The question is, was it worth it? GDub just doesn't get it! Now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed what a lot of us have been preaching for over a year (that we went to war because we were lied to....I'm sorry, given "false information"), GWB insists that ridding the world of SH was reason enough to cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis. If he pounds the podium and tells me that "Saddam was an evil tyrant" (as if I didn't know that) one more time, I think I'll croak!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/10/senate.intelligence/index.html

A few excerpts:

"We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."

Had the capability?! Could have!? Are we going to war now on what another nation might do?!

Conservatives on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.

Gee, I wonder why. :-\\ ;)

The question is, was it worth it? GDub just doesn't get it! Now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed what a lot of us have been preaching for over a year (that we went to war because we were lied to....I'm sorry, given "false information"), GWB insists that ridding the world of SH was reason enough to cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis. If he pounds the podium and tells me that "Saddam was an evil tyrant" (as if I didn't know that) one more time, I think I'll croak!


I find it strange that we get involved in places like Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Haiti because a few hundred people get killed.  Then we get involvedin Iraq in which HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS get killed, and some people say we should not be there.

I can give no credence to a group that wants us to get involved in little skirmishes here and there, then do NOT want us to remove the 4th biggest monster of the 20th century.

Personally, I do not care if there is oil there or not.  I do not care about anything, but the fact that he is no longer butchering his people.  I find it strange, that this Conservative Republican Christian can have empathy for people in other countries and want to help save them from a butcher, while the "enlightened compassionate party of the people" only wants to talk about oil, WMD, and other nonsense.  How about getting involved in the simple concept of saving lives of the innocent??????

WMD, Al-Queda, Oil, this is meaningless to me.  And unless I am having a dream, AL-Queda *IS* in Iraq, and has been since AFTER 9/11.  Who cares if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, he IS harboring international criminals who have killed thousands.

If you think Saddam is innocent, then that means that Hitler, Stallin, and Pol-Pot were also innocent victems.

saddam is absolutely no way in the same league is stalin, hitler, or pol pot who all killed not thousands not millions of people. It would have been nice if saddam found another way to deal with the Kurds who i'm sure were a much greater threat to the Stability of Iraq because of their efforts to become independent than Iraq was to the USA last year, but i don't think there have been many if any examples of nice, flexible and successful rulers in the middle east. And everyone supporting the war because of Saddam's cruelty against the Kurds always seem to forget that all of that happened before the first president bush invaded Iraq

I find it strange that we get involved in places like Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Haiti because a few hundred people get killed.  Then we get involvedin Iraq in which HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS get killed, and some people say we should not be there.

I can give no credence to a group that wants us to get involved in little skirmishes here and there, then do NOT want us to remove the 4th biggest monster of the 20th century.

Personally, I do not care if there is oil there or not.  I do not care about anything, but the fact that he is no longer butchering his people.  I find it strange, that this Conservative Republican Christian can have empathy for people in other countries and want to help save them from a butcher, while the "enlightened compassionate party of the people" only wants to talk about oil, WMD, and other nonsense.  How about getting involved in the simple concept of saving lives of the innocent??????

WMD, Al-Queda, Oil, this is meaningless to me.  And unless I am having a dream, AL-Queda *IS* in Iraq, and has been since AFTER 9/11.  Who cares if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, he IS harboring international criminals who have killed thousands.

If you think Saddam is innocent, then that means that Hitler, Stallin, and Pol-Pot were also innocent victems.

A.Q. may be IN Iraq, but there's no evidence they were in cahoots with the Saddam Hussein regime.  What motivates the U.S. on the world political stage to invade other countries has nothing to do with human rights abuses.  In fact, suffering and death often skyrocket when the U.S. comes in.  It's either about U.S. business interests, or a political power play.
The Right can continue to talk of Bush as a compassionate conservative, a Christian, and a liberator.  As the years go by, that rhetoric will prove more and more empty.  Not that empty rhetoric stops the Right.  They still deify Ronald Reagan in spite of his Administration's human rights abuses in foreign affairs, and the wanton corruption of his appointed officials.

Had the capability?! Could have!? Are we going to war now on what another nation might do?!






No let's wait for them to blow up the US THEN we'll go after them!

What decision would you make with that knowledge?

The question is, was it worth it? GDub just doesn't get it! Now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed what a lot of us have been preaching for over a year (that we went to war because we were lied to....I'm sorry, given "false information"), GWB insists that ridding the world of SH was reason enough to cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis. If he pounds the podium and tells me that "Saddam was an evil tyrant" (as if I didn't know that) one more time, I think I'll croak!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/10/senate.intelligence/index.html

A few excerpts:


Had the capability?! Could have!? Are we going to war now on what another nation might do?!


Gee, I wonder why. :-\\ ;)




You don't follow the news closley do you?  The report HELPS Bush.  It places the blame on the CIA and thats it, and it gives Bush an excuse (it was the CIA, they told me he had....)

I'm placing my guess Bush will lose unless the fear of higher taxes wins it for him.

Remember when you weent to a company that messed someone over and heard another company in town was run by the same guy...youfound someone else even though the owner didn't mess you,it was the image the can't isn't in control of things or has good people he can deal with...the result,..let's get someone else in there.
    That's what I think will happen.
The talk of the Saudis trying to help Bush get reelected..remember..THEY were against him going into Iraq.

I'm placing my guess Bush will lose unless the fear of higher taxes wins it for him.




Is that really your guess or is that what you want?  Kerry isn't going to win unless a miracle happens.

I am picking that up as what I feel.

This would be a little ahead of the 'guessers' who take wild stabs such as how presidents elected in a year with zero never make it thru...

Bush I guess will break that mold! But based on business...I wouldn't go back to a guy who runs a company he couldn't trust...it really must have the world talking about the 'mistake'..Yes the staff he had did the error...but it may reflect on his being in control of ??experts??

Also there's talk that there may be positioning to one day have Jeb run in 2008 to fill the family..if George doesn't get the vote, I doubt the next Bush will be welcomed....  and Hillary in 2008?...I don't think so... 

You don't follow the news closley do you?  The report HELPS Bush.  It places the blame on the CIA and thats it, and it gives Bush an excuse (it was the CIA, they told me he had....)


That's really convenient. History is filled with stories of leaders being ignorant of the machinations of their underlings and covert agencies. I suppose Saddam could say he didn't know Chemical Ali authorised the bombing the Kurds too. In fact, didn't I read somewhere that the CIA has evidence to suggest that the Kurds weren't bombed by Saddam, but by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war? And for the first time, I agree with saver. It may have been the CIA's "fault", but Bush is the chief executive of the country. He needs to take some of the blame.

Thanks for the agreement Power...

for most of my posts, they were fromwhat I heard through the talking heads..this was just an immediate gut feel...we'll see in Nov.

Now if Bush does win, either people don't like the Kerry issues(whatever they are?) -(He's talking about revamping the immigration procedures but so far, like everything, not saying WHAT he will do)....

or the opposition is the worst of 2 evils...??

You don't follow the news closley do you?  The report HELPS Bush.  It places the blame on the CIA and thats it, and it gives Bush an excuse (it was the CIA, they told me he had....) Did "the news" tell you this report "helps Bush"? I "follow the news". Its just that I follow many different media sources and take my stance on issues from "the news" that I deem reliable. I don't "follow the news" and justify my beliefs on what "the news" tells me. If you think that this information "HELPS Bush", it's obvious to me that you've been "following" FOX News or some other right leaning media source. If you think that the administration didn't put pressure on the CIA to make a case for invading Iraq, then you're sadly mistaken, and if you think the info wasn't used selectively to justify policy, you're blind.

No let's wait for them to blow up the US THEN we'll go after them!

What decision would you make with that knowledge?Thats my WHOLE POINT! There is no way that Iraq posed a threat to us and they darn sure weren't going to "blow up the US", yet the Bush administration has much of the American public believing that they could.

I find it strange that we get involved in places like Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Haiti because a few hundred people get killed.  Then we get involvedin Iraq in which HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS get killed, and some people say we should not be there.

I can give no credence to a group that wants us to get involved in little skirmishes here and there, then do NOT want us to remove the 4th biggest monster of the 20th century.

Personally, I do not care if there is oil there or not.  I do not care about anything, but the fact that he is no longer butchering his people.  I find it strange, that this Conservative Republican Christian can have empathy for people in other countries and want to help save them from a butcher, while the "enlightened compassionate party of the people" only wants to talk about oil, WMD, and other nonsense.  How about getting involved in the simple concept of saving lives of the innocent??????

WMD, Al-Queda, Oil, this is meaningless to me.  And unless I am having a dream, AL-Queda *IS* in Iraq, and has been since AFTER 9/11.  Who cares if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, he IS harboring international criminals who have killed thousands.

If you think Saddam is innocent, then that means that Hitler, Stallin, and Pol-Pot were also innocent victems.
First, this argument doesn't hold water becase the Congress and the American people didn't, nor would they have, supported going to war soley on Iraq or Saddam's human rights record. And lets set the record straight.......as far as who "only wants to talk about WMD and other nonsense", it was this "Conservative Republican Christian" that coined the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction", used the term over 40 times in a 1 1/2 hr. State of the Union speech, made it so ingrained in the present day English language that it is known worldwide by its acronym, and used it as justification for invading Iraq.

Did "the news" tell you this report "helps Bush"? I "follow the news". Its just that I follow many different media sources and take my stance on issues from "the news" that I deem reliable. I don't "follow the news" and justify my beliefs on what "the news" tells me. If you think that this information "HELPS Bush", it's obvious to me that you've been "following" FOX News or some other right leaning media source. If you think that the administration didn't put pressure on the CIA to make a case for invading Iraq, then you're sadly mistaken, and if you think the info wasn't used selectively to justify policy, you're blind.





While I do watch a lot of Fox News (oh and CNN isn't left leaning?) I heard this nugget from NBC.  There whole headline was ''democrats upset Bush isn't blamed.''  And they talked about how the democrats hoped and preyed for this report to bash and blame Bush, and it didn't, not a single word.

Conservatives on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.
I re-posted this quote from the original story because, evidently you either failed to read it, ignored it, or didn't understand it.

Why don't we go after North Korea? After all they are part of the "axis of evil" and they DO have weapons of mass distruction. Oh, yeah. That's right. They don't have oil. Silly me. And besides, when someone questioned Dubya about that (before we went into Iraq), he said that he didn't want to spread the army too thin-so we went into Afganistan and Iraq. So much for not spreading the army too thin.

The thing is, Dubya and his cronies had planned the invasion of Iraq long before the 2000 election. It had NOTHING to do with 9/11, Al Qadea, Osman bin Laden or anything else EXCEPT OIL, OIL, and more OIL. For want of a better word $$$$$$.




Cat

I was going to ask the same questions Cat just asked. 

Why not North Korea?  Right, NO OIL.  And also THEY HAVE nuks.  Better not mess with them!  And why not China?  They have nuks and their human rights record could be worse that Saddam's.  Oh Yeah, they have nuks.

Kevin Phillips' new book American Dynasty adds a great deal to this question, and is must reading if you would understand not just Little Georgie, but the whole clan  and their agenda.  Very revealing very well researched and very well documented.

As to "Christian" or humanitarian motives, the only Pres to come close was Carter.  The issues are power and wealth, and in today's world both depend on OIL.  Our other sources are becoming less and less reliable (Saudi Arabia,  Venezuela,) or are not fully developed/accessible/under are control (the Caucuses, and Caspian sea fields).  There are still lots of brutal dictators in the world who remain our good buddies and our clients.  As I said on other threads, we will support any dictator with a pair of sun glasses as long as he will make his county safe for Coka Cola.

The thing is, Dubya and his cronies had planned the invasion of Iraq long before the 2000 election. It had NOTHING to do with 9/11, Al Qadea, Osman bin Laden or anything else EXCEPT OIL, OIL, and more OIL. For want of a better word $$$$$$.




Cat



Cat



If you're going to say a thing like that you should at least be able to back it up with SOMETHING.  A true fact maybe?  I doubt there a shread of evidence or this would be a bigger then.  ''If you say a lie enough it may become truth.'' -The democrats' main slogan

We did have to pick and chose our fights. Of course if there was salad dressing in Iraq we wouldn't be there..however we went after them as well for their threat to us...not obeying the 17 requests to reveal or be inspected...N.Korea is not as BIG a threat to us and being near China may keep themback.

Our troops I believe are in almost 100 countries...not enough people to fight..THAT is the deal with going to Iraq...Planning before 2003...if someone can prove it, it would blow the lid off the administration...

I'm open tohear what everyone says without accusing until there is proof-with all the disgruntled staff out there,something would have surfaced by now unless the ship is so tight they are being killed off??

On it goes...
Kerry can talk but he's not saying what he will do so...it'll be funny to see someone get elected for what they DIDN'T say..just get them angry at Bush and vote the opposite..I feel it coming!

Kerry can talk but he's not saying what he will do so...it'll be funny to see someone get elected for what they DIDN'T say..just get them angry at Bush and vote the opposite..I feel it coming! 


John Kerry has stated "what he would do"......if you choose not to listen, that's your fault. For one thing, he says that he would work to regain the respect of the rest of the world that this administration has lost and to get the UN and the international community more involved in stablizing the mess in Iraq. You see, GWB took the "to he11 with the UN" attitude and invaded Iraq, saying that the US and Britian could handle this thing without the help or support of the rest of the world. That has proven to be a major error.

John Kerry has stated "what he would do"......if you choose not to listen, that's your fault. For one thing, he says that he would work to regain the respect of the rest of the world that this administration has lost and to get the UN and the international community more involved in stablizing the mess in Iraq. You see, GWB took the "to he11 with the UN" attitude and invaded Iraq, saying that the US and Britian could handle this thing without the help or support of the rest of the world. That has proven to be a major error.


How many countries are in Iraq?  32 or 34 or something like that.  What more do you want?  France, Germany, and Russisa other crappy countries that will put in about 12 troops.

DemocRATS: America is wrong on everything and the rest of the world is always right.

Thirty countries are in the what is called the "coalition" and they are

Afgahanistan,Albania,Australia,Azerbaijan,Bugaria,Columbia.
The Czech Republic, Denmark,El Salvador,Eritrea,Estonia,Ethiopia,
Georgia,Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea,Latvia,Lithuania,Macedonia
The Netherlands,Nicaragua,the Phillipines,Poland,Romania,Slovakia
Spain,Turkey,Unitd Kingdom,Uzbekistan.

More like a global Keystone Kops I would say. Quite a few are only
in it for the money, not that I blame them.  They are going to get quite
a bit of money, oops, I mean aid, for joining in. Some will not lose the aid
was already promised but was going to be "reviewed" had they not joined.

If you're going to say a thing like that you should at least be able to back it up with SOMETHING.  A true fact maybe?  I doubt there a shread of evidence or this would be a bigger then.  ''If you say a lie enough it may become truth.'' -The democrats' main slogan




Ok, you want evidence. There is the 9/11 panal.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/


And this website which has a bunch of statements dated betweem 1997-2000 about ousting Suddam.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm


Personally I think that the Bush Admistration allowed 9/11 to happen so they could justify going into Iraq.



Cat

I haven't read it in anyones message that Bush said Saddam and AQ worked together, so the report included doesn't fit into the discussion...

On Kerry and what is he going to do...what he is saying is fluff words...How he will change this administration etc etc..Okay..WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO MR. KERRY...

we all can hear he said 'something' but nothing of substance..he could change the whole staff in charge, get people who know what they are doing to give us a better image.. but to say he's going to make things better and do things different....give us the PLAN..if we like it we may HIRE you.

Icould say 'If elected I will make everyones lives easier"....oooo sounds great.... but it will come in forms of higher taxes, and slave labor from other countries....hmmmmm...

Why don't we go after North Korea? After all they are part of the "axis of evil" and they DO have weapons of mass distruction. Oh, yeah. That's right. They don't have oil. Silly

Yugoslavia did not have oil either.  Neither did Somalia.  Last time I checked, there was no oil in Haiti either.

For those that think Oil is the reason, think of these facts:

The US inports less then 40% of it's oil.  In reality, we could be net EXPORTERS, but for various reasons we are not tapping over half the oil we have within our borders.  We import simply because it is often cheaper.

We have not imported Iraqi oil in over 10 years!  Even if we took it over for the oil, so what?  It would make no difference.  It would not reduce our costs, and if anything would add expense.

During the reign of Saddam, the oil refineries fell into a sad state of repair.  Iran-Iraq war did a large amount of devistation.  And during both gulf wars, a large amount wells and pipelines were damaged or destroyed.  The only exporting allowed during the last 14 years (under the corrupt "Oil For Food Program") did not make any difference in the cost of gas and oil in France, Russia, or Germany.

However, the countries who seem to have profited from the graft also fought hardest to keep us from taking down Saddam.  Things that make you go "Hmmmmm"

How many countries are in Iraq?  32 or 34 or something like that.  What more do you want?  France, Germany, and Russisa other crappy countries that will put in about 12 troops.


One of my favorite quotes of the French military came from Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense under Bush 41.  The quote is offten erroniously given to General Norman Schwarzkopf however.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

And Germany?  We beat them in 2 World Wars, as well as saving France in 2 World Wars.  And we are supposed to get their conscent and advice first?  Give me a break!

I find it interesting that people keep mentioning North Korea and China.  I keep mentioning Somalia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia.  There are big differences.  For one, we often do NOT wait for things to get out of control before we step in.  Imagine Haiti if Aristid stayed in power for another 2 years.  Imagine Serbia with Milosovic in power another 2 years.  Now imagine Quwait with Saddam controlling it another 2 years, or Iraq with him in control for another 2 years.

Let's not forget, that no matter if Al-Queda was involved with Saddam BEFORE 9/11, there is no doubt they were involved AFTER 9/11.  A large number of them fled to Iraq after the fall of the Taliban government.  That has been proven.  Bin-Laudin often praised Saddam and the help he has given.

ALso, remember the cell structure of terrorist groups in and of themselves.  There have been large links to splinter cells of AL-Queda to Iraq BEFORE 9/11.  And a large number of Al-Queda members were killed in Iraq.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a high-ranking Al-Queda member, and he has been in Iraq since he fled Afganistan, and BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

The fact that Saddam gave refuge to one of the masterminds of 9/11 is good enough for me.  The fact is, he could have turned him over like Kadaffi did.  He could have simply kicked them out, or had him eliminated.  But he did none of those things.

Why don't we go after North Korea? After all they are part of the "axis of evil" and they DO have weapons of mass distruction. Oh, yeah. That's right. They don't have oil. Silly me. And besides, when someone questioned Dubya about that (before we went into Iraq), he said that he didn't want to spread the army too thin-so we went into Afganistan and Iraq. So much for not spreading the army too thin.

Boy how I wish it was for oil.  Because our oil prices are still mad-high  ::) :P

We don't have to deal with North Korea.  They are surrounded by China, South Korea, Russia, and Japan, all of whom have formidable armies and plenty to lose if North Korea decides to be lame.  It's slightly different than Iraq, where nobody was going to keep a Saddam Hussein in check.

And, what lie would that be that the democrats have "kept saying"?  That Saddam had WMD's?  Nope, that was Dubya...That Iraq supported Al Qaeda?  Nope, Dubya again...That it's funny to listen to Bush say "nu-ku-lar"?  Oh, okay, I'll give ya that one.


It is kind of strange that there are Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq doing bad stuff though, don't you think?

I don't think blaming it on the CIA gets W off the hook though.  It does, however, concern me that:

1)  The "most powerful" country in the world with the "best" intelligence network, to put it mildly, F**KED UP;

2)  Yet, when Bill Clinton "accidentally" bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory due to bad intelligence, not as many people squawked about it.  Or the Chinese embassy in the Serb-Yugoslav war.  Or those sand dunes in Iraq where the sand-troopers were hiding in.  Hmmmph.

I haven't read it in anyones message that Bush said Saddam and AQ worked together, so the report included doesn't fit into the discussion...

On Kerry and what is he going to do...what he is saying is fluff words...How he will change this administration etc etc..Okay..WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO MR. KERRY...

we all can hear he said 'something' but nothing of substance..he could change the whole staff in charge, get people who know what they are doing to give us a better image.. but to say he's going to make things better and do things different....give us the PLAN..if we like it we may HIRE you.

Icould say 'If elected I will make everyones lives easier"....oooo sounds great.... but it will come in forms of higher taxes, and slave labor from other countries....hmmmmm...


If you don't like the Committee report or Cat'sa other source, how about Mr Bush's own Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Oniell, who stated that the Iraqui invasion was an obsession from day 1 of the Bush White House - or is he, like every other insider that speaks out, a liar?

.

DemocRATS: America is wrong on everything and the rest of the world is always right.


This is just a superfluous, ignorant rant, and even though I'm not a democrat, I resent it, find it insulting to me and to the other participants on this board, and tantamount to calling critics of this admin either traitors or terrorists.  Frankly, I find that mind set boardering on fascism.  Unless you want to argue that the US is always CORRECT in its foreign and domestic policy, than I challege you to refute my quote from Don Pedro Albizu Campos, The true patriot is always a critic of his government.  You might also want to review your high school civics book, and read the Bill of Rights (that's the 1st ten amendments to the Constitution).

Now to the acusation itself, vis, that according to democrates, the US is always wrong.  WRONG!!!  From what I hear Kerry and Edwaqrds saying, Americans are mostly correct, its the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that is mostly wrong.  Or are you equating the administration with the country?  Is it to be "Bush uber alas"?  I hear Austrailia is very nice.

The US inports less then 40% of it's oil.  In reality, we could be net EXPORTERS, but for various reasons we are not tapping over half the oil we have within our borders.  We import simply because it is often cheaper.

We have not imported Iraqi oil in over 10 years!  Even if we took it over for the oil, so what?  It would make no difference.  It would not reduce our costs, and if anything would add expense.



Mushroom, this is just not the case.  Your most important fact is NOT.  Last I looked, we import about 60% of our oil, and while we could be an exporter, we would have to give up lots more than our SUV's to do it.  You are correct that we could produce more than we do, through tapping the Arctic Wildlife Preserve and allowing unlimited off shore drilling.

We "stopped" (but not really) importing Iraqi oil because of OUR sanctions, and "reducing costs" isnt the issue.  Oil companies LOVE high oil prices - as long as they control the supply.  No one said we went to Iraq to get lower oil prices, just to control the oil Iraq has.  Oil prices have nothing to do with the issue.  For the oil companies, the higher the price the better.

1)  The "most powerful" country in the world with the "best" intelligence network, to put it mildly, F**KED UP;


No intelligence is ever perfect.  It never has been, and never will be.

Look at the KGB in the early 1980's.  They were so sure that Regan was going to launch a pre-emprive strike against them, they started a huge build-up to prepare for that event.  We in the US know that is nonsense, but the KGB, which some considered the best in the world at the time, were convinced it was true.

One thing that tells me how good our intelligence was, is finding out that what we believed to be true, just also happens to be the same thing Saddam believed to be true.  It turns out that looking at captured reports given to him by his own people, they almost matched what we thought was happening.

The problem is, Saddam's OWN PEOPLE were lying to him.  And our intelligence was so good, we believed the same things Saddam believed.  This is much the same as the non-existant divisions Hitler was throwing around at the end of WWII.  He thought they were real, and his own people told him they were real.

It was not until after his government fell, that both Saddam and our own forces realized that the reports were all lies to keep Saddam from killing them.  There have been chemicals found, and equipment discovered.  But it was mostly things hidden after the 1990 Gulf War, and not used in over a decade.

Myself, I believe that more then likely our intelligence commin in was of such a high calliber, nobody thought to question that they were lying to Saddam.  It would be like the Soviets getting a wiretap to Madeline Albright's line, and hearing her give information to Clinton.  At that level, you assume it is true.  You do not expect people to lie to their own boss.

Mushroom, this is just not the case.  Your most important fact is NOT.  Last I looked, we import about 60% of our oil, and while we could be an exporter, we would have to give up lots more than our SUV's to do it.  You are correct that we could produce more than we do, through tapping the Arctic Wildlife Preserve and allowing unlimited off shore drilling.


According to DOE, we import about 53% of our oil used for gasoline.  But the percentage of oil used for other purposes (chemicals, plastics, etc) is closer to 35%.  This is because of both economics (it is often cheaper to import then to find new sources) and because of the type of oil we have readily available.

As for the sanctions, they are not "OUR" sanctions, but UN Sanctions.  The idea was to keep Saddam from useing the sales to buy weapons, but to spend the money on his people.  Instead, he just used it to buy palaces and his people starved.

The oil companies make higher profits, this is largely because OPEC largely sets the world oil prices.  When they flood the market with oil (like they did in 1990), prices fall and the oil companies make less money.  When the prices rise, the profit margin on DOMESTIC oil rises also, to keep with the world price.

In truth, the more oil is produced domestically, the higher their profit.  When the prices go up and they have to import it, any profit is lost due to the increase cost of the raw material.  This is basic economics.  If we ever return to being exporters of oil again, we may be able to exert influence to keep that more in check.

Myself, I have great hopes for alternative fuels.  At the moment though, only Brazil has a real strong program that seems to work at all.  But even that has drawbacks.  But hopefully someday soon we will see a breakthrough.

1. One of my favorite quotes of the French military came from Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense under Bush 41.  The quote is offten erroniously given to General Norman Schwarzkopf however.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

And Germany?  We beat them in 2 World Wars, as well as saving France in 2 World Wars.  And we are supposed to get their conscent and advice first?  Give me a break!

2 I find it interesting that people keep mentioning North Korea and China.  I keep mentioning Somalia, Haiti, and Yugoslavia.  There are big differences.  For one, we often do NOT wait for things to get out of control before we step in.  Imagine Haiti if Aristid stayed in power for another 2 years.  Imagine Serbia with Milosovic in power another 2 years.  Now imagine Quwait with Saddam controlling it another 2 years, or Iraq with him in control for another 2 years.

3 Let's not forget, that no matter if Al-Queda was involved with Saddam BEFORE 9/11, there is no doubt they were involved AFTER 9/11.  A large number of them fled to Iraq after the fall of the Taliban government.  That has been proven.  Bin-Laudin often praised Saddam and the help he has given.

ALso, remember the cell structure of terrorist groups in and of themselves.  There have been large links to splinter cells of AL-Queda to Iraq BEFORE 9/11.  And a large number of Al-Queda members were killed in Iraq.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a high-ranking Al-Queda member, and he has been in Iraq since he fled Afganistan, and BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

4 The fact that Saddam gave refuge to one of the masterminds of 9/11 is good enough for me.  The fact is, he could have turned him over like Kadaffi did.  He could have simply kicked them out, or had him eliminated.  But he did none of those things.


1 And yet both France and Germany are now members of NATO, and have substantial military forces.  Nothing to match ours to be sure, but not worth sneezing at either.  And beyond military might, both have a good deal of diplomatic prestige.  Are you suggesting that the US should just go it alone?  We live, our "neo-liberal" friends tell us, in a globalizing world.  Or does that mean Estatum Unidum Imperium?

2. Somalia, Haiti and Yugoslavia didn't have nukes, N. Korea and China do, and both are potential enmeies.  So, if we want to do "preventative defense", as was claimed in Iraq, why did we bypass the real (not potential) threat?  Oh, and by the way, the Balkans does have oil, and has the best access to other potentially vast oil field, like the Caucusus and the Caspian sea.  

3. I have never heard of Osama saying anything positive about Saddam (source?).  To Osama, Saddam was an infidel masquerading as a Muslim, a secular sellout who cooperated with us, the US, in attacking the Aiatollas (sp) in Iran, an enemy of Islam.  Al Quida refugees DID take refuge in Iraq, most notibly in the "no fly zones" where SAddam couldn't get them.  
It  can't be denied that Iraqi citizens made common cause with Al Quida.  Let's count the number of private militias, neo nazi groups, KKK-like orgs, skin heads etc. here.  I hate what they stand for, don't get me wrong, but until they DO something, their org's and speach is protected.  Should ANY administration be held responsible for them?

4.  Here you lost me.  Who, precisely, did Saddam "shelter"?

Aside from these specific responses, might I suggest that you need to look beneath the headlines and develop something of an historical perspective?  I don't mean to be offensive here, you seem quite bright, and +/- open minded which is why I bother to write long responses.  You often voice legit concerns and raise valid issues.  Its just that you seem to lack a "deep history" perspective.  I encourage you to develop one, please.

Boy how I wish it was for oil.  Because our oil prices are still mad-high  ::) :P

We don't have to deal with North Korea.  They are surrounded by China, South Korea, Russia, and Japan, all of whom have formidable armies and plenty to lose if North Korea decides to be lame.  It's slightly different than Iraq, where nobody was going to keep a Saddam Hussein in check.


Korea has missles that could reach the west coast of the US.  Iraq's missles could bearly reach Isreal.  Korea also has tactical missles that could take out those "formidable armies" at a push of a button, and a rather crazy (to understate it) dictator who starves his own people (except for his military), and is VERY eratic.  He isn't "crazy smart" like Saddam, he's just crazy, from what I read, like "my barber gave me a shi*ty hair cut, Off with his head, and launch the missles against California" .  In fact, without long distance strike power, EVERYBODY was going to keep SAddam in check.

Aside from these specific responses, might I suggest that you need to look beneath the headlines and develop something of an historical perspective?  I don't mean to be offensive here, you seem quite bright, and +/- open minded which is why I bother to write long responses.  You often voice legit concerns and raise valid issues.  Its just that you seem to lack a "deep history" perspective.  I encourage you to develop one, please.


Actually, I do have a fairly deep historical perspective.

For one, I saw a lot of what Saddam did as almost identical to Hitler before WWII.

The last 24 years to me seem very similar to "The Phony War".  Saddam would try to take over another country, and claim he was doing something else (with Hitler, was "securing pre-WWI borders, with Saddam was either the same, or "putting down insurgents").  And just like Hitler, nothing short of force ever seemed to do any good.

I am not a fool, who thinks the military is the solution for everything.  Nor do I feel we should take out every despot and dictator.  But if they are proving to be a threat to us our our allies, then we should act.  After all, we were involved with Quwait in the mid 1980's, when they re-flagged their oil tankers to US companies, so our Navy could escourt them during the Iran-Iraq war.  And while we were never a major importer of Quwait oil, England was.

I also am aware that that region of the world will NEVER have long term stability.  Just like Yugoslavia, it has thousands of years of racial hatreds.  The most we can ever hope for is that they largely keep it internal, and leave the rest of the world out of it.

Myself, I wish the UN was more effective in doing it's job in these cases.  It started with grand ideas, but more and more over the years has degenerated into greed and corruption.  It is sad.

According to DOE, we import about 53% of our oil used for gasoline.  But the percentage of oil used for other purposes (chemicals, plastics, etc) is closer to 35%.  This is because of both economics (it is often cheaper to import then to find new sources) and because of the type of oil we have readily available.

As for the sanctions, they are not "OUR" sanctions, but UN Sanctions.  The idea was to keep Saddam from useing the sales to buy weapons, but to spend the money on his people.  Instead, he just used it to buy palaces and his people starved.

The oil companies make higher profits, this is largely because OPEC largely sets the world oil prices.  When they flood the market with oil (like they did in 1990), prices fall and the oil companies make less money.  When the prices rise, the profit margin on DOMESTIC oil rises also, to keep with the world price.

In truth, the more oil is produced domestically, the higher their profit.  When the prices go up and they have to import it, any profit is lost due to the increase cost of the raw material.  This is basic economics.  If we ever return to being exporters of oil again, we may be able to exert influence to keep that more in check.

Myself, I have great hopes for alternative fuels.  At the moment though, only Brazil has a real strong program that seems to work at all.  But even that has drawbacks.  But hopefully someday soon we will see a breakthrough.


I'm not going to quibble over stats.  I googles this stuff but found the reports both conflicting and, where not, incompatable.  Regardless of the current situation, sources from FAAAR right to FAAAR left agree that the US is energy dependant, and likely to become more so in the future, regardless of the Arctic Wilderness and off shore drilling, without, of course, alternate energy sources.  Speaking of which, there is a proposal working its way through the regulatory process, to generate electricity from supurfuluos cow manure here in Vermont, and it looks likely to get approval (Hey, I lite my home with cow s**t, and if you want a bit of levity, I'll tell you about my "changing light bulb" parties).

Big oil, of course HATES these  local initiatives and the whole idea of alternative energy, especially the local ones.  Imagine a million "farmer Browns" putting exxon out of the electricity business, and Enron, and Entergy, and the rest.  Imagine locally generated power for locally generated need.  It could turn out that cow s**t used to generate methane might be more valuable than milk.  Lower milk prices anyone?

Many years ago I read of a cab driver who fueled his cab with methane.  He had a generator on the top of his car.  It worked.  Fueled by s**t.  This is not an esoteric technology.  There are open pit "sludge ponds" on vertuall all factory farms generating methane gas from the waste ofb their stock.  One was reported to have "erupted" into a s**t gyser.  That was methane gas.  This depends on local initiatives, and local support.  If we rely on the big guys, like Exxon/Mobil (note the double X, does that indicate semi-hard porn?) we again get screwed.

I think, if you are interested in alternative energy, there are lots of possibilities, lots of proven technology.  The question is, where is the political leadership to support its development and implementation?  It certainly aint with the Bush-Chaney team, not that its with the Kerry Edwards team either, right now, but at least with them there is a possibility.  The republicans have the oil industry... no I got it backwards.  The oil industry has the republicans in their hip pocket.  The democrates would love to break that back, and might be willing to take on big oil to do it.  Then we could say who cares about Iraq.  Let the Iraquis work it out.  And then, if we chose to become involved, we could maske a case for humanitarian motivations.

Actually, I do have a fairly deep historical perspective.

For one, I saw a lot of what Saddam did as almost identical to Hitler before WWII.

The last 24 years to me seem very similar to "The Phony War".  Saddam would try to take over another country, and claim he was doing something else (with Hitler, was "securing pre-WWI borders, with Saddam was either the same, or "putting down insurgents").  And just like Hitler, nothing short of force ever seemed to do any good.

I am not a fool, who thinks the military is the solution for everything.  Nor do I feel we should take out every despot and dictator.  But if they are proving to be a threat to us our our allies, then we should act.  After all, we were involved with Quwait in the mid 1980's, when they re-flagged their oil tankers to US companies, so our Navy could escourt them during the Iran-Iraq war.  And while we were never a major importer of Quwait oil, England was.

I also am aware that that region of the world will NEVER have long term stability.  Just like Yugoslavia, it has thousands of years of racial hatreds.  The most we can ever hope for is that they largely keep it internal, and leave the rest of the world out of it.

Myself, I wish the UN was more effective in doing it's job in these cases.  It started with grand ideas, but more and more over the years has degenerated into greed and corruption.  It is sad.


What you neglect in your historical analysis of the Saddam regime is that until the first Gulf war, what he did, he did with not just US approval, but with active support.  We supplied him with the means to make WMDs - there is film of Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand over the deal, to use against our mutual enemy - Iran (at the same time Reagan - Bush 1 were sending Iran weopons through the October surprise and Iran/Contra deals).  In fact, before Gulf War I our ambassador gave SAddam the green light to invade Kiwait.  So I agree, there will never be long term stability in the middle east until, first, we stop mucking about, and second, (here's the deep history) we allow the people who live there to repudiate and fix the mess that the western powers made after WWI and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.  The same holds true for Africa, but there it was the German Empire, and those of the other European powers after WWII.  That's not a history lesson, but a suggestion of research topics.

Look at the KGB in the early 1980's.  They were so sure that Regan was going to launch a pre-emprive strike against them, they started a huge build-up to prepare for that event.  We in the US know that is nonsense, but the KGB, which some considered the best in the world at the time, were convinced it was true.

Have a look at this chap - makes for kind of scary reading.

What you neglect in your historical analysis of the Saddam regime is that until the first Gulf war, what he did, he did with not just US approval, but with active support.  We supplied him with the means to make WMDs - there is film of Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand over the deal, to use against our mutual enemy - Iran (at the same time Reagan - Bush 1 were sending Iran weopons through the October surprise and Iran/Contra deals).  In fact, before Gulf War I our ambassador gave SAddam the green light to invade Kiwait.  So I agree, there will never be long term stability in the middle east until, first, we stop mucking about, and second, (here's the deep history) we allow the people who live there to repudiate and fix the mess that the western powers made after WWI and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.  The same holds true for Africa, but there it was the German Empire, and those of the other European powers after WWII.  That's not a history lesson, but a suggestion of research topics.

It's easy to draw analogies between Saddam and Hitler, but these analogies collapse when you look at the difference in power each had on the world political stage.

Have a look at this chap - makes for kind of scary reading.


The whole F***ing cold war was scary.  No telling how many times we can to the "brink of destruction".  Seems  to me we are getting closer again.  REALLY scary