Did we need war w/ Iraq to dig Saddam out a hole?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlindedByTheLite

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
2,170
Location
Bangor, Maine
Okay. There have been several times when I thought I had this down.
.. but I always find out otherwise.

First, I heard it was to liberate Iraq. Then I heard it was to *dethrone* Hussein. Then I heard it was to uncover WMD's..

Is it all? Is it nothing?

Could we have just gone straight for Hussein @ the beginning of it all and either avoided the severity of our invasion, or @ least delivered a crippling blow from the start of it all that would've made the battle a bit easier to fight?

I understand Hussein needed to be taken out. I agree 100%. I just don't understand so many troops die'ing over such a drawn out period of time.. I think we lost more than we gained.

Help me sort this out, please.
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
Are you aware that more US soldiers (all branches) are killed in car accidents and other non-duty related violence/accidents in a year while off duty than have been killed by direct enemy action in Iraq this year????

But to answer your question... in some ways, No, we didn't have to start a war with Iraq to take down Saddam for a practical matter. Fairly simple for a determined and moderately trained person to assasinate someone. (Getting away with it is a different matter.)

Unfortunately, "international law" (there is no such thing in reality) and US law and various international "gentleman's agreements" forbid assasination, so legally and politically, the answer to your question is Yes, we did have to go to war.

Even if we had "taken Saddam out" as an individual though, we wouldn't have been able to find out for sure if there were any WMDs or terrorist connections. Without overthrowing the whole Batthist regime, Saddam probably have been replaced by someone just as bad if not worse.
 

BlindedByTheLite

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
2,170
Location
Bangor, Maine
ahhhh.
the damn international law.

the cause should've justified a sniper.

Edit:
i wasn't aware of the first statistic.. but it doesn't make me feel much better about it.. it might be an accomplishment, but i don't like hearing about any of our soldiers die'ing, y'know? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif
 

DrJ

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
565
[ QUOTE ]
BlindedByTheLite said:
Okay. There have been several times when I thought I had this down.
.. but I always find out otherwise.

First, I heard it was to liberate Iraq. Then I heard it was to *dethrone* Hussein. Then I heard it was to uncover WMD's..

Is it all? Is it nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO it is nothing...we did it for "strategic" reasons...we once supported Saddam, (same for the Taliban), because it was decided that it was in our best strategic interests at that time...we have (many times) supported dictators, (Batista and the Shaw of Iran for example), when we felt it was in our best interests.... Again IMHO, it's all just "global politics" of sorts....

I suggest sites like...

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo

and

http://www.antiwar.com/

...to get more, different and interesting points of view....
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
Well, there is the fact that we still have a law on the books in this country that keeps us from openly assassinating the leader of another country. Of course the U.S. has found ways around this law in the past, such as getting the British government to do our dirty work for us since they have no such prohibitive laws.

It may not be a popular opinion here on CPF but I still say that this all came down to getting control of the oil fields and nothing else. All else that they claim is only a bunch of excuses to try to make it look like a "nobel" action instead of the resource grab that it is. See, if we had only taken out Saddam, we would still not have control of the oil because the Iraq people would still have control of their own government and we would not. As it stands now, we will simply put in a puppet government that will answer to us and claim that it is a freely elected government of Iraq.

If anyone cares to disagree with this assessment of the situation, they would then have to explain why the U.S. government is willing to pay something like 80 BILLION dollars to rebuild Iraq instead of taking the the U.N. up on their offer to foot the bill.

To give you all a better idea of exactly how much money is at stake here from the American tax paying public, the BBC said that the total cost comes out to about $1000 U.S. dollars per man, woman and child in the U.S. I don't believe that there is anyway in this world that we would put out that kind of cash to rebuild Iraq if we didn't expect to get that money back someday in oil deals.

Also, the rich business men that are in cosy with the current administration are already reaping the profits of rebuilding Iraq with their insider deals, which would not be happening if the U.N. was running things now. I call them insider deals because these contracts aren't up for bid, they are being assigned to certain rich men that have inside deals going with the Bush administration. If we are truly trying to help the people of Iraq then we would have them rebuilding themselves instead of lining the pockets of rich American businessmen. If nothing else, the construction companies of Iraq should at least be allowed to put in bids on construction projects. Heck, even American companies aren't allowed to put in bids because things are being done in such a crooked fasion.

If you want to know the truth about what is really going on in politics you only have to follow the money trail, all else is political half-truths and lies utilized to get to the end result, which is always the attainment of greater money/power.
 

Erik Johnson

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
131
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Re: Did we need war w/ Iraq to dig Saddam out a ho

Consider this, what would the Mideast look like with one more US tolerant country? Kuwait should appreciate our liberation of their state. The Saudis have SOME connection to us. What if Iraq is truly grateful for being released from the clutches of Saddam and is rule by terror. This could be more important than Iraq's oil.
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
We are NOT taking control of the oil fields, and the PEOPLE of Iraq will have control of their oil resources if we are able to set up a "democracy" there.

Now, if we follow the leftist / UN agenda and pull out of there without setting up the infrastructure to govern themselves in a democratic or pseudo-democratic manner, the oil resources will end up being controlled by some Islamic theocracy and/or by the most powerful warlords and dictators that would fill the Saddam "vaccum".

As far as "insider deals".... I assume you are talking about Kellogg, Brown & Root??? The subsidiary of Haliburton??? There are three companies in the world that are currently capable of doing their job in a quick and competent manner. One French, one Russian and one US. Should we pay the French and/or Russians OUR tax dollars to do the job when they opposed us every step of the way? Or should we pay to have some "fly by nighters" come in and do a crappy job that would probably have to be re-done by K-B-R at twice the current cost in a couple of years?


Now, I'll admit that for appearances sake it would be good to put all those jobs out for contract, but do you really believe that we AND THE IRAQUI PEOPLE can wait for the 2-3 years that it takes to fulfil a government bidding process, especially one that has such wide ranging international challenges?

And as to the "no bid thing"; another canard: Brown & Root have had ongoing contingency contracts with the Pentagon to do this sort of work back to at least the mid 1960s. Long before Bush ever thought about being a Governor, much less a President, long before Cheney became a big time political operative or a corporate President.
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
AAAH, Roth.

Stallone is a lot prettier, more muscled and "tougher" than I ever was.

I have stitched myself up with a needle and fishing line before if that counts for anything though. OUCH! Thank God for Super Glue. Makes field first aid much easier for us wimps.
 

BlindedByTheLite

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
2,170
Location
Bangor, Maine
ah. i don't wanna start a debate yall.

i just wanted to clear up that the war was indeedy necessary to keep the food chain functioning.

ah, but to join in anyways, i don't think we're gonna take *control* of the oil fields so to speak.. but i mean, clearly the country is in debt to us..

it's like a gang in South Central LA. if a gang member saves your ***, and you happen to be non-affiliated with any gangs, you still owe him and if you don't repay him he'll kill you, *lol*.. (repayment often meaning joining the gang, or being manipulated by the gang, becoming somewhat of an errand-boy)

i mean, we really couldn't take control of the oil fields, @ least openly, and have everyone be kosher with it, y'know? i'd be pretty ticked, personally.

thanks yall for replying.
 

Al_Havemann

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
302
Location
New York City
All that's pretty accurate but you all missed that there's a bigger reason for this, just look at a map of the middle east and you'll get the idea.

Iraq borders on every country in the middle east that the US is "interested in", primarily Iran and Syria.

So have a war with Iraq, knock off Saddam, put in a democracy and what have you got?. Full and unlimited access to a central country in the middle east. Add some US military bases that can be re-supplied easily, stir gently and you have a powerful military force positioned in the backyard of some of the most fundamentalist middle eastern countries, ones the US believes responsible for sponsoring terror.

Once Iraq is consolidated, see how fast the US claims Iran, Syria and others have WMDs. I think the US position is to overturn all of those governments sooner or later. I'm not sure if that's good or bad but when I count up all the terrorist attacks that have come from that region, I find it difficult to be sympathetic.

Just so you know, I was there when the first plane hit the Trade Center and I watched the second plane hit as well. I was 2 blocks away when it came down. Those memories don't go away easily.

I know intellectually that the majority of middle eastern people there are responsible and good. Emotionally though, it's a lot harder, I lost some good friends.

Al
 

keithhr

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 21, 2003
Messages
1,388
Location
bay area California
What happened to our hunt for the real perp of 9/11 Bin Laden? I think the whole wmd thing stinks, we had nothing on them and now the only thing that is clearly emerging is that it is just another business opportunity. Just because we found non of the weapons that we supposedly went there to find, we claimed we were liberating the people of Iraq. I don't believe that our government ever for one minute cared what happened to the people of Iraq. I may have missed the part where the American people agreed to spend over 150 billion dollars on the war and the rebuilding of Iraq with taxpayer dollars. And that may only be the beginning. I am outraged that we are spending money that we don't have(deficit spending in the 100's of billions once again) and it is primarily going to the insider boys that are now in Iraq. I am not a liberal but a fiscal conservative who believes in Government financial responsibility. 20 years ago our national deficit was 900 billion dollars and now we are up around 7,000 billion dollars , mostly in peacetime, and most of it incurred in the 1980's.
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
Just wondering.....

What do you think the cost of an atomic bomb set off in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago etc. would be?

What would be the cost of a drug resistant smallpox virus running rampant across the country?

What would be the cost of botulism toxin spread through San Francisco, Berkely and Oakland?

If we didn't care anything about the citizens of Iraq, only about "a business deal" for oil, how much cheaper would it have been for us to just to drop a few neutron bombs on Iraq, killing all the people but leaving the oil wells and oil processing facilities intact?
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
[ QUOTE ]
Silviron said:
What would be the cost of botulism toxin spread through San Francisco, Berkely and Oakland?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe it is ~$300 per treatment [Botox]. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, if we wanted Iraqi oil--Saddam was more than willing to sell it to US and the world. Ask the French, Germans and the Russians.

Please revisit Bush's speeches before the war--he always mentioned multiple reasons for the war--including freeing the people of Iraq.

One of the strongest reasons, I believed, that was never used was Saddam's links to al-Qaeda.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

And while it still may be true, in the strictest sense, that Saddam was not part of the planning for 9/11/01, al-Qaeda was well known to be in northern Iraq after the Afghan War:

August 25th, 2002:While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.

And
[ QUOTE ]
It now transpires that Saddam was hoping to take advantage of Abu Nidal's presence in Baghdad to persuade him to use his considerable expertise in terrorist techniques to train al-Qa'eda fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]
-Bill
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
[ QUOTE ]
BB said:
[ QUOTE ]
Silviron said:
What would be the cost of botulism toxin spread through San Francisco, Berkely and Oakland?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe it is ~$300 per treatment [Botox]. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! You beat me to it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
OY VEY! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

That would be more expensive than what I was thinking of.

They have a big bulletin board advertising just that across the street from Wally World here..... Course you have to go to "the big city" to get them. I always wonder why people want to inject stuff in their lips (or wherever)that in their digestive system could easily kill them.
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
So many people are so quick to say that we didn't *want* Iraq's oil and that we don't *have* Iraq's oil, but we do have Iraq's oil, indirectly, at the very least, because every one of those oil wells are under direct control of rich American oil companies today. These oil companies are making their cut off of the oil whether the bulk of the money goes to the American government or Iraq's government. They could really care less who *claims* the oil because they are the ones that are going to get all of the money for pumping it, processing it and distributing it.

The mega-rich American oil companies win this game no matter which government claims that they "own" the oil, just so long as they retain the monopoly rights to pumping it. Need I even bother to mention that Bush still has a very substantial amount of money invested in these very same oil companies and that all of this is most definitely a very serious conflict of interest? I keep expecting to hear about an impeachment over this whole crooked affair once the public starts putting 2 and 2 together. Who knows though, previous presidents have gotten away with worse and nobody seemed to care enough to do anything about it then, even when the public was made aware of it...

Oh yeah, concerning the line about the construction companies that just happen to be Bush's buddies being the only companies that are up to the task of rebuilding Iraq, so that there is no need to take open bids from any of the other competing construction companies, need I really even bother to comment on this? I think not. The evidence is there to prove this for the corruption that it is if you will only look for it. There is no need to take my word for any of it.

In fact, I saw a whole PBS special on just this very subject a few weeks ago where they laid it all out in simple black and white terms and proved it to be the corrupt back door deal that it is. But of course, for all of those that *want* to blindly believe that their government, and those officiating in it, really do have their best interest at heart (instead of their own petty self-interest), there is nothing that I nor any news network on Earth can do to shake that deeply held belief because it is a belief that is based upon emotion and hope, not on logic and reality.
 

Silviron

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
2,477
Location
New Mexico, USA
[ QUOTE ]
...... there is nothing that I nor any news network on Earth can do to shake that deeply held belief because it is a belief that is based upon emotion and hope, not on logic and reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

So true! Once one decides to hate a person, a political party or a political system so badly, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their mind.

Most people, if they even bother to try to be informed at all, will only seek out "information sources" that are likely to support their biases.

I wonder though, if there is so much proof of corruption out there, why doesn't the greatly popular "outsider" Howard Dean who excoriates the administration on everything else say something about it?. Why don't such strong, courageous and pure persons such as hillary clinton or Dennis Kucinich stand up on the Senate or House floor and bring impeachment charges against the criminal Bush Administration for that. Why aren't the mega-rich oil companies that AREN'T owned by the Bush or Cheney families clamoring for "their fair share" of the Iraqui Oil?

How much oil are the "Mega rich" Bush / Cheney oil companies sneaking out of Iraq right now? Where are they selling it?

I'll have to wait to read the facts though. I'm leaving on a short trip and probably won't have internet access for a couple of days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top