen to his orders...

I want to say something that is quite off-topic...

Have you Americans realized that the News that you hear or read everyday might be sensored? I think so, (I live in Hong Kong) and I think that Bush is also trying to "brain-wash" you all... (e.g. the "no war = to not loyal to country" thingy...)

Again, I repeat...how? Nudge the flow to where? How? You think pipelines can just be created out of thin air? Where would the pipelines be diverted to that would create any great benefit to us? Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Not very likely....

The 'its about the oil' crowd has had several years now to come up with a reasonable scenario to back up their claims, yet I have never seen it. To be quite blunt, its time to come up with one or get off that particular hobby horse.

It seems that I put this post in the wrong thread. Read the original here.

The war in Iraq is about defeating Islamic Terrorism.

How does Iraq relate to Islamic Terrorists?

The answer is right in front of everyone, but it is also elusive. Much like the answer to anything, the answer to transportation was right in front of mankind for centuries but it was not put into effect until the wheel was invented. It was right there in front of us but no one ever thought of it. E=MC2 was right in front of us the whole time but it was not until Einstein made the connection that it was brought into human intellect.

For most people the answer is elusive and so the conspiracy theories thrive.

Islamic Terrorism does not derive within a certian border nor do they maintain an army made up of terrorists. The Taliban army was mainly of rag-tag poor Afghani's that only took the job because they got paid or they where pressured into joining. Many in that army are now US allies because of the same reasons.

Many people overlook the fact that Saddam was aiding the enemy through means of money and intelligence support. Saddam was no friend to UBL but he was a friend to the "Islamic Terrorists" cause through his own means of defeating his enemies and stricking American interests. Sometimes this is not so clear through means of public information but it is available. Saddam openly funnelled money to Palestinain terrorist organizations and called for the destruction of US interests everywhere.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_irbr.htm

QUOTE
The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."


http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=cou...a=iraq&ID=SA302

QUOTE
September 9, 2002 No.3

Iraq Calls for the Formation of Suicide Squads to Strike American Targets and Interests

"use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

QUOTE
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces came upon a recently abandoned terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were apparently taught how to make bombs and what to do if they got captured, the Marines said Wednesday.


http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

QUOTE
Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/...ain505316.shtml

QUOTE
(CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.


Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated through means of negotiation with terrorists but through the means of freedom.

Given the outcome is not clear and the risk's are high, but such is war. Afghanistan and Iraq are only the beggining steps of a much longer struggle against Islamic radicals. You cannot defeat the ideal but you can defeat the movement through strategic powerplays of freedom throughout the land of the opposition.

Democracy is the most powerful weapon we have and we are using it. To retreat within our own borders the threat will only grow with each passing day and we will have to confront it whether it be now or later.

If you truely wish to confront the enemy you must make - and achieve - long term goals and set out a strategy to achieve those goals. Lobbing a few missile's here and there and supporting another dictator will only repeat the problems of the past when it comes to the main threat we face today.

This is why Bush has stated that "after 9/11 changed everything" because the true enemy had revealed itself more than any other problems that where occuring. It was not UBL but it was the ideal of Islamic Radicals and that they where progressing to achieve their goals. The middle east is currently in a civil war of idealogy of the moderates and the fanatics. The Taliban had almost taken over the entire country of Afghanistan and Saddam had turned out to become a major threat against US interests, and the US itself, because of his cooperation with Islamic Radicals and his ties to WMD's. Indeed the moderates where fighting a losing battle. Many moderate Muslims are voicing out against the radicals and calling for reform. They may or may not agree with the exact strategy but you would be surprised at how many moderates support our overall objective - albeit many of them have a more "peaceful" solution in mind which is only a pipe dream and is also why they where losing. The passive policies of the past are what brought 9/11 upon our soil and to retreat within our borders while the threat grows abroad will only make the problem expand. As I provided some of the public information availiable above, Saddam was a prime target for the war on terror.

As of now the insurgency is violent - but still limited. If you look at US casualties there is not any type of huge upswing in deaths like the MSM like to portray. Given they have not gone down but there is progress that is very visible. It may not flash on the TV screen but it is there. The population has not turned against the US voilently and in fact I saw a "poll" that stated 80% of Iraqi's want the elections to happen despite the presence of 130,000 US troops.

Not only of Saddams will to support the enemy expansion because of his own objectives but also because it is directly in the middle of countries that provide a threat as well. If you roll out a map of the Middle East you will see it to be true. There is an ancient tactic called the "honeypot" doctrine in which you take over a strategic area and fortify your position in giving the enemy a prime target to attack you. While they are focusing their efforts to achieve their goal to take the strategic area you slowly "bleed" their recourses.

Some people believe that Bush is a fumbling idiot in which it is quite the opposite because they are actually the ones who do not understand this.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8331

There is something that was said to me once by a person who probably had no idea that I would remember it years later and it has affected my life.

It was about a tire that my fiance's ex-boyfriend had stuck a knife in it. The tire did not actually go flat immidiately, but the hole was on the outer wall and could not be repaired easily and it was rather small. The leak would slowly leak air out of my tire and I had to put air in it every month.

I went to NAPA and told the person at the counter the story and I was short on money and didnt want to spend $100 on such a small thing, especially because the way I saw it is that I could just keep putting air in it, so I didnt want to spend the money for another tire and asked him if I should be worried about it.

He replied

"Well it's not going to get any better"