Who's at fault here?

dlowan, If the government said it's not the oil, then it IS the oil. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

LOL!!!! Nah - too simplistic, CI - I believe in stupidity, generally, rather than conspiracy theories.

That remark may not appear entirely logical - but it made sense to me...

0 Replies

Did anyone hear the interview with Rumsfeld where he said Saddam leaving Iraq would be the best option? Then there would be no need for war. Maybe that retirement option I heard about last weekend is going to happen. It's been a most interesting week to listen to all the two-stepping and side-stepping and do-si-do-ing.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Craven - I think it is certainly crass, at the very least, to think of war as "interesting" - but I guess you are just being honest about a feeling many seem to share, but not acknowledge. Sigh.

You keep saying oil is not the issue here - others keep saying it is - would you mind giving your reasons for NOT thinking it is a major issue, in some detail?

Well, I admit to being cold-hearted about war. I like war on some level but prefer that it stay in the realm of imagination as much as possible.

I say oil is not the issue because oil suggests financial motivation and there are cheaper and surer ways of getting the results of a Sadaam-free Iraq. In short I do not see a return on the investment.

Russia and Venesuela both are able to produce more oil and I fail to see the oil-related advantage of invading Iraq.

There are some financial advantages but I don't think they are advantages considering the means.

I believe in stupidity but doubt this is the Administration's motivation. Even if it were they wouldn't admit this even to themselves. They's have to think of another reason that will rease their sleep and avoid an uproar.

I think this is about rewriting a bit of history (reversing trends that started with Vietnam), asserting themselves militarily, avoiding Clintonesque policy, and creating a legacy.

In addition, this is a pretty easy sell stateside so you don't risk too much political capital.

0 Replies

I've heard the term, "The Romance of War," but that's not my kind of statement. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

I must admit a regime change would be preferable to war. Do you think we could get Bush to resign? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

No way. He loves 'power' too much! c.i.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I must admit a regime change would be preferable to war. Do you think we could get Bush to resign?

Thanks, au. I think that's the loudest I've laughed in days. I think it was your dry delivery that really did it! :wink:

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't think anyone has proof of the WOMDs but rather a hunch. I think Iraq has WOMDs and I think the US and UK don't have much more than I do to back up their positions.

If they had solid evidence they'd have done something with it when they started losing the war momentum (when Iraq accepted inspections etc).

It is my understanding that quite often revealing what you know reveals how you know it. Secret information isn't kept that way just so we can snigger about what we know that you don't know, but rather is kept that way to protect sources, and very often, lives.

And it seems to me that Tony Blair released some solid evidence, but that those who don't want to be convinced choose to ignore it. Likewise even Blix the greater equivocator has stated that Iraq refuses to account for items we know they had prior to the suspension of inspections a few years ago. It seems strange to me that the disappearance of these materials are such a non-event to so many.

0 Replies

The short-sighted foreign policy of the US is what got Saddam Hussein to where he is now.

In the 80's he was propped up by US(UK, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States) to neutralize Iran's then supposed threat of expansion of extremism.

After the Gulf War, Saddam was left in power purposely by the Bush(41) administration to quell any chances of conflict in Kurd or Shiite parts of Iraq (limiting the no-fly ban to only fixed wing planes so the Iraqi attack helicopters could proceed with dessimating the rising opposition)

US based companies (some with ties with those in the current administration) sold dual-purpose material to Iraq as late as 2000. Maybe the sources US is trying to protect hail from closer to home...

In addition to oil, the war is going to run around $200B. Undoubtedly this kind of expenditure benefits the military industry.

The blame? A rabid dog may be the symptom, but breeding rabid dogs is the problem...

0 Replies

gravy, According to OMB, the latest estimate for the cost of the war in Iraq is in the mid-sixty billion. c.i.

0 Replies

OK.

Estimates these days seem to be randomly generated anyway.

Quote:

Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey had estimated that the United States might have to spend as much as 1 percent to 2 percent of its gross domestic product on a war with Iraq, which translates into a cost of about $100 billion to $200 billion.
In the interview with the Times on Monday, Daniels sought to play down Lindsey's remarks. "That wasn't a budget estimate," he told the newspaper. "It was more of a historical benchmark than any analysis of what a conflict today might entail."

.
From Yahoo News

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

1. It is my understanding that quite often revealing what you know reveals how you know it. Secret information isn't kept that way just so we can snigger about what we know that you don't know, but rather is kept that way to protect sources, and very often, lives.......2. and it seems to me that Tony Blair released some solid evidence, but that those who don't want to be convinced choose to ignore it............3. Iraq refuses to account for items we know they had prior to the suspension of inspections a few years ago. It seems strange to me that the disappearance of these materials are such a non-event to so many.

1. Trespassers W: I understand what you are saying, but can you not see the double-bind inherent in your first statement? Are we never to question the seemingly semi-founded pronouncements of our rulers lest we be seen to sniggeringly put lives of sources at risk? Yikes!

2. Could you direct me to Tony's solid evidence?

3. Can you tell me what items Iraq has "disappeared"?

0 Replies

trespassers,

I've read the dossier Blair released, we (you and I) differ GREATLY on what we consider solid evidence.

But that is irrelevant, I firmly believe that Iraq has WOMDs. Why is that a non-event? Because last I heard many nations have them and I do not consider Iraq having WOMDs a cause for a war that is not supported by the overwhelming majority of the World. Regardless of the treaties they've signed the criteria of the treaties is to save lives. I feel Sadaam can EASILY be contained and am not as eager to find a casus belli as are those who rush to make Sadaam's every bad word a "did you see that? why aren't we bombing them yet?"