Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

You just described the insurgents.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

What's the price of a cup of tea in China? They would if we had invaded Syria, Iran, or Jordan.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-12-2005 09:33 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Holmes and Schra.Let's agree that we haven't found any significant amount of WMD.I can see the side that says a shell here and there isn't enough, and I can also see where the yellowcake is not weapons grade.What are some of your other contentions/issues with Iraq as it is being handled today?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

We only invade as a last resort. IMO the US tried diplomacy. The WMD intelligence was wrong from everyone's perspective, not just the US. Iran is in the same boat, but we haven't invaded them yet. No, he had them, it is now a question of where did they go and who has them now.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Alright! I've had my gronala bar and mountain dew. Back to down to business about Iraq. There were. We have. That one I believe. Do I need to go get quotes from Kerry, Clinton, and every major nation's intelligence agency on this subject before the war? We were even warned by some nations not to invade because Saddam would use his chemical agents on the advancing troops. We did..and they did. Closely? No. Were there contacts? Yes. Did Saddam train terrorists? Yes.It seems that this article is labeling facts as misperceptions.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

The answer to that is 911 changed everything. Would the US and allies have even thought about invading Iraq before 911?No. But now we've seen what a handful of individuals can do if they really want to inflict harm on us. Do you remember the huge investigation about our intelligence failures regarding 911? Why didn't we see it coming? Why didn't we connect the dots?Now we have to connect those dots before something happens. Like Rumsfeld said, a smoking gun is the last thing you want to see. So, at that time the entire world, not just US Intelligence, knew Saddam had WMD. We knew people in his administration had contacts with Al-Qeada members. How hard would it have been for Saddam to sell some yellowcake (that we took 1.7 tons of from Tuwaitha, and by the way, the last time anybody saw a seal on it was in 98) and some terrorsts makes a few dirty bombs out of it and blows up a few of them in the US?There would be another outcry about why we didn't connect the dots. We were wrong about the WMD for the most part, but that is only 1 of the reasons we indvaded. Ah, so how much Oil is the US getting out of this deal?And I would like you to answer this question. Who is running Iraq right now?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Ok schrafinator, I'll respond to your entire post.Everything Saddam did, every action Saddam took, indicated that he had WMD. He wanted the rest of the world to think he had WMD. One of the reasons is because of Iran. Saddam did a balancing act of giving every indication he had them, but let the inspectors go to sites that he had cleared out.What did we know about Saddam right before we invaded?He had stockpiles of WMD before.
He USED WMD on his own people before.
He invaded his neighboring country before.
He fired SCUDS at 3 of his neighbors before.
He gave every indication that he still had WMD.
He tap danced with the UN inspectors.
He violated 13 UN resolutions before.There is a pattern there.Saddam could have proved that he had gotten rid of his WMD VERY EASILY, but he chose not to.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I'll have to reply to this when I get back. I can't open .pdf files here.Alright then. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do not concede that we only invaded Iraq for the oil. And, for the record, we will find the where the WMD went eventually. And once MI is done with the NBC intel that will come out in the wash too.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

You have formed your opinion based on the information you've seen and so have I. We are here to liberate the Iraqi people and let them rule themselves. A free, democratic Iraq is a huge defeat for terrorists and they know this (and have said it). That is why they are here fighting so hard.Yes, I know the "hunt" is over. Do you expect the inspectors to go knock on insurgents' doors asking to inspect there house for WMD?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

There were many different justifications for the war.1. To prevent the proliferation of WMD.
2. Iraq's Violation of U.N. resolutions.
3. Saddam's evil dictatorship and actions.
4. Lack of weapons inspections.
5. Al Qaeda and Iraqi links.
6. Iraq's Liberation.
7. Alter Geopolitical landscape of the middle east. (you'll note that Iran is now stuck between Iraq and a hard place *Afghanistan*...little pun there)It's simply not about Oil. If you remember in 1991, when we had Kuwait flowing with our troops, and Iraq next door for the asking, not only did we leave Kuwait alone, but we pushed for a UN resolution that included holding Iraq responsible for any damage to Kuwaiti oilfields. We have a historical track record saying we wouldn't take advantage of such a situation!How about another list?1) Saddam is a wicked man capable of wicked things. Of this, even the doves agree. In the past 15 years, Saddam has either waged war or lobbed missiles at four of his neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait) and used chemical weapons against his own civilians. He has authorized genocide against one of his ethnic minorities (the Kurds) and promoted a climate of fear and terror. Those who’ve fled his country tell horrible tales of widespread murder, corruption, rape, and torture. Saddam maintains power not through benevolence or good will, but through the brunt use of force. This alone might not be sufficient reason to wage war, but it’s important that we identify Saddam for what he isa brutal thug who does wicked, despicable things.2) Inaction means Saddam acquires nuclear weapons. Again, this isn’t a debatable point; the only question is how long it will take. With sanctions, most experts believe the timeline is a matter of years without sanctions, perhaps by the end of the year. Acquiring nuclear weapons has long been a priority to Saddam’s regime and he was precariously close to ownership in the 1980s when an Israeli aerial attack knocked out an Iraqi nuclear development plant. With his amoral use of power and ability to coerce his scientists with threats of deathor death to their familythe top Iraqi minds are hoping to unleash the nuclear genie even while the pacifists are urging us to Give peace a chance.3) Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons changes the dynamics in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction when he believes it suits his purpose; a nuclear bomb would be just another tool in his arsenal. With it, he has cover to wage war and conquer his neighbors without repercussion. He could roll into Kuwait and conquer Saudi Arabia, telling the United States that any action on our part would result in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv. And with Saddam’s history, would any American president dare call his bluff? A nuclear Iraq is Saddam’s passport to a stranglehold on a lion’s share of the oil fields and a conquered Middle East.4) Certain scenarios exist where it would be in Saddam’s interest to sell nuclear technology to unsavory entities, including terrorists. Iran, Jordan, Libya, and Syria would enjoy possession of nuclear weapons. In exchange for violating the U.N. sanctions, such a trade could be brokered. Furthermore, the major terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas, are extremely well funded with vast monetary resources at their disposaland Saddam needs money to fund his war plans and placate his Republican Guard military division. Saddam worked feverishly in recent years to strengthen his ties to Hamas, going as far as offering financial rewards to the families of homicide bombers. And Hamas returned the favor by pledging support to Saddam in the event of war. On January 10, 2003, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told his supporters, We urge the Iraqi leadership to open the door for Muslim volunteers who should perform their role in defense of Iraq because all Muslims are targeted by the USA. Saddam will assuredly reward his friends for their loyalty how he rewards them could pose a direct risk to the United States, her allies, and destabilize the entire region.5) Nothing in Saddam’s past demonstrates that he’s content with Iraq’s borders as-is. Again, this point is beyond dispute. If past behavior is emblematic of future conduct, than we must assume that Iraq will invade his neighbors again. If it’s in our interests to prevent such a war from happening, we must decide if it’s better to attack him now, in a weaker state, or wait for Iraq to rebuild its military and gain nuclear defenses.6) It’s in the interests of the United States to create a democratic, pro-Western Iraq. Beyond the obvious advantagesincluding access to oila democratic, prosperous Iraq is vital to our War on Terrorism. Islamic militants brainwash their young, instructing them that their economic misfortune if the fault of Christianity, America, Zionism, and our Western way of life. A rebuilt, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would irrefutably demonstrate the folly of these inflammatory allegations. Freedom is a tricky thing; once let out of the bottle, it’s almost impossible to stifle. Right now the Arab countries in that region are either led by corrupt dictators or religious theologies. When the neighbors of Iraq see her prosper under a democratic, pro-Western government, they too will demand change. And they will recognize that their economic woes lay not at the feet of America, but with their own leadership. The War on Terrorism is largely a long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim youth. And we can’t win this war without proving the superiority of our way of lifeand the inferiority of corrupt, despotic governments and Islamic religious extremism.7) Rebuilding Iraq is possible. Despite all the protests over nation-building, the historical truth is that it works. Japan, Italy, Germany, and much of Europe owes its current shape to American nation-building. Japan provides the best example. Back in the 1930s, Japan was a military force that invaded its neighbors, committed widespread human rights violationsincluding rape, torture, and murderall while operating under the extremist religious philosophy of Shintoism. So devoted were the Japanese to this religion that they embarked upon suicide missions against the United States, intentionally ramming their planes into American targets. And America responded in brutal fashion, deliberately targeting civilians with nuclear weapons. Upon the conclusion of World War II, the bad blood between the Japanese civilians and the United States was exponentially greater than any animosity between the people of Iraq and America. And still, nation-building worked because we successfully proved our superiority and invalidated the claims of our opponents. With American money and American resources, we’re capable of skyrocketing the Iraqi economy far beyond the heights it enjoyed back in 1989. And with lavish amounts of natural resources at its disposal and a secular past, Iraq is arguable better-equipped for rebuilding than the decimated, completely destroyed countries such as 1940s Germany, Japan, and Italy.8) Saddam won’t leave power without a war. Most reasonable people would agree that it’s in our interest for Saddam to be removed from power and be replaced with a democratic, pro-Western leader. Because of his use of terror, it’s clear that the Iraqi people are incapable of removing their oppressor without foreign help. And even if Saddam is toppled by an assassin’s bullet, a strong probability exists that his replacement would be an Islamic extremist who’d transform Iraq into yet another Muslim theocracy with an anti-American tilt. A democratic Iraq won’t happen without our involvement. If it’s in our interest for the government of Iraq to change philosophically, we need to take an aggressive, proactive roll in actuating such change.9) The same threats of terrorism will exist if we do nothing. Some like to argue that an American military campaign in Iraq would exasperate the Islamic fringe but these groups were and are already plotting the death and destruction of Americans worldwide. These same naysayers made these same allegations before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. These naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The terrorist threat won’t eliminate itself if we retreat from Iraq, as American foreign policy did not include an invasion of Baghdad prior to 9/11. The danger of inaction is greater than the danger of action, for hoping to appease these extremist won’t win their loyaltyit will only embolden their war plans.10) Issues of morality. Morality often gets swept under the table in the pandering, appease-oriented world of foreign policy, particularly among the intellectual elites. Why? Because morality often serves as an impediment to negotiation, earning scoffs and derisions from international diplomats. But there is a legitimate issue of morality in this current conflict. Saddam is an evil butcher who’s terrorized his people for far too long and these people are simply incapable of defending themselves without our assistance. We have it within our power to provide the people of Iraq with freedom, liberty, and protection from a brutal government that orders torture, murder, and rape against opponents. We can protect an ethnic minority from genocide, giving these people a better tomorrow than they ever hoped possible. Edmund Burke once said, All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing. It is up to us to decide if we wish to utilize our power for good or to sit on the sidelines, allowing the innocent to suffer at the hands of a wicked tyrant. Apologists like to issue slippery-slope counterclaims: Saddam is no worse than Dictator X and we can’t save everyone! No, but we can provide safe haven when it’s in our national interest to do so, and such a case clearly exists in Iraq. And if the best you can say about Saddam is that someone somewhere might be worse, you still haven’t refuted those who label him as evil. The other slippery-slope talking point: Iraq isn’t the only ‘bad’ country with a nuclear programwhat about its Axis of Evil partners, Iran and North Korea? Do we invade them, too? The answer is, we treat Iraq differently than Iran and North Korea because it is different: Iran and North Korea haven’t invaded any sovereign nations in the past 30 years; in just the decade prior to the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, fired missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and massacred the Kurdish people with chemical weapons. Of these three countries, only Iraq has a history of utilizing weapons of mass destruction for offensive purposes. Despite the line-blurring of the relativists, Iraq is clearly a different animal than the othersa more dangerous animal.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Yeah. When was the last time Bush used nerve agent on the US populace? No, but all of those combined makes it pretty clear, except to France, Russian, and Germany. Let's look at the timeline shall we? We put Saddam on notice Jan 02. We finally took action in Mar 03. Why? It can be summed up quite simply by quoting Mr. Blix. If Saddam had wanted to avoid all of this it would have been VERY EASY for him to simply lay it all out and provide proof of where the WMD went. I might add that the timeline is from an "anti-war" site, as you will note from some of the dates.Now, my question is this. What nation in history has ever declared that it would invade unless X demands were met; waited 14 months, using diplomacy the whole time, before it attacked said nation?And from Factmonster... Ah, so Iraq has concealed much of the WMD eh?Fast forward to 97 6 years and it still continues to conceal the info on WMD?98 Seems to a pattern there?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

That was in regards to WMD.I will reply to your post with post 179 also.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

/stops reading

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I'm glad you brought this up. I will first state the obvious, that Iraq and Japan were never at war. Next, I will state the obvious, Iraq would most certainly have nuked someone if they had the nukes, which is what this is all about btw. End of the argument right there.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

holmes, you have been the best presenter of your sides point of view.That being said we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I stand by my opinion with what I know. You aren't going to budge from yours.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us