[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Cyrien]

What other importance... hrmm... as was said. Military importance other than the oil. That is one of the big world hot spots for events. Having another local for rapid deployment of forces wouldn't hurt. Specially if oh... I dunno... let's say another conflict between the Israelis and Arab states started up again. Or perhaps we decide to do something like Somalia again? Or maybe India and Pakistan start walloping each other again?

Oil is no doubt an important reason. But to focus on it to the exclusion of others is just absurd. There are multiple reasons not just one.

[rextorres]

We don't need bases in the middle east. Where do you think we attacked Iraq from? bases in the middle east. Also Rumsfeld said we wouldn't keep troops in Iraq. Are you saying Rumsfeld is a liar?

I guess we could debate the geo political importance of the middle east, but you would have a hard time convincing a lot of people it wasn't oil.

[ April 25, 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Loser]

Let's get enumerated.

1. You can reach just about everywhere that's important from Iraq by air. Then look at the countries it borders, look at the countries they border. It even has a port. You just can't ask for anything better.

2. The WDM move, that's why the inspectors couldn't find them. Now the countryside is chaotic, and it is difficult to tell anything. The WMD could have been moved to Syria, could have been buried, could still be on the move. We shall see.

3. There was no proof. Bush never said there was. It was cleverly, almost, kind of implied, but they never out and out said it. The press did, for sure, but they misreport many things. It is easily believable that they were meant ot misreport this.

4. Well, if he told you he wasn't going to do that he lied. Please show me where he told you that, I really would like to see it.

5. What _should_ we do about Korea? We _cannot_ invade them, so we're hardly missing the troops currently in Iraq, etc. We have to wait for their old ally, China, to put pressure on them. Fortuneatly, China wishes North Korea did not have Nuclear Weapons, because it is certain to mean nukes in South Korea, Japan, and other places China doesn't want them.

6. Skipped, see 1.

7. Because it is theirs? Not sure what you're looking for here. Again it is a question of "what can we do?", the only way to keep the Shia sect from having some sort of power is to opress them. Despite many things here said, that really isn't the U.S. game.

[Loser]

1. U.S. does not have the military freedom it would like in other middle east countries; however, if Iraq ends up like Germany... the possibilities... just wrap your mind around them.

8. We will keep troops there. If we do not, we will leave it in chaos. Maybe he lied, maybe this is a matter of 'implications' again. Please give link.

9. We were already getting a whole lot of oil from Iraq. It's not like we need more. It's not like the new Iraqi government is just going to give it to the U.S.

10. Looks like you might have pulled a point... sorry I missed it.

[Cyrien]

Oh yes. We did indeed attack them from bases in the middle east. And how many other bases did we have in the middle east that we couldn't use because the nations they were in wouldn't allow it? Having bases there would be one out of many options open for the future.

And as for Oil being the only importance? Are you insinuating that the avaialbility of nuclear arms to Pakistan and India and their ongoing hostilities are unimportant? Or maybe that Somalia was set off by a need for Somali oil?

And our support of the nation of Israel is of course based entirely on all the oil wealth the Israelis provide us? Oh... wait. Wasn't part of the whole oil embargo of the 70's and 80's due to our support of Israel? If that was our only motivating factor then shouldn't we have stopped supporting Israel to get our oil? Or invaded some countries then to get our oil?

As I said. Oil is no doubt an important factor. But it far from being the ONLY important factor.

As for convincing a lot of people. Yes well I could also try and convince a lot of people about religion or what form of government is best. I would probably have a hard time with that. Just because a lot of people do something or believe something doesn't mean it is right, correct, or even accurate.

As a wise man once said: Eat poop. Billions of flies can't be wrong.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld... well I think we can let the record speak for him.

Side Note. I am mostly a Democrat but I definetly hold certain views that would not be considered of the Democrat party, and while I believe that the reasons for this war are wrong I believe doing it was right.

As for turning the nation over to Shiites... it hasn't happened yet. And even if it does... ever heard the theory of evolutionary government?

Before you can have a democracy you go through autocracy and theocracy. Don't believe it? Just look at the history of Europe. And where did the US get its history lessons if not from Europe?

Little baby steps... little baby steps.

I am undecided on the issue of WMDs. But let me use this analogy.

You walk into your kids room and smell pot and the room is thick with smoke. You know the kid has been smoking pot or someone has in that room. You have the circumstantial evidence that proves it. But do you have the hard evidence of the pot right there in your hands? Do you automatically know where to look?

Taking out Iraq right now over NK was important because Iraq had already shown the tendency and ability to both develop and use WMDs. In the past NK has done much the same. But we treated NK very differently. We played it nice and they got nuclear reactors and food and all that good stuff... and now look where we are? We had the UN handle NK and look where that got us? I would think NK would be a good reason for justifing the war with Iraq even against the wishes of the UN.

So why don't we take the Iraq stance with NK now? That has already been covered. You can't treat a nation that has nukes the same as one that doesn't. Does Iraq have nukes. I would bet money they don't. Chemical or Bio? Probably. And if not they would be back to making them again as soon as the UN looked away. How do I know? I don't. But history tends to support that view.

[rextorres]

1- 6 That's supposedly not why we invaded Iraq it was to get rid of Saddam and Rumsfeld said we are removing our troops - I'll scour the news if you need me to.

2. - 3. Powell did a whole presentation "proving" the existance of WMD at the U.N.. Also I can look up a whole littany of Shrubisms if you need me to.

4. I am not going to look up the transcripts of the debates with Gore - but he said it there.

5. So ignore NK and attack a third country to make NK even more paranoid - makes sense to me.

7. Well . . . at least your being altruistic.

[rextorres]

You don't send your child to prison or (kill him) because you smell the pot either.

Also - If the Israel and the Arabs get in a war we are not going to intervene and if the Pakistanis and Indians get in a war we are not going to intervene because they will simply blow each other up. And there are better places to go into Africa than Iraq.

The only serious embargo happened in the early 70s btw and their hasn't been a serious embargo since then - thank whomever that the Arabs haven't figured that one out.

Saddam gave oil contract to non U.S. and British companies btw and it pissed off a lot of Shrub's donors.

[ April 25, 2003, 21:14: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Cyrien]

You're right. You don't send your child to prison or kill him if you smell pot. But that is simply because it is pot. If you found the pot you wouldn't send him to prison or kill him either. It is a comparison. Compared. Not equal. I was illustrating the point at no point did I equate the seriousness of finding pot smoke to that of finding WMDs. You wouldn't kill the kid or put him in prison but you wouldn't leave him alone either, and if all you did was say well now we are going to have to search your room and the first time you find his stash... well the next time he just hides it better. And better. And better. You haven't really punished him have you?
Did we at any point punish Saddam and his regime? NO. We punished his people who weren't responsible for it. Finally we have punished him. Did some of his people get hurt? Yes. But how hurt where they without any of our action? At least now they have a chance to turn things around.

[ April 25, 2003, 21:35: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[rextorres]

The point though was that Saddam was a danger because he was going to use WMD that he had in his possession and that's how Shrub sold the war. Also there was a huge military industrial complex producing these by the boat load. If Saddam was such a danger to use WMD why weren't they used when he was in his death throws. Please don't say it was because his underling saw the light of reason. Their were plenty of fanatics who would have used them.

The fact that they were not used suggests that they NEVER would have used them not that he was saving them for Bush Sr. bday or something.

Saddam is evil, but that's not how the invasion was sold.

[Cyrien]

Assume he had them and didn't use them. Does that mean he wouldn't have EVER used them? No. He did have them GWI. That is a fact. Did he use them then? No. Why not?

Does he have them now? Maybe. Where any used? No. If he has them why not? There are all sorts of reasons.

Imagine the fall out if they were used? If he doesn't use them and he loses... and we can't find where he hid them. What happens world wide to the US reputation? Would that be motivation to not use them?