Another War Thread [formerly "Just my 2 cents...an alternative to war"]

I was typing this reply when Sasha locked the "Should we go to war" post. The point of this thread is to produce viable alternatives to military action in the Persian Gulf and not to point the finger at anyone or anything, past or present. Should this degenerate into anything that is not constructive, I will ask a moderator to close this thread. My reply to the previous post is as follows:

Folks,

Just a little suggestion here, in a way of being constructive instead of "Blamestorming" [good word!!]. Let's say that we take the $1 billion that the Prez earmarked for alternative energy research [in the SOTU address] and buy Saddam out. We can include in the contract that he has to disclose the whereabouts of all of the alleged WMDs and that he has no say in the Iraqi government that is to follow him. Then we could take the $200 billion slated for the Iraq campaign and spend that on energy research and implementation. In this way we get what we want, the U.N. will no longer be in a tizzy about this, Russia and France won't lose their capital investment, no blood will be shed and we won't be justifying the dogma of terrorists. Just my 2 cents.

Dan

Just caught the "Nightly News". Looks like its not such a crazy idea, after all. I mean look at the choices; 1] Be a wealthy deposed dictator, or 2] a self-illuminating grease spot.

Dan

There is beauty in simplicity! What a great idea!

Then...we could invite him to live in the U.S. (and we get 36% of the 1 billion back in income taxes)!

You got it, ikendu! Not only that, but we could keep him on a really short leash to make sure that he doesn't f_up again. How's that for taking a no-win and turning it into a win-win?

Dan

Once you divorce emotion from the problem, then the solution becomes apparent.

What a great idea! We should extend the offer to all terrorists in the world. Giving terrorist money would stop terrorism overnight. We could further expand the program to cover mass murderers and armed robbers. This is awesome, the potential is unlimited. I've killed hundreds of Dove and Quail during my life, anything there for me if I promise to quit hunting dove and quail at a hunting lease I am about to lose anyway? If I were a terrorist, dictator or criminal I would pick up the pace, seems like there could be big bucks in being bad.

DD,

I wouldn't go that far...the thing to remember about many [not all] terrorists is, they actually believe in what they are doing is right. Saddam however, is a megalomaniac and he only believes in himself. So if he is offered a choice between continued existence and oblivion, I think he would choice the former and not the latter [unless he desires to reserve himself a place in the history books as one of the greatest a_holes of all time]. I'm not trying to set a precedence here on how we should deal with all despots and malcontents, I'm only offering this as a solution for this current dilemma.

Dan

PercaDan,
I think Saddam has already secured his spot as one of the greatest a_holes of all time. Not THE greatest but he does have a reserved seat.

I actually think the idea is good in theory but it would set a very dangerous precedent that we would soon regret. I believe Saddam will leave Iraq one way or another within 10 days of the U.S. arriving and the cost will be far less than $200B. If we went the payoff route with Saddam what would you suggest for Korea and others. We have proven that giving billions in foreign aid doesn't make everyone like us. It is a great tool in the short term but does nothing to eliminate a problem, Iraq being a good example.

DD,

"Checkbook diplomacy" is not new to us [or anyone else for that matter], we've been using it to "win friends and influence people" for a long time. Case in point, occassionally Turkey kicks us out and we buy ourselves back in. One of the reasons that they are sitting on the fence right now, is that they want us to cover their losses in case their Kurds revolt or Saddam pitches some missiles their way or they are overran by refugees. See, its an old game. When you cut through all of the political rhetoric, it normally boils down to two things...power and/or money [so much for high ideals]. Think of it as the "Godfather" approach. It starts like this "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse....". All this is, is a little lubrication to get things moving in the right direction with minimal risk to all parties involved. Heck, we probably have spent over $1 billion to get all of our troops and four carrier groups over there in the first place. Got to fly.

Dan

Geez...I thought this started out as a "fun" topic.

I was ready for a little fun after all the other posts...

I view the war on Saddam and terrorism the same as believing in God.

If we overthrow Saddam and he had no plans for hurting us we are still better off.

If we don't overthrow Saddam and he decides to supply a Nuke, gas or other to our enemies we pay a tremendous price.

If we believe in God and there is no God we are no worse for it.

If we don't believe in God and there is a God we pay a tremendous price.

Strange how all of this is over oil. Yet too much royalties is collected from oil companies. If more and more vehicles were developed that don't rely on oil, wouldn't we not have to worry about the rising price of gasoline?

Stefan,
Read the thread, "Should we go to war". The Iraq issue is partially about oil and much about terrorism and a dangerous man. However, alternative fuel would be great.

Saw this in the paper this morning. We should have a referendum on having war or not.

Veterans gets 5 votes.

Count me in for 5 against.

There very, very much is a connection between our all-consuming thirst for oil (and the profits from delivering it) and this war in Iraq.

If we used no oil...we'd have no interest at all in this region.

Every extra gallon of fuel that we use in our SUVs, etc. is extra cash we send to dictatorships and repressive regimes in the middle east. Regimes that torture and deny basic rights to men and women. I totally don't understand how those that are so ready to go to war in the middle east are often also the people that have no interest in ending our dependance on foreign oil.

I know why the oil companies aren't for this...I just can't figure out why regular Americans aren't for it.

There are alternatives to foreign oil. They are not nearly as expensive as massive military deployments...especially when you measure the cost in blood and lives.

I have no doubt that Saddam is a terrible man. But...we knew that when we sent him aid when he attacked Iran. The difference is now...he is not serving our interests any longer. He isn't any different now than we was when we sent him aid.

I do believe that he has no agenda other than his own power and self-preservation. He is more dangerous cornered than merely contained within his borders.

"Every extra gallon of fuel that we use in our SUVs, etc. is extra cash we send to dictatorships and repressive regimes in the middle east"

I hate that saying. The EV does not use gas. The Honda Civic Hybrid gets 50+ mpg. The Prius, insight etc. all get better MPG than "normal" cars. Some SUVs get better MPG than cars. So the statement should be:

"Every extra gallon of fuel that we use in our NON-HYBRID/ELECTRIC VEHICLES, etc. is extra cash we send to dictatorships and repressive regimes in the middle east"

It's not just about oil. Saddam is torturing and killing people every day. He has professional rapists on his government payroll. I guess we just don't get it because we have it so good here, so lets forget about humanity and people outside of the U.S.

He has violated 17 U.N. resolutions and continues to defy the world. He has fired on U.S. jets many times. He tried to assasinate George Bush Sr., etc etc. The defiance has never stopped for over a decade. Shall we wait to react to an attack like we did with the Al Queda? How easily we forget.....9-11...

Originally posted by SurefireM6:
It's not just about oil. Saddam is torturing and killing people every day. He has professional rapists on his government payroll. I guess we just don't get it because we have it so good here, so lets forget about humanity and people outside of the U.S.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe it's not ALL about oil. But...if it's not mostly about oil, answer this:

If we are invading Iraq 'cause Saddam is such a monster, why did we stop in the first Gulf war? He was just as much a monster then; torturing, killing, repressing. Bush #41 called him a "Hitler" at that time.

If our U.S. policy has been all about going after "bad regimes" why didn't we go after Edi Amin in Africa? ...or the Kyhmer Rouge in Cambodia (ever see "Killing Fields"?).

If we truly support democracy and self determination, etc., etc. how come we make alliances with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, etc., etc. Why do you think we installed the Shah of Iran and looked the other way at his repression of dissent in Iran (including torture)? The factors that drove our foreign policy then are still much of what drives it today.

I know there are folks here on the forum that just don't buy that special interests drive much of our foreign policy...but I'm afraid that it IS much of the reality. Maybe not all, maybe not all of the time...but an awful lot of it.

So, I might agree "It's not JUST about oil". But it is a lot about oil.

Originally posted by SurefireM6:
"Every extra gallon of fuel that we use in our NON-HYBRID/ELECTRIC VEHICLES, etc. is extra cash we send to dictatorships and repressive regimes in the middle east".

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm ready to agree with that.

I will accept the statement with addition.
Every extra gallon of fuel that we use in our NON-HYBRID/ELECTRIC VEHICLES, etc. and every oil well blocked from drilling in North America is extra cash we send to dictatorships and repressive regimes in the middle east".

There would be a tremendous reduction in pollution and oil consumption if we went to all Hybrid vehicles. Most people couldn't afford to own a vehicle and the cost of goods would skyrocket due to transportation cost.

I believe low emission diesel with a possible electric kicker is the answer. Of course I think diesel is the answer, I'm Dieseldave!

The problem goes further back than most people know. Do a Google search for "General Motors, Phillips Petroleum, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire and Rubber, and Mack Truck" and maybe add the keywords "trolley" or "electric rail." These companies were responsible for the almost over-night destruction of electric rail in many, many US cities.
American's love their cars (I know I love cars!) for many reasons, not the least of which is the freedom of movement they offer. I would guess that most people don't believe or know that their freedom to choose was removed by these companies.

ikendu,

Of course our government may have made mistakes in the past. We are not discussing past actions or mistakes. (we only have a fraction of the information available to top officials of our government. Example: Pakistan Leaders have voiced their opposition to the U.S. publically to gain support, yet we were secretly using their bases and airfields. There is much the public does not know.)

My first question to you is: Wy do you not support the Presidents position on Iraq? We have waited over a decade for Iraq to comply, what makes you think diplomacy would work?

My second question to you: Were there any family members of yours killed or injured by the 9-11 attacks? Or witnessed the heroism of the rescuers who gave their life so save them?