In my opinion, if the U.S. government invested half the money it does on waging war instead on education and in companies that specialize in alternative and renewable energy, it would lessen, and possibly even eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
One day fossil fuels are going to dry up completely and we'll be forced to face the issue at the last minute. To me, wisdom would be advance preparation (disregarding entirely, of course, that renewable energy resources tend to be pollution-free, better for our health, better for the environment, etc).
Yes, that's what I think this war-mongering is all about: oil. Why else would we feel it necessary to baby-sit that patch of sand. Let them kill themselves if they want, just keep it away from us and we're fine. I know the politics behind it all are more involved than that, but to some the view is much more simplistic.
If the primary interest of our government was to obtain the oil reserves of Iraq - why didn't they achieve this goal in the first war of the gulf in the 90s?
Isn't it a little short-sighted to concentrate on obtaining a resource which is due to be replaced it the relatively near future?
I'm only throwing out some questions.
My other thought is that we can't disregard some of the facts surrounding Hussein's regime:
a) He's as close to a tyrant as you can get. He's has his political competition or tortured or assassinated. He was just recently elected back into his position by ALL of the Iraqi people. In other words, there was not ONE vote against him out of millions of voters. I can only wonder why.
b) Misappropriations of funds. His people starve and go without necessary medical supplies while he builds more and more million dollar palaces. Iraq largely blames this on the UN for their imposed trade sanctions.
c) Iraq supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. They reward these families with large sums of money. It's clear he supports anyone fighting against Western ideals. What will stop them from supporting any of the numerous terrorist organizations if and when they are capable of producing weapons of mass destruction?
Leading to...
9-11 all over again. We are day dreaming if we think that these terrorist organizations (funded by places like Iraq) are completely satisfied with what they accomplished on this tragic date.
Has anyone seen the Sum of All Fears? With nations like Iraq being run by power/money-hungry individuals like Saddam - is the prospect of a nuclear weapon being detonated in a US city that far fetched? Particularly when there are a thousand anti-US extremists that would die to go down in the history books as the first martyr to do such an act.
It's a simple equation: Terrorist + Money = SaddamxWoMD
While I'm not promoting pro-war propaganda - I'm not quick to write off our reasons for "baby-sitting" particular nations in other parts of the world. There certainly are significant reasons to get people like Saddam to step down. I, for the record, particularly hope it doesn't take a war to do it.
On second thought, we may need war to stimulate growth in this economy. The Labor Department's last report of mass layoffs in November (2,150 rounds, 240,000 workers!) was released in December - they recently announced that they'll no longer be releasing such reports - I guess they don't think we need to know any more.. perhaps they think non-disclosure will help us all just forget and go along our hunky-dorey way thinking everything is peachy - and of course, believing == receiving - yeah right.
They say war stimulates economic growth, especially BIG wars.. and though there will be massive suffering, violence and death, the economy will surge feeding supplies into battle. So watch out Saddam, here we come - you're going to do this country more good than harm in the end.
I'm no fan of Sadam.. ..BUT!! We had better have some REAL PROOF of weapons production come out of there before we lift a finger!! If we don't we will be forfitting forever our place in the world!! We will be no different than the solviates when they started taking over other countries without real probibal cause!! We will simply be imperial expansionists. International opinion of and trust in America is already in the gutter over our forign policies. We need to stop the bleeding before it's too late and show some integrity. This is a crossroads in our history and a wrong move will have long lasting if not perminant ramfifcations.
So if we were to become imperial expansionists, wouldn't you say our system of government (despite their inclination to coverup the UFO pnehomenon) is more of step in the right direction than the one they currently have in place?
While death may occur - aren't we doing these countries a benefit in the end to step in and take over?
In otherwords, doesn't the greater good outweigh the bad? After all, everyone dies eventually.
I agree that we are doing them a favor in the long run... ...the problem comes in with world oppinion. If we fail to prove a real threat.. ..then we will be commiting unprovoked aggression.. ..only furthering the low oppinion of America and our policies in the world stage. It's not our planet and we need to wise with our poisition in it.
So far, the US is being wise and exercising restraint (despite talking the talk). They haven't started a war, so they're sitting back and waiting for Iraq to give them a reason.
It'd certainly appear as though we're being a tad on the impatient side. News indicates that a military force of 150,000+ will be in position by mid-February.
With all the money being spent to put these soldiers into place, it's beginning to look like a fairly expensive threat. Or perhaps something all together more sinister.
Originally posted by Sean Kelly On second thought, we may need war to stimulate growth in this economy.... So watch out Saddam, here we come - you're going to do this country more good than harm in the end.
For the record, I fully retract my above statements - while war may indeed stimulate the economy to some degree (though such stimulation tends to favor only those sectors directly related to war production and support thereof), how selfishly uncivilized would we be to go picking fights for the wrong reasons - or no reason at all? Economic stimulation is a bad reason and does not justify death and destruction abroad. What kind of maniacs are we? This country is blood-thirsty after the destruction of the World Trade Center and has used that event as a launching lynchpin for an unprecedented "crusade" that "innocents" should not have to pay for with their lives. Innocents are our own soldiers. Innocents are foreign civilians and citizens.
You think our soldiers are so well-trained, educated and out-class the enemy that they are impervious to attack? You point out the Desert Storm operation as a track record for U.S. military deaths? Swallow this: following the conclusion of desert storm, I had good word from someone directly involved in the U.S. mortuary that while the government reported minimal losses (148 Killed In Action and 457 Wounded In Action - see CNN's Report on this.. astonishing compared to the 100,000+Iraqis killed) during the operation, he was rolling in bodies faster than he could count. Since then, another ~7,700 Desert Storm vets have died from Gulf War Illness. Nearly 200,000 additional vets have filed for medical benefit claims. That's 28% of the nearly 700,000 troops that were sent in to the Gulf War. (Read this) This report as of September, 2002 indeicates that after $150M in research, still nobody knows what the cause of Gulf War Illness is. And this was a "victory"? Hardly, me-thinks..
quote:
"President Bush shouldn't order our warriors into another Gulf fight until we know what happened 11 years ago," says Robert McMahon, president of Soldiers for the Truth. "The VA needs to tell the truth regarding the suffering of thousands of vets."
Iraq has complied with U.N.'s demands - they fully disseminated their arms documentation. WHAT MORE? If the rest of the World does not stand WITH us, then do they by definition stand
AGAINST us? Who, then, would be guilty of starting WW3?
Yes, there are some bad things going on in that country. The people are oppressed. Their leader is off his rocker. Is this our responsibility to fix? NO. Those facts should be disregarded. Now on to the matter of harboring terrorists - in America's "War on Terror", perhaps some resolution needs to be made here. But perhaps such a resolution could be reached diplomatically. The U.S. tends not to budge a damn inch when it comes to giving in on trade embargos. Damnit, it they're trying to work with us we need to work with them BACK. Same goes with Kadaffi's recent turn where he complied with 4 of 5 stipulations for the embargo against Libya to be lifted. The fifth was an acceptance of responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 back in the 80's - LET IT GO! Give peace a chace! Who gives a rat's @$$ if there's a "confession", it still accomplishes nothing. Why the hell would a nation admit to fault of the actions of some individuals? Like China expecting an apppology from the U.S. on the downed surveillance aircraft incident - did we give them an appology? Hell no. Does Libya owe us one? Hell no! Should we be more willing to negotiate with Libya? YES! How about Iraq? YES. If these squabbling politicians have to spend the rest of their lives squaring off negotiations, then so damn be it - that's what they're PAID for - if it means averting a senseless war of unspeakable consequences...
My opinion is that if a war is started against Iraq, the
Consequencis are terrible!!
I ' m afraid of Suicide attacks all over the world,but especially
in the US!!!
ANY lunatic can walk into a building and blow himself and take
many innocent civilians with him!!
It could take place all over the world,everyday,any minute
several times!!
I know that fear is a bad thing,and you must NEVER surrender
to any kind of Terrorism...but what is the price we all
must pay!!
I think the US must REALLY not attack Iraq,if there do not find
any Nuclear weapons!!
Im for ousting Saddam and his regime by military force. Most of the people I have talked to agree that he needs to go, but many dont want to see a war to do it. I have listened to the reasons for not going to war, and I understand their fears, and even share them to some degree. Yet not one of these people have offered a credible alternative. This says to me that they, while not happy with the present situation with the dictatorship of Iraq, think it is perferable to keep the status quo.
The status quo means that the people of Iraq continue to be without basic freedoms. They are killed, raped and tortured for even suspected disagreement with the government. And the government is so intrusive, any hint of rebellion is squashed before anything can become of it. Without offering a credible alternative, the people who are against war agree that it is better for the people of Iraq to be oppressed, tortured and murdered than to do something about it.
The status quo means that, if nothing is done, Saddam WILL at some point obtain nuclear weapons. Why is this so bad? Saddam's character, beleifs and ambitions.
Character: Without a doubt, a murderous dictator who oppresses his people and has no qualm about using chemical and biological weapons, against his own countrymen as well as against his neihbors. For good reason? No. For ambition.
Beleifs and ambitions: Saddam beleives that his destiny is to rule the middle east. When the city of ancient babylon was discovered south of Bagdad, Saddam began building his palaces with the bricks inscribed with his name on them - just like the ancient evil babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar did on the bricks archeologists uncovered for hispalaces.
It is Saddam's ambition to obliterate Israel. 3 nuclear reactors were purchased from France years ago for this very purpose. Israel, knowing this, went in in the 80's and bombed them.
Now about oil. If Saddam gets nukes and the means to deploy them, he WILL be in a position to take over the middle east. If that happens, Saddam will be a world power, a very evil one. He will lift sanctions with the threat of nuclear war. He will build his war machine with the trillions of dollars he will have in oil spoils. He will finally be able to realise his dream of destroying Israel.
No country...NO COUNTRY will be eager to go to war with a nuclear power ruled by a dictator like Saddam with the means to deploy his missles. The time for war will be OVER. ANY WAR at that point means NUCLEAR WAR.
He could ruin industralised countries such as the US by witholding oil. Remember that Saddam encouraged OPEC countries to do this during the gulf war. With that much money at his disposal, he could easily become the richest, most powerful man on the planet.
It is said that WW2 was "won on a sea of oil". The war machines of powerful countries run on oil. Economies of powerful countries run to a very large degree on transport made avaliable by oil.
The people who chant "no war for oil" are missing the point. Without it, we would instantly lose our status as a world power. Our economy would crumble. Our industry would crumble. Our war machine would crumble. Our farmers, which have decreased exponentially over the years, for lack of mechanization, would fail to provide food for the masses.
Sure there are other forms of fuel and energy. But they are not as cheap as oil. And studies have shown that they cannot, alone, sustain us. For instance, a study was done on the use of ethanol as a means of fuel for cars. Taking everything into account, the US does not have the amount of biomass needed to produce the amount of ethanol to fuel our transport.
Would it be so terrible if the US lost it's status as a world power? No, as long as there is a democratic one with similiar values to replace it.
Having a dictator like Saddam as a world power is not an option.
01-06-2003 06:30 AM
