Opinion

[i3OSS]

Hey people,
Do you think President Bush is at war mainly because he wants to disarm Saddam or to get the moolah $$ off the iraq oil? or is there another reason.

i3oss

[avx]

Well, I dont think there has ever been a war that was fought for one single cause. We say we are fighting for freedom from terrorism, but of course that isnt the ONLY reason, if we wanted to stop terrorism we would just improve security and that would be it, but there are so many bonuses to disarming Iraq. Oil will be a major reason, but what you have to realize is, we also take an evil dictator out of power, oil prices go down, the american economy should rebound because we feel better knowing that the threat is no longer there.

Bottom line is, they are giving up fast, and the only tragedy was that unfortunate helicopter accident, but it looks like this will be a very low threat war to our boys over there. Which is all you can really ask for in any war.

Im guessing this thread will be closed very soon. I wish it wouldnt though, unless things got a little too hot...cause I love a good political conversation.:)

[skeeter]

There has been some speculation that Sadaam already has nuclear devises purchased from the Soviet Union when it was breaking up. Imagine one of these detonated in New York or DC.

[avx]

Did you guys see the headline over at msn.com?

They know when their beat (http://www.msnbc.com/news/888769.asp)

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by skeeter
There has been some speculation that Sadaam already has nuclear devises purchased from the Soviet Union when it was breaking up. Imagine one of these detonated in New York or DC.

Realistically, nukes would do Saddam about as good as a cruise missile would do me. Without a means of launching it, it's not very effective. To launch a missile halfway across the world is not a trivial matter, and it would be impossible to build ICBMs and silos without it being very easy to see on spy satellites (not to mention it's not easy to build ICBMs in the first place).

Further, it's seriously doubtful Saddam would organize any kind of first strike on the US. Sure, he's a ruthless totalitarian ruler, but he also is selfish and rather cowardly. He won't stick his neck out unless he stands to gain a lot, and he wouldn't gain anything except a quick death if he did a first strike on any nation, especially with nukes.

[icallmedan]

I think it is to get Saddam, but I am sure the oil is a smaller factor...

[glc]

Here's my opinion on the oil issue, for what it's worth.

14% of the world's oil comes from Iraq. We are trying to preserve the flow while at the same time, allowing the Iraqis to make their money. We want to see the money benefit the Iraqi people, not just fill Saddam's coffers.

Disclaimer - my opinion is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PC Media, Inc.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Well, wars have always been waged for lust of gold, resources and territory. The rest of the reasons are merely futile.

Take the Crusades as an example. They told the ppl they were fighting to save the Sacred Places. Yeah, right. The real reason was to recover the commercial route to the Far East.

[TwoRails]

Originally posted by i3OSS
Do you think President Bush is at war mainly because he wants to disarm Saddam or to get the moolah $$ off the iraq oil? or is there another reason. Yes!

[Force Flow]

I hate it when people answer two different views with a yes or no. :p

[TwoRails]

I didn't.

Is it to:

disarm Saddam?: Yes
preserve the oil?: Yes
are there other reasons?: Yes

[Force Flow]

I see. My mistake, then. :p

In that case, I say yes to all three as well.

[drisley]

The oil is a factor in this, but not in the way protesters think. If we wanted to take their oil, we would have done it in 1991.

[not important]

Yes
Yes
Yes

[Boone]

I heard somewhere that people were talking about boycoting French companies and products because of their stance regarding the war. Is this true?

[glc]

Yes, there are lists of French-held companies being circulated over the Internet - I've received emails about it.

[Eaglefeather]

I believe that there are many different reasons why the President and his advisers have undertaken this action. It would be very nieve of me, or anyone else, to think they did it for moral reasons alone. Only history will know for sure.

Skeeter you have hit a point that has been worrying me since the first strike. I had expected Saddam would hit back right away with chemical or germ devices, but he didn't. I also expected that the hit would not be US troops but rather Isreal. Since he didn't I have to suspect he has something else up his sleeve. My very first thought was a small nuclear device powerful enough to take out Bagdad.

He knows he has lost and he knows he can not survive this war. So he just may decide to go out with a bang. And what a hell of a bang it would be.

He may be waiting for the Allied troops to move into positions around the perimiter of Bagdad before he acts. He could take out a good portion of the ground forces that way.

Paul as to your worry in a previous post that the US could suffer because of this war, well this is the one scenerio that could cause that. The US would indeed suffer greatly in world opinion if Bagdad were to be destroyed. Not only that, how would the US ever be able to prove to the sceptics that they did not hit the city with a nuclear device themselves? Saddam may just be counting on it.

I think it is highly unlikely that Saddam has a nuclear device, but with a snake like him one can never know for sure. I am sure US and British strategists have taken such a scenerio into account. Damn but I wish I could be in the war room right about now.

[Force Flow]

Originally posted by Eaglefeather
Skeeter you have hit a point that has been worrying me since the first strike. I had expected Saddam would hit back right away with chemical or germ devices, but he didn't. I also expected that the hit would not be US troops but rather Isreal. Since he didn't I have to suspect he has something else up his sleeve. My very first thought was a small nuclear device powerful enough to take out Bagdad.

Yes, I am wondering as well. Could it be that he sees no point in striking back, he can't for some reason, or he could be just saving for something big.

I'm hoping something is just stopping him.

[TMAN]

I doubt Saddam even has a nuke. In fact I have little doubt that he or anyone cabable of of giving orders seriously (Aziz, Qasai, etc) are even alive or concious at the very least. So chemical and biological weapons probably won't be launched. Why do I think this? Besides the fact that communication lines are gone for the Iraqi military so no one would even hear the order, there are no preparations being made in Baghdad. Zilch. None. This is sinply something thats not done if you actually wanna pretend you can fight. I believe Saddam is doing this to completely discredit the US in the worst kind of way: make us look like an imperialistic tyrant with nothing to justify this war to the world but lies. That would be far easier to do than actually launching something at us because we would be doing all the work while he can sit back and hide in some hole. It's a scary scenario, so we better be right in every possible way.

[Force Flow]

Who said anything about a nuclear bomb? I was just talking about chemical and biological weapons, which the inspectors said he had.

Yeah, it may be that because the communication network has been knocked out that there hasn't been any bombing from their side.

[Paul Victorey]

Actually, none of the inspections found any trace of biochem weapons, so there's no PROOF he has biochem weapons. We know he does NOT yet have nuclear weapons, and in fact, our evidence that he was trying to get them turned out to be forged documents, so there's no real evidence Saddam has any kind f nuclear program.

All the evidence for Iraq's nuclear capabilities were forged documents, and one Iraqi expatriate who claimed to be a nuclear engineer (he was actually a software programmer), and who testified before congress that Iraq was months away from having nuclear capabilities despite the fact he hasn't been in Iraq for 10 years.

So if Baghdad is nuked, it would have to be by us. If, however, Saddam still does have biochem weapons that weren't destroyed, those could be a threat to us.

[CMT]

My view is that Bush has been pushed so hard to find Osama that he views Saddam as the next best thing he needs someones head or he looks like he wasted American lives and Money I personally dont think Oil matters just my view though:)

[drisley]

Its coming over the wires now - coalition forces have found and captured a camouflouged chemical weapons manufacturing facility south of Baghdad.

[Force Flow]

Well, at least they found it so it can't produce anything more.

[TimPoet]

Our reasons for resuming the hostilities against Iraq are simple. He refused to honor his cease-fire agreements. So, we take it to him.
He poses a threat to us in that he is a rogue leader of a terrorist sponsoring nation in a post September 11 world. He HAS tried to get nuclear weapons and would probably have them today if Israeli F-16's hadn't bombed the weapons grade plutonium producing reactor built by Jacques Chirac 16 years ago.
Bush is an honorable man and Saddam is a despicable, dangerous man who will soon die. Our motives are pure (it's called self defense) and we shall prevail.

[HAL9000]

I think Bush is only doing the Iraq thing to take over where daddy left off before he gets booted from the White House like daddy did.

[not important]

Bush had to make some kind of move. He couldn't find Bin Laden to make good on his promises of justice to the American public for the 9-11 attacks. Saddam gets to be the scape goat.

[Force Flow]

Originally posted by HAL9000
I think Bush is only doing the Iraq thing to take over where daddy left off before he gets booted from the White House like daddy did.

A lot of people seem to think that. I wonder if someone asked Bush if that were true (off the record), and if he would answer honestly, what would he say to it?

[davsl]

Sorry I think it is oil, you can talk all you like about the freedom of the Iraqi people. But goverments are killing their own people in other countries like Ethiopia, but the American's do not give a sh*t about them as there is no oil there. It happened in Bosnia too for years, mass genocide but nobody gave a sh*t too! Sadam is an evil man and does need removed but if there was no money involved it would not have happened. And if America continue to bully everybody they are paving the way for future September 11th type attacks as this is the only way these organisations can get back at them. Unfortunatley being English we have a leader who is Bush's wipping boy so we face similar problems. But there is nothing I can do to stop it, accept maybe vote for someone different next election , although the alternatives are no better either!

[Nuclear Krusader]

Pardon me, Mr. Tim, but I respectfully disagree.

Bush is anything but honorable. Where is the honor in taking on an enemy that poses small threat to you? Where is the honor in taking on a peasant armed with a pitchfork while you are clad in full plate and armed with a massive warhammer?

Where is the honor in threatening nations who oppose war (even when they are not Saddam supporters or muslim nations)?

This is all about the spoils, as all wars have ever been since men learned to mount stone spearheads onto wooden poles.

[azscary]

Originally posted by davsl
Sorry I think it is oil, you can talk all you like about the freedom of the Iraqi people. But goverments are killing their own people in other countries like Ethiopia, but the American's do not give a sh*t about them as there is no oil there. It happened in Bosnia too for years, mass genocide but nobody gave a sh*t too! Sadam is an evil man and does need removed but if there was no money involved it would not have happened. And if America continue to bully everybody they are paving the way for future September 11th type attacks as this is the only way these organisations can get back at them. Unfortunatley being English we have a leader who is Bush's wipping boy so we face similar problems. But there is nothing I can do to stop it, accept maybe vote for someone different next election , although the alternatives are no better either!

To the best of my knowledge neither Ethiopia nor Bosnia have developed and used weapons of mass destruction as Iraq has.

[TMAN]

but ethiopia and bosnia are far greater threats to our national security as they have pretty much blatantly displayed their support and aid of Al-Qaida among others. Remember the first doctrine... "either with us or against us...", "countries that support terror", etc?

[Nuclear Krusader]

True. Remember the saying: "dog who barks doesn't bite".

[Xayd]

Originally posted by azscary
To the best of my knowledge neither Ethiopia nor Bosnia have developed and used weapons of mass destruction as Iraq has.

North Korea and Pakistan have, when will you be invading, occupying, and imposing a new government in those countries?

[Paul Victorey]

Shh, Pakistan is on our side, so we can't talk about their human rights abuses, or the fact that the "president" of this "democracy" took over in a coup, that he granted himself the ability to dissolve congress, granted himself a longer term, and forbade his most popular opponents from being on the ballot. He's our ally! Nevermind how willing Pakistan was to betray the last government they allied with, the Taliban.

[Nuclear Krusader]

I have heard the rumor that the USA has already deployed some troops in south korea. Perhaps that is what the iraqi oil will be used for.

[Paul Victorey]

They've deployed some, but if it comes to war, we might lose. If China will again support N. Korea, as they did during the Korean war, they're practically an unbeatable adversary, and two nuclear powers at war would be terrible on all sides.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader
Pardon me, Mr. Tim, but I respectfully disagree.

Bush is anything but honorable. Where is the honor in taking on an enemy that poses small threat to you? Where is the honor in taking on a peasant armed with a pitchfork while you are clad in full plate and armed with a massive warhammer?

Where is the honor in threatening nations who oppose war (even when they are not Saddam supporters or muslim nations)?

This is all about the spoils, as all wars have ever been since men learned to mount stone spearheads onto wooden poles. Henry, I know our disagreements will not hurt our friendship. But, I must admit I am surprised at your stands.
Saddam is every bit as dangerous as bin Laden. I mean, who would have thought two years ago that he could level the two tallest buildings in the world?
The same evil potential would blossom into thousands of American deaths with Saddam if he were left unchecked. He already stated he wanted nuclear weapons. He already stated he wanted the destruction of Israel and the US. He already used WMD's on his own people. He already invaded two of his neighbors.
September 11 was a wake up call for this nation and we will not let other bin Ladens reach out and place their terrorist destruction on our nation again. Remember the miserable feeling you felt after that day of infamy? Remember the tears, the anger, and the shock? We will never forget. We will never forgive. We will cause there to be Absolute Victory over all our enemies. North Korea will follow, perhaps Iran if they don't clean up their act. Maybe Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians if we find they support terrorists.
As in WWII, we didn't start the damn thing, but we sure as hell will finish it.

[azscary]

Originally posted by Xayd
North Korea and Pakistan have, when will you be invading, occupying, and imposing a new government in those countries?

Shhhhhhh!

Right after Iran!!!!:eek:

[TMAN]

Tim, Bin Laden wasn't and isn't contained. Neither is Pakistan, North Korea and what, 21 others? As for Bush's honor... well honor isn't displayed in pushing for war but not saying a word about the human consequences of this- it is a government assignment for my class and I to track everything about the war including speeches and statements and the possibility of loss of life on either side was never mentioned (but not even asked by reporters though). Honor isn't displayed in hiding the financial consequences of this- no budget predictions for war until yesterday, and that is preliminary. Honor isn't displayed in avoiding the global consequences of this- the only "real" consequence uttered by bush was an end to the Israeli/Palestinan conflict. Remember: One of the goals of Bin Laden was/is to isolate the western countries from themselves, to widen the gap between the west and the east, and to unite all muslims under the cause of opposition to the west.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Bin Laden must be laughing himself breathless now. Saddam was his enemy and he will soon be eliminated.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by TimPoet
Henry, I know our disagreements will not hurt our friendship. But, I must admit I am surprised at your stands.
Saddam is every bit as dangerous as bin Laden. I mean, who would have thought two years ago that he could level the two tallest buildings in the world?
The same evil potential would blossom into thousands of American deaths with Saddam if he were left unchecked. He already stated he wanted nuclear weapons. He already stated he wanted the destruction of Israel and the US. He already used WMD's on his own people. He already invaded two of his neighbors.
September 11 was a wake up call for this nation and we will not let other bin Ladens reach out and place their terrorist destruction on our nation again. Remember the miserable feeling you felt after that day of infamy? Remember the tears, the anger, and the shock? We will never forget. We will never forgive. We will cause there to be Absolute Victory over all our enemies. North Korea will follow, perhaps Iran if they don't clean up their act. Maybe Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians if we find they support terrorists.
As in WWII, we didn't start the damn thing, but we sure as hell will finish it.

We KNEW Bin Laden had the resources to attack the WTC. If you recall, Al Quaida was being blamed immediately -- by the end of the day on Sept. 11, they were already suspecting Al Quaida. And the REASON they suspected Al Quaida is that Al Quaida was the only major terrorist group with both the motive and reources.

Also, you say Saddam invaded two of his neighbors -- remember the US was strongly urging him to invade Iran, and we helped him a lot during the war, so we bear equal blame for one of those cases.

Even if Saddam has more powerful weapons than Al Quaida, he is still a much lesser threat. He is, at heart, a coward. He has never truly stuck his neck out unless he thought he'd vastly gain by doing so. Hell, he invaded Kuwait because he thought the US would support his claim to the land, and because he would then be able to not have to pay his massive debt to Kuwait.

Saddam loves power, and he isn't stupid. He saw what happened to the Taliban, and they didn't even directly attack the US. He'd never risk his power and his life to harm the US, which couldn't possibly benefit him directly. Bin Laden would die for his vengeance, Saddam wouldn't die for anything.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by TMAN
Tim, 1) Bin Laden wasn't and isn't contained. 2) Neither is Pakistan, North Korea and what, 21 others?

3)As for Bush's honor... well honor isn't displayed in pushing for war but not saying a word about the human consequences of this- it is a government assignment for my class and I to track everything about the war including speeches and statements and the possibility of loss of life on either side was never mentioned (but not even asked by reporters though). Honor isn't displayed in hiding the financial consequences of this- no budget predictions for war until yesterday, and that is preliminary. Honor isn't displayed in avoiding the global consequences of this- the only "real" consequence uttered by bush was an end to the Israeli/Palestinan conflict. Remember: One of the goals of Bin Laden was/is to isolate the western countries from themselves, to widen the gap between the west and the east, and to unite all muslims under the cause of opposition to the west. My responses:
1) Huh? When did I allude to bin Ladin being contained? I said Saddam is as dangerous as bin Ladin in respect to terrorism.
2) Double huh? What in the world are you talking about?
3) That's fine that you are trying to research statements made by Bush, at least you are trying to use your brain. But you must polish up your research methods. President Bush has warned us about the dangers of taking on Saddam from day one. Bush has made no attempt to hide the fact that this war will be costly. And Bush said there'd be plenty of consequences of the war against Saddam. Peace by removal of a warring, murderous dictator, and peace by the institution of democracy among others.

[drisley]

I think real honor is found in holding true to oneself despite what some others may say. Bush has done that, and wisely if you ask me. People can argue whether he is right or not, but rightness has nothing to do with honor. I think Bush has shown true honor during this situation.

And this wasn't a new stance for Bush. He was saying regime change would be his policy even during the election. In fact, regime change, it seems, was the official policy of the Clinton administration as well, what with the signing of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. Of course, they were going to do it by supporting opposition groups. Bush is doing it in a more direct manner, to put it mildly. :)

[Paul Victorey]

There's more to honor than merely hoding true to your beliefs. Hell, most of the world's most vile men will hold their beliefs to their death. Hitler held true to his beliefs to the death, as will Bin Laden, I'm sure.

So yes, rightness has EVERYTHING to do with honor.

[drisley]

There is definitely more to it. I've got definite ideas on what honor is, and yes, being true to oneself is only a part of it. But, no, I don't think being right has much to do with it. It is possible to be dead wrong and yet honorable about it. Hitler and Bin Laden were not honorable men for other reasons, very obviously.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Paul, I think the word is righteousness.

Bush, IMHO is a perfect example of the Lawful Evil alignment.

While Saddam is an example of the Chaotic Evil one.

[TimPoet]

:rolleyes: Henry, compadre, how is President Bush evil? What equalities do you see between Bush and Saddam?
Did Bush invade Mexico or Canada? Did he drop nerve gas on the liberals in California? Did he sign a truce with the UN and grossly violate it? Is he threatening the world with WMD's given to terrorists? Is he an uncivilized barbarian?

President Bush and America are good. Saddam and his loyal Iraqi cohorts are evil. Do you admit there is a huge difference?

[glc]

Tim - you are getting too personal. This forum was opened to divert the inevitable discussions involving war and politics and religion from the rest of the forum, but we are not going to budge on our policy concerning respect for other members. I fully understand how this conflict is personally affecting you and we all sympathize with you, but we can't let you keep up the heated debate. If you need to vent, please do it at Forumclick.

[TimPoet]

Ok, I will stop.

[Hot Rod]

I wanted to believe it was all about Saddam and liberating people and stopping WOMD.

Now with the news that the chemical plant they found hasn't made any chemical weapons in at least 5 years....

and then....

Halliburton (whose former CEO was Dick Cheney) being awarded the contract for all Iraqi oil business after the war...

I'm getting really worried that we sent our boys into harms way just to line the pockets of big oil businesses...especially the ones with government ties. I want to believe we are liberating the people of Iraq but when our plan is to put an American in charge for a minimum of 2 years like the Bush Administraion has stated and then you award the big Iraqi oil contract to Cheney's friends....I start to doubt.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Well, Bush actually threatened Mexico with "measures" (as of now, nobody here is sure what those measures would be) against us if we didn't support his war.

[Hot Rod]

That brings us back to the original question. WHAT IN THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY DRIVING BUSH????

He latched on to Saddam like a dog latches onto a bone. Stubborn and impatient. Won't let go and couldn't even if he wanted to.

Think about these things....

He wants to liberate the Iraqi people. Fair enough...that is a good reason but it's not what is presented in any of the UN Resolutions proposed. All of those dealt with WOMD.

He wants to eliminate WOMD. Yes, I agree. But so far we have only found chemical suits and a plant that hasn't produced any chemicals in at least 5 years. Saddam has had trouble protecting his own country let alone attacking some other country with WOMD. What would the harm of been to let the inspectors continue a few more months and then go through the proper channels.

Saddam is a threat to our national security? Hello??? He hasn't been able to attack our troops fully until they get to Baghdad. He doesn't have any rockets that can reach the US.

Protect out national security because it rids us of terrorism. Whoever thinks that is completely unrealistic. Terrorists don't need a country. They don't need financing from a country or leader like Saddam. First of all, how much money does it take to buy a couple of plane tickets and box cutters. Second, how many terrorists are living in other countries. They don't march around with an Iraqi flag. They hide in whatever country they can get into.

Terrorism is an idea...not a physical thing. The danger in declaring war on an idea is that the only way to defeat it is to kill everyone who believes it. Are we going to go through every country, every household and kill everyone that has a thought about terrorism.

So what is really driving Bush. Revenge and Oil????

Before the latest news came out, I supported the war. But the last few days, I've heard information that is really making me doubt Bush's intentions. I want to know truly why our loved ones are in harms way.

[drisley]

Why would you change your mind because of two little tid-bits of info: that Halliburton will be involved in the aftermath and that ONE site warranted no chemical weapons? there must be more to this, because those two pieces of info could hardly change minds.

I heard that some of the Iraqi bodies had syringes on them with serums for combatting effects of chem/bio. Why would they be carrying this stuff on their persons if the regime had no such weapons?

[Hot Rod]

It's not just two little things. It's a combination of things over the last several days that have made me doubt Bush's intentions.

I started off supporting the war and right now I still do....like I said I just have doubts starting to creep in. I'm on the fence so to speak.

I never supported the war because I thought it would put an end to terrorism though because that is an unattainable goal in my book. I would like to see Saddam out of power because of the terrible things that he has done to his people. I wish we could do the same for other countries that are under the same circumstances. What bothers me is that the only thing pushed at the UN though was the WOMD thing. Bush seemed to use the way he treats his people as a justificaton later. Sort of like, "We're going after him because of WOMD, and on top of that he mistreats his people, and on top of that he supports terrorism, and on top of that he looks funny" type thing.

I am willing to overlook that though. Becuase the end result is still the same. Getting rid of Saddam.

When Dems complained about Bush's ties with big oil, I pointed out that Cheney stepped aside as CEO and I didn't think it would be a factor. Now I doubt that. I realize that there is always a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" when it comes to politics....but the Halliburton thing is so blantant and has the likelyhood for producing very LARGE profits for them that I start to wonder if this isn't why Bush didn't want to wait.

And then putting an American in charge???? Since when is America involved in taking over other countries and install our leadership. Or do we just rape and pillage their land until we have been paid back in full with interest? We are fast becoming the beast that we fight.

If Bush is there to save the Iraqi people, then so be it. I fully support that. If we are there to take over and install an American government to rule over the people and send the oil money to big business in Texas....wait a minute.....I'm not supporting that.

I just want to be sure that our loved ones are fighting for the right causes instead of lies to meet someones desires.

[drisley]

(1) American rule of Iraq is temporary, and necessary. I expect it will quickly be turned over to either Iraqi or UN people. I don't see why this would upset anyone. The alternative is anarchy.

(2) Cheney dumped all stock in Halliburton, TMK.

(3) We don't intend to keep their oil wells. What's more, such a renewed supply of oil onto the world markets would reduce the price of oil - not exactly a gift to "big oil" or "bush buddies".

(4) i don't have much doubt that political connections played a beneficial role in the awarding of rebuilding contracts, but truthfully, Halliburton has a LOT of experience in the area of military contracts. I see it as no suprise they were chosen, and don't see this as a bad thing.

(5) WOMD was the pressing issue because that is what plays a direct role in national security. While getting rid of Saddam is a worthy cause (and the main reason I'm supporting this), the WOMD issue is a direct threat to national security, and the reason we are doing this pre-emptively.

Anyway, we've all got opinions....you know the saying... ;)

[doctorgonzo]

Cheney still gets around a million a year from Halliburton in the form of deferred compensation, so it isn't exactly right to say all ties have been severed.

As for WMD, I will believe it when I see it. They way that the administration has drastically overemphasized little things (like a chemical factory that has been shuttered for years, or the chem suits at a hospital), along with the fact that the inspectors uniformly said that the information the administration fed to them regarding possible sites was worthless, makes me think that the administration honestly doesn't know what is going on with the weapons Saddam has. I certainly hope Saddam doesn't have any, and so far there hasn't been much evidence.

[drisley]

Well, its interesting how media outlets are portraying this as if:
(a) either Iraq has no weapons and Bush made it all up
(b) or if evidence is found, it was planted by the US.

I'm serious. I saw a report, I believe from AP, that implicated exactly that. So, really, when it comes right down to it, truth does not matter. People will only see what they want to see, and if their primary datum is that the US is lying, they will make up facts to make sure they are right. In the end, we just have to see what happens. I myself don't think we'd be doing all this if we didn't know. The cost of being wrong is too high.

[doctorgonzo]

And you are listening to the media? :)

I think you underestimate people's intelligence (though it is hard to do these days). Evidence of an Iraqi WMD program would be pretty hard to plant. We aren't going to fly a factory in there or plant a bunch of mobile bio labs around. If there is a WMD program in Iraq, it will be clear.

"The cost of being wrong is too high." Sounds like famous last words to me.

[Hot Rod]

I sure hope that the United States isn't planting evidence....but with the cost being so high....do you think it is totally unthinkable.

I wish they would find something so we can be proven right. You know that the term government intelligence is an oxy moron and it worries me when they keep saying "our intelligence has told us...."

[drisley]

Our intelligence told us where Saddam was on Wednesday night, and we very likely killed or injured him. So, I have faith in our intelligence. Sure, it can be wrong, but we would not start a war over a few tid-bits.

Gonz, after seeing some of the total ignorance of so many people during the course of the last six months, I deem it quite likely that there are many that would latch onto such a claim as gospel, despite the fact that its an almost unplausible thing to be able to do, much less would we do it. Especially when you have outlets like the Associated Press putting out reporting like that.

[Eaglefeather]

The requirements of making a "set up" would be much too enormous to pull off and would require a few hundred people at minimum. If one of the coalition parties was to try something like that it would not take long until word leaked out, you can bet your life on that.

If evidence is found, I for one will believe it is true evidence.

The US, Britain and Australia are not evil for doing what the UN (world) should have done years ago. I really don't care what the President's reasons are for going in and removing this tyrant. As long as it gets done and the coalition makes sure that the Iraqi people are given a chance to elect a representative government.

Removing Saddam is morally right, period.

So go ahead and argue about oil and contracts. Seems to me a lot of people are putting the cart before the horse. When the tyrant is gone we will know soon enough what the coalitions plans are.

My gut feeling is that President Bush is an honourable man and that he will see this through exactly as he has outlined it. Until Saddam is dethroned I will continue to root for the coalition forces and shant allow myself to be side tracked by conjecture.

God Bless the US, Britain, Australia and all of the other coalition forces and may he watch over our forces and help them to a speedy victory, with minimal injury and loss of life. Amen.

EF

[wschino]

Does Bush make all these descisions all by himself? Is he the only one that thinks of all these ideas? I may be wrong but I think he has many advisors who make him aware of the pros and cons of war and that helps him ultimately make his descision. He didn't wake up one morning and say "lets go to war with Iraq".

What do you call two airline jets crashing into buildings full of innocent people? Small threat? Peasants armed with pitchforks? I don't think so. I know that Saddam or his regime wasn't responsible for that attack but I'm sure if he had the chance he would have taken it.

[wschino]

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader
I have heard the rumor that the USA has already deployed some troops in south korea. Perhaps that is what the iraqi oil will be used for.

U.S. has had bases in S. Korea for many years now.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Indeed. But have you ever wondered why too many ppl hate America?

Because America is always interfering in everyone's businesses.

And this war is making you more enemies than friends.

Remember, the most powerful is not he who has the more money, or weapons; but he who has more friends.

[wschino]

It's not about having friends or having power...it's about having the power to do what is right and protect those that cannot protect themselves.

[wschino]

What I don't like about he U.S. military is their lazyness to say "we will try to limit the amount of civillian casualties". It just doesn't sound right to me. How about "we will not harm any civillians, not even accidentally". One accidental death is one too many.

[Nuclear Krusader]

It's impossible in war to not hurt civilians, no matter how hard you try. And my position remains unchanged: this war is not for the freedom of the iraqi ppl, is all about the spOILs.

[Hot Rod]

Originally posted by wschino

What do you call two airline jets crashing into buildings full of innocent people? Small threat? Peasants armed with pitchforks? I don't think so. I know that Saddam or his regime wasn't responsible for that attack but I'm sure if he had the chance he would have taken it.

I was mad as hell when 9/11 happened. I'm still mad about it but I'm being realistic. Taking out Saddam couldn't prevent that then and it won't prevent something like that from happening in the future. It doesn't take any financing from a country or leader like Saddam to purchase a couple plane tickets and box cutters.

Unfortuanately, as long as there are people that hate the American way of life, there will be terrorism. How long has terrorism been going on in Ireland and from within Ireland itself. Too many people think that we just bring Saddam down, terrorism will be gone, everything will be back to normal, and the Sound of Music will play as we prance through the hills. It's just not going to be like that.

I think that if we try to put an American / Britain force in charge of Iraq for any length of time, we will be facing a revolt of our own from the Iraqi people. Not because we are evil....but more so that a country full of Muslims doesn't really want to be controlled by a bunch of Christians.

What I think we need to do is continue on and get Saddam out of power for the simple fact of the things he has done to his own people. Then put a coalition of forces in temporary control of Iraq as the people are able to form their new government but do not put America or Britain in charge of it. Maybe get a few of the other countries from the Coalition of the Willing especially inlcude some Muslim countries.

[doctorgonzo]

The reason terrorists hate us is because we are the sole superpower in the world. That is also the reason why our allies are getting nervous.

Because we are the sole superpower, we do have a moral duty to use our power for good. But that means we need to use our power with others. When we use our power against others, we will only generate more hatred.

The war in Iraq is seen by almost all people outside the U.S. as the U.S. using our power against Saddam, as a bully would. And while it may be fun to watch Saddam get beat up because he is evil, bullies don't usually stop with one person. They keep on going until they get theirs. I do not want this to happen to my country.

We need to use our power with the rest of the world, not against people. Does that mean we will be giving up some of our status as a superpower? Yes, it does. But it is preferable to the alternative, where we exercise our power until we are swallowed up from outside and within. Throughout history, there have always been empires that have clearly been the world's preeminent superpowers. Eventually, they have all fallen.

I don't want to read in the history books that as a result of our efforts to unilaterally make the world "safer," the next fifty years are known as the decline of the American empire.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Hot Rod
I was mad as hell when 9/11 happened. I'm still mad about it but I'm being realistic. Taking out Saddam couldn't prevent that then and it won't prevent something like that from happening in the future. It doesn't take any financing from a country or leader like Saddam to purchase a couple plane tickets and box cutters.
Actually, taking out Saddam will prevent Sept 11 type atrocities, understanding that is being realistic. It is the #1 reason we are prosecuting this war. And it does take sponsoring from nation states to commit acts of terror that were as sweeping as Sept. 11. Our goals in this war against terrorism are twofold, destroy para-military groups that are not responsible to a nation state and destroy any nation states sponsoring terrorists and terrorist activities.
It's that we're not a nation that is ignorant enough to just sit around waiting for the next Sept. 11 attack. We are being proactive for our defense.
That's also what distinguishes us from being bullies, if other nations perceive us as otherwise, that's their error.

[Hot Rod]

Tim, I don't understand your logic. How do you figure that terrorists NEED the backing of a country for something like 9/11. What was so expensive or sweeping that needed a country to back it. Get 12 nut cases in one room and you have what it took. The unibomber was a terrorist. The kid who was putting bombs in peoples mailboxes in the Midwest was a terrorist. Ireland has a ton of terrorists. Any one of these nutcases could very easily take over a plane and fly it into a building. How about the two guys in LA who had body armor on and shot up the LA police force. Terrorists.....what country backed them. And if money is the case. there is enough money circulating on the black market and in back rooms all over the world that they don't necessarily need Saddam's money.

Hell, most of the terrorists in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. Are they next on our hit list? They had training in the US on how to fly the planes.

I'm all for taking Saddam out...but I guess we see it for different reasons. I see it as a punishment for human rights violations in his country. I don't see how it will stop terrorism.

[Hot Rod]

I do realize that the guys in LA were bank robbers....but hell...with their weapons and what they did....they might as well be terrorists.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Hot Rod
1) Tim, I don't understand your logic. How do you figure that terrorists NEED the backing of a country for something like 9/11. What was so expensive or sweeping that needed a country to back it....
2) Hell, most of the terrorists in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. Are they next on our hit list? They had training in the US on how to fly the planes.
1) The sheer logistics of getting 20 men activated in several sleeper cells and other sources and get them to infiltrate the country, teach them how to fly with American flight schools, and communicate well enough to leave on the same day and right coordinated hours to hit the Towers within minutes of each other on planes that were full of fuel and almost empty of passengers took a huge amount of money.
2) There are perhaps some Saudi families and groups that deserve to be taken out. But the actions we are now doing in Iraq may shut them up forever. Thugs, rich or poor, respect brute force mixed with success.

[doctorgonzo]

Tim, you are crazy if you think what we do to Iraq will keep rich Muslim terrorists from financing more terrorism. It will have the opposite effect. What better way to cajole young men into joining terrorist cells than to point out the U.S.'s newest Crusade against Islam, in Iraq? It is already happening, and if the U.S. sticks around Iraq for a couple of years, it will get worse.

The 9/11 attack was a mix of tenacity, money, and luck. I think the latter is really underplayed. There were many, many points along the way where this attack could have been derailed by a simple change of luck. It is unlikely that conditions will ever allow another 9/11.

It is far too easy for terrorists to act. I am waiting for a terrorist to pack a suitcase full of explosives, stand in line at an airport checkin during a busy morning, and detonate it. A couple hundred people killed probably, and no way to stop it. Sure, security it tight at airports, but only after you get through the checkpoints to your gate. That is simply one example. There are just too many ways for terrorists to attack us. They don't need Saddam one bit.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Exactly.

I continue to believe that this war is only increasing the hate against America. That is the point I was trying to make when I said that the most powerful is the one who has more friends. America's list of friends is growing thin.

The iraquis will want their revenge for what is happening to them now, just as americans wanted their revenge for 9/11. It's a "chain of vengeance" that has no end. More terrorists acts will follow I am sure. Now the terrorists have another reason to strike against the west.

[Statica]

NK: You do not need an Iraq to get terrorists to attack. There have been numerous instances of fanatics who have perpetrated acts of terrorism on not much more than a whim.
To be very fair, the US' attack on Iraq or on Afghanistan must not be classified as revenge, that is a very thin statement. By your reasoning, a policeman that goes after a murderer is out for revenge? The appropriate word to use in this situation would be justice. America, and a large part of the civilized world wanted justice for the attack on 9/11

I, personally, am very skeptical about this attack on Iraq will bring about much more terrorist attacks. Even if terrorists start citing the role of the US in the Iraq conflict as one of their reasons, am pretty sure they wouldve found something else to use in their communiques. They might get more people willing to resort to this way of life, but it would still require the same number of resources to bring on that attack.

[drisley]

I think this war on Iraq is part and parcel of the war on terror, and I think the war on terror seems to be going pretty well. and, yes, while the danger is still there, the media inflate that danger and continually sit it in front of our faces. We have taken out much of the Al Queda leadership. Bin Laden is on the run - seriously, and we may very well catch him soon. Saddam will be gone, removing that node of terrorism from the region. The chain reaction could have positive effects on Iran. I mean, look at the map - what country is right in between Aphganistan and Iraq - Iran. I think it is likely Iran will take care of itself because of the effects we caused on either side of them. Plus, there is already a growing pro-American, anti-regime movement in Iran. The removal of Saddam will have positive effects on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by removing a MAJOR source of training and funding of terrorism - namely Saddam Hussain. If we can cajole the PLO into electing their new prime minister, we can make real headway (hopefully) toward a true peace process.

All this stuff is interconnected, my friends. Those of you who think this Iraqi thing is just a little side entertainment for Bush are smoking the peace pipe, with all due respect. :)

[doctorgonzo]

It is just as easy to weave a web of setbacks caused by this war as it is to say that this will set off a chain reaction of good. We won't know for a long, long time. That is why it bothers me when people only focus on the next few weeks.

[Paul Victorey]

Yes, this could definately go wrong, as in:

The Shi'ite majority sweeps elections in a democratic Iraq and begins brutally repressing the Sunni and Kurds. The Kurds try to sieze power in the North and form an independant state, which causes an uprising in Turkey. The other Sunni nations declare war on the now Shi'ite Iraq, and Iran sides with the Shi'ites and now the whole Middle East is at war.

Drisley, how can you think we did ANYTHING positive in Afghanistan? Taliban-era laws still control 95% of the population; this new government we installed has practically no power outside the capital city, and even within the capital, people are claiming Karzai is nothing more than a puppet of a foreign power, so he's losing the support of even the few people who listened to him in the first place. Only the threat of US intervention keeps the region out of a civil war, but that same threat angers the entire nation because it now looks like we are ruling their nation, and the Afghans despise foreign rule. We've done no good in Afghanistan. The government we installed is both weak and unpopular, how long do you honestly think it will last?

[Hot Rod]

The thing is in the Middle East....you are not dealing in politics. You are dealing with different religions all trying to live together in a small area. Now you bring in a bunch of Christians trying control everything and instill our political system and you're just asking for trouble. Wars have been going on in the Middle East for hundreds....thousands of years. They are not arguing politics.....the wars are based in religion. We're trying to solve a religious problem with western politics. I'm all for spreading Christianity but if we are not careful....this has a good possibility of getting completely out of hand.

[Paul Victorey]

It's not truly religion, although religion is often used as a justification. I think the true means are the same for almost any way -- it's fought over power, over land, over resources.

Religion is a convenient scapegoat, it absolves people of guilt for their actions if their actions are done because "it's God's will". But I don't think it causes any wars, the underlying ethnic hatreds do that. Religion is merely the excuse that people use as to why they undertake an action they would have done anyway.

[Glyph516]

I believe that oil is not the reason for this war, it may be in the back of Bush's and in the front of Cheney's mind but the cost of this war in terms of money is so great it can barely be justified by saying bush wants oil. Not to mention once we finish everyone is gonna want a peace of iraq and were gonna end up with a huge bill and probably some new taxes. Couple this econmomic cost with PR and life loss and there's no way anyone can say this war is for money. But on a side note you can say the opposition (Russia, France) is motivated by the almighty dollar. They're real for not supporting the war is the fact that Saddam owes them huge amounts of money for certain sold goods.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Hmm, this war is costing millions of course, but the profits from the oil in the next years will be at least 4 times the cost of the war.

[Glyph516]

Billions
70 Billion for the war
and the subsequent occupation of Iraq which at a minimum will take 2 years is gonna cost even more. And once iraq is liberated we'll see the swarm of countries going after Iraqs resources.

[TimPoet]

Um, guys, the Iraqis are going to pay for this war with their oil, not the American taxpayer. It is our due. It's called war reparations.
We rid ourselves of a dire threat, get our war costs back and return to them a democratized republic and a surer economy. A perfect tradeoff.

[Hot Rod]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
It's not truly religion, although religion is often used as a justification. I think the true means are the same for almost any way -- it's fought over power, over land, over resources.

Religion is a convenient scapegoat, it absolves people of guilt for their actions if their actions are done because "it's God's will". But I don't think it causes any wars, the underlying ethnic hatreds do that. Religion is merely the excuse that people use as to why they undertake an action they would have done anyway.

It actually is religion in a sense because they all believe that they are due the land that they are trying to get......each religion's "promised land." They think God (or Allah in their case) has promised them the land and the other people are intruding upon it. Every different religion believes they are the chosen people and they need to conquer all other people because that is what God has told them to do and because all other people are infidels. Saddam himself thinks he is a messiah. So some people follow him to the death because they really think he is a messiah and other people are trying to kill him.

Another case is that some areas hate Christians coming into the area and will shoot on sight because there is proof of certain things that are described in the Bible. If people showed this proof it may mean that Christianity is right and Islam is dead.

You can see how strongly people argue religion on a small basis every day in America. Now put three different religions who believe VERY strongly in their religion so much so that they'll die for it and then put them in a space the size of California and then arm them. See what you get.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by TimPoet
Um, guys, the Iraqis are going to pay for this war with their oil, not the American taxpayer. It is our due. It's called war reparations.
We rid ourselves of a dire threat, get our war costs back and return to them a democratized republic and a surer economy. A perfect tradeoff.

Oil can't pay for tens of billions in reconstruction costs and enrich Iraqi citizens at the same time. There's a lot of oil there, but not that much.

I think referring to the oil as "reparations" is a mistake, and makes it look like we are claiming the oil as a spoil of war. We are not there to secure oil, but the comments our leaders make about the oil will have a big impact on what the world thinks, and so they should be careful.

[Hot Rod]

It is a tough question. America initiated this war so should the American taxpayer pay for it. The UN is going to say...we told you not to go in there so I wouldn't count on assistance from them. The Iraqi people are going to say..."yes...thank you for liberating us but we didn't ask you to invade us" so is it fair to take their oil which is supposed to be going to the Oil for Food program and pay ourselves back. The other coalition of the willing may contribute some but when they are "behind the scenes" and didn't actually blow anything up....how much will they be willing to give.

I think a majority of this is going to come out of the taxpayer's pocket like it or not. Is it right morally...probably not. But in the world wide political picture it may be the only way.

[TimPoet]

We do have to deal with reality here. Look up the definition of war reparations. The oil is ours.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Hot Rod
It actually is religion in a sense because they all believe that they are due the land that they are trying to get......each religion's "promised land." They think God (or Allah in their case) has promised them the land and the other people are intruding upon it. Every different religion believes they are the chosen people and they need to conquer all other people because that is what God has told them to do and because all other people are infidels. Saddam himself thinks he is a messiah. So some people follow him to the death because they really think he is a messiah and other people are trying to kill him.

Another case is that some areas hate Christians coming into the area and will shoot on sight because there is proof of certain things that are described in the Bible. If people showed this proof it may mean that Christianity is right and Islam is dead.

You can see how strongly people argue religion on a small basis every day in America. Now put three different religions who believe VERY strongly in their religion so much so that they'll die for it and then put them in a space the size of California and then arm them. See what you get.

I still say religion is merely a scapegoat. Yes, the Koran, Bible, and Torah all say to kill anyone who is not of your religion, but none of the groups truly follows these things. They fight over oil, over land, and over human rights, not over religion. There's plenty of religious diversity in America without the religious violence.

And many of these Arab infighting occured before the Arabs were even Muslim, so although religion is used to try to dtum up support, it's not the root cause.

People like Bin Laden of course will claim to be very religious. Religion is a wonderful tool to control the population, and it works very well in that area. If you convince people God is on your side, they're much more likely to agree with you.

[TimPoet]

We had a pro-troops rally here in Las Vegas just a couple blocks from my home and work last Wednesday. 2000 people there with flags a waving, what a beautiful thing!
Drove by it and saw all these wonderful people pushing their babies in strollers, wearing T-shirts with a big bold US flag on it, gathering to over capacity size. Go America!

[Eaglefeather]

Sorry Tim, the US, Britain and other freeworld countries do not act in a barbaric fashion after a war. This is not about spoils of war, this is about freedom. Freedom from the fears of the WMD that Saddam and his thugs have amassed. And, Freedom for the Iraqi people.

Perhaps you should all listen a little closer to what President Bush and PM Blare have been saying about this very subject.

They have both stated, in fact they stressed this very strongly as being a main concern, "when hostilities cease, we want the UN to restart the Food for Oil program right away." The program was stopped just before the war began.

Now I may simple minded, but that sounds to me like they want to turn the oil over to the UN to administer. Apparently they are already in negotiations with the UN on this matter.

Also yesterday, after their meeting, President Bush said America will pay the (US's) full cost of the confict. The question was directed to the President, but the PM didn't disagree or add anything so I think we would be safe to presume that Britain will pick up it's own costs as well. I seem to recall, although I can not remeber it all exactly, but a few days ago the President said exactly the same thing.

Now from that I think it would be more than safe to say that the only ones going to benifit from that oil is the Iraqi people. For now they will get it in the form of food, medicine and other essential necessities of life.

Once they have a democratic system in place and working it would be up to the UN to decide when to give the Iraqi's full control of the oil. At least that is my interpretation of what the leaders have been saying.

[ktkendall]

It certainly is a weird thing when we have France calling US arrogant and Germany doesn't want to fight!!
But seriously folks, I was just listening to a well known speaker who alluded to the fact that never before in History has any country had the Military might, and financial resources that the USA has but uses them for only honorable purposes. (ie. freeing Kuwait then rebuilding them last time, and after this current one is all over, we're already allocating resources to rebuild and help them become an independant democratic country) I do have to agree that there is a sense of honor to what we are doing, right or wrong. The troops over there seem to think so, and seem willing to take the risk to do so. As I read all these responses before me I see that when we shift the discussion over to right or wrong that is certainly where there will always be much disagreement, because for there to even be a right and a wrong it has to be based upon some kind of foundation and that is where there are so many differences in where exactly do we gain our foundation of what is righ and what is wrong. Even poeple with the same foundation have different interpretations so I'm sure we'll never reach agreement on the right and wrong issue, but now that we are this deeply involved we surely can not back out now, that would be devastating, and we need to give the troops our full support and prayers. It was ashamed we couldn't welcome them home from the viet-nam conflict as the heroes that they really are. Those that were so forcefully opposed to that one should have vented their anger where it needed to be, at the administration not the boys who were just doing their job and trying to come back alive and in one peice from that one..

[m.m]

the war is agenst ISLAM if USA relly want bece why not stop Israel from killing thousnds of inocent people of Palestenines

[Hot Rod]

I heard on the radio today over lunch that the UN security council voted unanimously to restart the oil for food program. Bush thanked them.

[drisley]

Good. It seems these countries realized the errors of their ways when they came out threatening to veto it a few days ago.

[Hot Rod]

Here is a link.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82475,00.html

This gives a lot more info than they gave on the radio station that I was listening to.

[Eaglefeather]

QUOTE, "Yes, the Koran, Bible, and Torah all say to kill anyone who is not of your religion"UNQUOTE.

I think you better read your Bible, Koran and Torah just a little closer Paul. I think you will be very hard pressed to find anywhere in these religious writings where the believer is exhorted to go out and kill none believers.

I believe the Koran calls none believers, "infidels" and the Torah something similar, Jewish members may be able to tell us what exactly the Torah wording is.

The Christian Bible exhorts believers to go out and convert none believers. It does not exhort believers to kill none believers. Only God himself has the authority to Judge man.

You seem to forget one of the ten commandments given to Moses was, "Thou shalt not kill". Now that commandment applies to Christians and Jews alike.

I recall a moslum leader was answering some questions about violence that had occured in or around their Mosque after 9/11. He mentioned at that time that the Koran did not sanction violence of any kind. That these acts of violence attributed to Moslems was not in accordance with their religious teachings.

A lot of killing and other hienious acts have been committed in the name of God, but in actual fact they are just men trying to justify their base animal instincts. The Crusades and the Inquisition are good examples.

I don't dispute what you say about religion being used as an excuse for barbaric acts, but that doesn't mean it was sanctioned in the holy books. A fanatic/bully/dictator can take things out of context and convince himself and/or others that murder, rape and many other foul deeds are sanctioned by God. A bully and dictator will use any means at his disposal to get otherwise peaceful people to do his bidding.

As for the Food for Oil vote, I think the two countries that have been the biggest pain in the ass for the Coalition, namely Russia and France, realized that they would look a right fool in the eyes of the rest of the world if they hadn't agreed. They would have found themselves trying to answer some very tough questions not only from other countries but particularly their own people.

There is a lot of sympathy in the world right now for the Iraqi people. They are seen as pawns in a deadly game of wills. Any government that contributes to more hardship for the Iraqi people will find themselves in a heap of trouble with their citizens. Excepting China, they couldn't care less and would put down any revolt just as ruthlessly as Saddam. But France and Russia do not have that luxury.

I think also that the US/British proposal to resume the program placed before the UN should stop some of the critisism about this war being fought over oil. Afterall, the US and/or Britain can hardly steal the oil reserves if those very reserves are being administered by the UN.

EF