WMD's: Do They Matter?

[RightyRightOn]

It seems to me that the emphasis on WMD's was pushed by the media, possibly because they new that these weapons would be difficult or impossible to find. It is something that they will try to use against him.

The administration made it clear that there were many reasons to start the war. There is a clear connection between terrorists and Saddam, anyone who disagrees with this is simply not paying attention. We have found many terrorist camps and terrorists themselves in Iraq since the invasion.

The WMD argument is used by those who would have opposed this war no matter what, unless a democrat was running the show, of course. Bush is hated so much by this group that there is nothing he could ever do to to win thier support.

Listen to the Clinton speech when he bombed Iraq, to criticize Bush about Iraq is to criticize Clinton as well.

If the UN had allowed Bush Sr. to invade Iraq during the first gulf war, we would have avoided this whole situation.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If the UN had allowed Bush Sr. to invade Iraq during the first gulf war, we would have avoided this whole situation.

re-evaluate your opinion on that one, it wasn't the UN that told Bush Sr. no on invading.

 

[RightyRightOn]

I maybe wrong, but I believe UN pressure and congress told Bush no. My point is he should have done it in either case.

If you have contrary evidence to an argument, please include it in your posts.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Bern80
What evidence is there that this is about oil? If this was really about oil, there are about a hundred easier ways to get it then the way we are going about it.

It would be naive to think the Iraq war isn't at least in part about oil and money. Oil was sold mainly for U.S. dollars until 2000, when Saddam began selling oil for euros, according to this article from June 2003:

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world. As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro — there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in Britain — and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance.

In 2000, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including America's bête noire, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market. The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

And yes, you can ridicule the liberal slant of the source if that's what floats your boat, but it's something to think about.

 

[wonderwench]

I agree, SM, that oil played a partial role in the decision.

Our economy is fueled by oil - without it, the recent recent recession would look like a picnic. National security is closely tied to economic stability. We are at risk by being dependent upon descipable, totalitarian regimes for our primary fuel. The sooner we eliminate our dependence upon Middle East oil, the better.

Saddam was a destablizing force in the energy equation. His removal lowers the risk.

 

[RightyRightOn]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
re-evaluate your opinion on that one, it wasn't the UN that told Bush Sr. no on invading.

I did some research and it appears that Bush Sr, didn't go into Iraq the first time because he would have lost support from the Arab nation members of the coalition. It was also beyond the mission agreed upon by the UN. So, I was wrong about that. I still think he should have done it anyway, and he probably would have if he had the support.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I agree, SM, that oil played a partial role in the decision.

Our economy is fueled by oil - without it, the recent recent recession would look like a picnic. National security is closely tied to economic stability. We are at risk by being dependent upon descipable, totalitarian regimes for our primary fuel. The sooner we eliminate our dependence upon Middle East oil, the better.

Saddam was a destablizing force in the energy equation. His removal lowers the risk.

In other words, our motives are selfish: to maintain our national security and our economic dominance. That's a far cry from the altruistic stated goal of liberating the Iraqi people from tyrrany. Since most Americans would undoubtedly agree those are worthy goals, why didn't Bush just come out and say that in the first place?

 

[wonderwench]

Acting in one's self-interest is not incompatible with acting in the interests of others.

The fact that removing Saddam benefits the U.S. in no way undoes the good of helping the Iraqi people.

Think of this according to John Nash's Equilibrium Theory. When we align our goals with benefiting a larger group, we all do better. This is one of those situations.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Acting in one's self-interest is not incompatible with acting in the interests of others.

The fact that removing Saddam benefits the U.S. in no way undoes the good of helping the Iraqi people.

Think of this according to John Nash's Equilibrium Theory. When we align our goals with benefiting a larger group, we all do better. This is one of those situations.

I certainly won't argue with you there. It would be nice to hear our leaders admit what they're really up to one of these years, that's all.

 

[wonderwench]

From my reading and listening, I do believe that the Bush Administration was perfectly honest that removing Saddam was part of the campaign to reduce the threat of terrorism aimed at the U.S. This was never promoted as an entirely humanitarian endeavor.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
From my reading and listening, I do believe that the Bush Administration was perfectly honest that removing Saddam was part of the campaign to reduce the threat of terrorism aimed at the U.S. This was never promoted as an entirely humanitarian endeavor.

Since when does the leader of a sovereign nation choosing to sell his country's oil for euros instead of dollars represent an act of terrorism?

 

[wonderwench]

That is a bit of spin, hun. Saddam was part of the logisitical and financial support network that sponsored terrorism. He paid off families of suicide bombers in Israel - this is well documented. In addition, there is proof that members of AQ trained in Iraq.

I'm going to believe Diane Feinstein's point of view, given her access to intelligence information, that Saddam posed a significant risk in the area of distributing chemical weapons to terror cells to smuggle into the U.S.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
That is a bit of spin, hun. Saddam was part of the logisitical and financial support network that sponsored terrorism. He paid off families of suicide bombers in Israel - this is well documented. In addition, there is proof that members of AQ trained in Iraq.

I'm going to believe Diane Feinstein's point of view, given her access to intelligence information, that Saddam posed a significant risk in the area of distributing chemical weapons to terror cells to smuggle into the U.S.

Spin? Oil and money were the subjects I was discussing, not the sponsorship of terrorist networks. Quit dragging oranges into my apple argument.

 

[wonderwench]

Then quit putting peanut butter on my chocolate!

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Then quit putting peanut butter on my chocolate!

Keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter!

 

[jones]

mm, chocolate/peanutbutter/women *drool*

Just wanted to jump in. wondering if anyone has a link, I dont.

I heard that saddam had a letter on the day of his capture that was a message to his supporters in Iraq, said NOT to let international terrorists into the country.

I'll be looking until someone finds it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by RightyRightOn
I did some research and it appears that Bush Sr, didn't go into Iraq the first time because he would have lost support from the Arab nation members of the coalition. It was also beyond the mission agreed upon by the UN. So, I was wrong about that. I still think he should have done it anyway, and he probably would have if he had the support.

Sorry I didn't find a link in time. Between work and driving it was not possible.

I agree with you that Bush Sr should have finished the job though. Support be damned, If we had Iraq done, the rest of the arabs would have fallen in line, we'd be out of saudi, bin ladin would have had no juice to inspire terrorism as much as he has, and iran and syria wouldn't be the problem they are now.

 

[wonderwench]

Absolutely correct DK. Punting in 1991 just emboldened the Islamic extremists who hate the West.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Absolutely correct DK. Punting in 1991 just emboldened the Islamic extremists who hate the West.

I agree too. They apparently got the idea that that was either the best we could do or it was all we had the stomach for. Wrong answer, Ahab!

 

[jones]

Agreed, we would be better off if we would have taken saddam out, would have less blood spilled.
Only problem i have is that emposing a democracy on a nation through force has never, to my knowledge, been successful.
On the other hand, by setting an example we have had MANY nations develop into democracys through the will of the people.