perception wrote:Gautam
Talk of the non-existent WMDs is analogous to the right constantly reliving the days of the stains on the blue dress. Wolfowitz has already admitted that when they decided Saddam must be removed to stabilize the ME, the next step was to establish a reason which turned out to be a real blunder but in retrospect I think it was necessary. They believed Congress would not accept the real reason( to stabilize the ME) as sufficient justification to go to war so they decided the next step was to use the threat of WMD as the most logical because Clinton's 8 years had provided ample proof they really existed.
1. I think it is a folly to compare the blue dress to going to war over WMD. Unless you are presuming that the millions of sperm which were wasted on the blue dress and every chance of becoming a man or a woman should they have found a more "receptive" avenue and hence Clinton was guilty of killion millions of "potential" human beings.
2. It is also good to see that you are finally admitting that the war was fought on false premises.
3. Regarding stabilzation of the ME, never thought that Saddam was a factor. The Iran-Iraq war was fought on the behest of the US and UK who used Saddam as a pawn to crush the fundamentalism in that region. All the WMD technology which you guys talk abt, was actually supplied by US and UK. The invasion of Kuwait had tactical backing of the US (there was an article posted somewhere on the US, UN thread I think), plus Saddam had given ample warming to Kuwait to return the money which Kuwait owed to Iraq before actually invading them. And remember, it was a legitimate warning - the Kuwaitis HAD stolen from Iraq. To be honest, the biggest roadbloacks to stabilization in the ME seem to be Sharon and Arafat - not Saddam. It would also be worth mentioning that Israel HAS occupied Palestinie territory, and HAS flagrantly flouted all the UN resolutions against it.
perception wrote:
Had Saddam not been so stupid he could have remained in power by just saying OK ----we've been fooling you just a bit---come on in and look all you want. Any weapons you find I will destroy as you watch me.
I was very worried that he would do just that----we then would have been stymied----we could never have removed him.
WOW, lets put it this way - will you allow police to come and monitor your house everyday willingly based on the assumption that you once grew marijuana in yr backyard, and even though it is now paved and there is no soil, you might be growing it in a flower vase ? Do you realize that you are coming across as a war mongering, white superamist here, who thinks that only Americans have a right to dictate as to how other countries in the world are run ?
perception wrote:
All your talk of oil, and wanting to steal it from the Iraqi people is just BS---we had to remove him and have access to all of Iraq to:
1. Prevent the al Queda from using it as a massive staging and training area----sure they're there now and that is where we will kill them.
2. Prevent Saddam from eventually gaining control of the entire ME and blackmailing the Global economy which is totally dependent on ME oil
3. Prevent Saddam from financing more suicide attacks on Israel---sure they're still coming but we have removed one more source of financing.
4. To provide a staging area for our military because we wanted to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia
5. To prove to, Syria, and Iran that we intend to persevere against terrorism even if it involves removing a dictator to do it--that we have the political will to do so.
There are other tertiary reasons but to "steal the Iraqi oil" is not one of them.
Okay, let me answer point by point.
1. There was NO evidence linking Saddam to Al-Queda. In fact, because of his secular and progressive credentials, Al-Queda did not like Saddam very much. Even Bush has publicly acknowledged that (after the war, I may point out) that there were no ties between the two.
2. There you go - Control of Oil !!!! Why are we so hell bent on "controlling" the oil. To prevent Saddam from controlling the oil, we should control it. And then you say, war was not abt oil. Make up yr mind mate !!
3. Okay, as far as I know that he was not involved in financing the suicide bombers. But then again, I might not be sure. But then taking this logic a bit further - who next now - Saudis ? Syria ? Iran ? Lebabnon ? Pakistan ? Why do you forget that the entire Islamic world is against the Israeli state - will you take them all out in order to stem the flow of funds to Hamas ? Where will you stop ?
4. So, you need a new ground for yr troops - so let us invade a country !! Some logic mate - I really need my neighbour's garage to park my car, but he wont sell it to me. So let me just throw him out of his house and occupy it. Right ?
5. Why Iraq ? Why not Sudan ? Or Pakistan ? Or any other country ? Oh wait, they dont have oil right ?
Some days ago, you had praised the institution in which I have studied. One of the biggest thing that it taught me was to think logically, without getting emotional abt any particular aspect of the problem.
Whenever I apply logic to this situation, I always come to the same answer.
Oil.
p.s. I just read in the newspaper today, that abt $4 billion of Iraqi money has gone missing since US took control..Maybe we will see new curtains in the white house soon !!
Glad you're back to kibitz---try at least to be entertaining and humorous instead of your nasty one-sided harrangue.
