The War Against "Excessive Influence" Over Oil

[MMMMMM]

What a cynical attitude.

Let me assure you, ANY will imposed on how the Iraqi nation is run would be better than that of the monster they've got running things now, who imposes HIS will on everyone and everything on pain of torture and death.

Your assumption (which assumption you share with many others), that this is a war about oil rather than about WMD and the threat to US citizens, may be way off--just a thought, though you sound like you have your mind made up already largely on the basis of speculation. Quite frankly, it's a reasonable speculation--but so is the opposite--and without a lot of specific knowledge which neither of us has access to, it's a stupid presumption if you think can be anywhere near to being sure that you're right on this. My own guess is that it's BOTH--but maybe you know better.

North Korea perhaps isn't as immediate a threat--or perhaps, Bush just has to do things sequentially--not an unreasonable way to go about things, now is it? Deal with 'em one at a time.

When we get a decent missile shield, one capable of handling with China's 25 or so nukes, depending on China's activities at the time, maybe they will go on that list too--but I doubt it. For one thing they really aren't supporting worldwide terrorism the way Iran is. Their totalitarian activities are mostly internal.

[MMMMMM]

Irish Hand: "It's completely false to assert that simply because a government does some horrible things (depriving people of civil rights and liberties which lead to tons of abductions and murders, for example) it isn't popular with the people."

No kidding--but I DON'T assert that, and that's not why I'm saying the Iraqi regime isn't popular with the people. Even the liberal TIME magazine described the Iraqi regime as being unpopular--the Baath party represents only 1/3 of the population--vast swaths of the population want Saddam out but are powerless--the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South--the Shiites comprise about 60% of the Iraqi population...

[MMMMMM]

Well it's hard to imagine how anyone could be worse for the Iraqis than Saddam--and what he does to his own people is truly disgusting. So any change ought to be for the better.

Weapons to al-Qaeda: Documented suspicious activities and contacts aren't enough? Public statements of intent aren't enough? Saddam and al-Qaeda both calling for jihad against the USA and Israel isn't indicative? Waiting for absolute proof? How utterly naive. Get real.

[rounder]

[mattyou]

[andyfox]

Iraq denies it has WMD. The UN has not found any. The US claims it has evidence, but won't give it to the UN. Conservatives who were war hawks in other situations, such as Kissinger and Brzezinksi have publicly doubted the reasons the administration has given for the potential war.

Meanwhile, North Korea has basically stated it will produce nuclear weapons and if the UN does anything about it, it will consider it an act of war. Our reaction has been to try to preserve peace.

Disregarding whether one thinks our reactions to Iraq or North Korea are correct or not, how could one not conclude that oil is not part of the equation?

[Martin Aigner]

"Well what about what most of the Iraqi people want? Does that count, or are you just presuming they don't want Saddam deposed?"

So you say that it´s for humanitary reason the USA wants war against Iraq? C´mon, I think you can do it better. OK, I admit that the people of Iraq suffer from Saddams dictatorship, but that simply is not the reason why Bush (and parts of the west) wants the war.

IMHO the Iraqis are poor people because of the dictatorship of Hussein, anyway, there are many other folks on earth who are just as poor because of dictatorship, too. And furthermore, there are even way poorer poeple on earth than Iraqis. You can see people, dying from hunger in 3rd world every day. Millions of children could be saved, but the west wouln´t help them in a serious way. (Not only from starving. Most of the illnesses in the 3rd world can be heald easily by western standart. Anyway, it seems we all don´t care about them)

C´mon, humanity isn´t the reason for war against Iraq. You know that. We all do.

Martin Aigner

[IrishHand]

Be serious now - do you realize how arrogant and ignorant your first paragraph was?

Let me assure you, ANY will imposed on how the Iraqi nation is run would be better than that of the monster they've got running things now, who imposes HIS will on everyone and everything on pain of torture and death.
I'm happy you have such an intimate knowledge of life in Iraq. It's truly amazing to me that someone living on US soil who's sole source of information about Iraq is western media could have such a deep understanding of people's lives in a vastly different country. In all seriousness, you're basically saying that Hussein is the worst possible leader the Iraqis could possibly have. That's ridiculous, as I'm sure you have to understand. There are countries in far more dire straights economically, socially and morally than Iraq - they just don't happen to be sitting on a vast supply of black gold.

North Korea perhaps isn't as immediate a threat
Ah...that's right. I forgot that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the US. Of course, the reality is that neither of them is a "threat" to us, per se. We just like to throw our weight around internationally - much to the dismay of the rest of the world.

When we get a decent missile shield, one capable of handling with China's 25 or so nukes
Again, I'm thrilled that your knowledge of other countries is so amazing. I once considered travelling to China to count their nukes, but decided instead to go to a Vegas for the weekend. Seriously - our "missile shield" program is easily the single largest waste of money that our military has encouraged in at least 20 years. The most perfect "missile shield" program in the world wouldn't stop a nuke-laden cargo ship from parking at NY or LA and starting some fireworks - to say nothing of the option of transporting the nuke onto an 18-wheeler and driving it wherever you want for the light display.

Conventional warfare against the US is a thing of the past. It's been over 100 years since anyone or anything attacked the US on continental US soil. It's not going to happen in the next 100 years - the military disparity is simply too great. If you're 5'3", a buck-twenty-five, you don't walk over to a 1990 Mike Tyson's house to start a fight because you don't like his foreign policy.

[IrishHand]

I've been called a sociopath before, but never a psycho. Oh wait...I ignore labels from those who don't actually know what they mean. Nevermind. Oh...and I used to live in California - doesn't mean that I am California. You really should look into your mental challenges. E-mail me and I'd be happy to recommend a good therapist.

1.They both have ridiculous rantings with M.
2.They both advocate the USA is a terrorist nation.
3. They both advocate a Zionist conpiracy to rule the World.
4. They both claim to have gone to law school.
5. They both have no respect for the law.
6. They both have put forth that the USA deserved 9-11.
7. They both think that Arafat is a freedom fighter and not the bloody, murdering terrorist that he is.

1. I also argue with my mother. Does this mean I have an Oedipal complex?
2. Using any reasonable definition of terrorism, the US is a terrorist nation. We just don't like that because it pierces our "holier than thou" delusions.
3. I've never used the word "Zionist" either in a post or in conversation. Nice try to continue harping on my anti-semitism despite the fact that I've never once discussed the Jewish faith or peoples. I restrict my discussion to government policies. The fact that you apparently think that "Israel" is a synonym for "all Jews" or "Zionist conspiracy" reveals a shocking streak of ignorance and/or anti-semitism on your part, bud.
4. I certainly did - thanks for recognizing that.
5. Kind of tough to reconcile that with my past time as an associate district attorney, don't you think?
6. Yet another creation of your defective mind. The only person harping about anti-semitism or any shameful declaration that thousands of civilians deserved to die is you. You might want to think about that before you go labelling others.
7. Again, you clearly don't bother to read anything I write. I've argued consistently that the Sharon and Arafat are both terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam is literally on a par with Stalin...just on a smaller scale (if you don't know that you don't know much about Iraq or Saddam). Stalin is his avowed hero and he has practiced Stalin's methods with gusto for many years. He even keeps a bookshelf filled with Stalin's writings by his bedside. He ruthlessly murders anyone he sees as political threats--and their extended families as well. Torture, kidnapping and rape are tools his regime uses to keep people in line. Are you really trying to argue that a replacement wouldn't almost surely better--even any random replacement?

You spout liberal opinions about the missile shield like you know what you're talking about...but you don't. The purpose of a missile shield is not to intercept or preclude every form of attack or even every missile...it is to limit the damage we take. The cost of the missile shields is estimated to run 10-20 billion (as of 6 months ago). The cost of the 9/11 attack is estimated between 100-300 billion, which is 10 to 15 times more than the missile shield now in development. Now: one single nuke obliterating an entire major city would cost us far, far more than 9/11. Therefore if the missile shield prevents EVEN ONE NUKE from striking one city it pays for itself many times over--it's not even close, and that also doesn't even consider the prevention of human suffering. Just in pure financial terms the missile shield will be a bargain and a relatively cheap insurance policy.

By the way, North Korea is working on developing ICBMs capable of reaching the USA--they already have a hundred 780-mile range missiles, and they definitely will have the ICBMs. If they take their two old reactors out of mothballs, within a year they could be producing over one nuclear bomb PER WEEK.

North Korea is probably too rational to attack the USA directly--as was the former USSR. But the same cannot be said with nearly the same degree of confidence for certain regimes in the Middle East, should they acquire nukes (possibly soon from the DPRK). Obviously, the self-preservation/rationality argument does not apply to known terrorist groups.