Well I'll probably get flamed, but this is the way I see it...

[Executioner]

I think everyone has made very valid points in this thread, but unless you were a fly on the wall in all those closed door meetings, we really won't know the exact reason for eliminating Saddam from power, but I'm sure there are many reasons.

I also believe that oil has to have some sort of involvement in this, even if it's small, because by having Iraq again sell oil on the open market, it will drive down the price of oil since demand has increased worldwide. Look what happened to oil supply from Venezuela? They don't provide that much, but having it reduced had a major impact on worldwide supplies, which is why we are paying over $2 a gallon for gas.

As an example here in California, it's said that we add 600 vehicles per day, and this is only California. Just think about the rest of the US let alone the world. The long term affect by having Saddam removed is to stabilize the oil market, especially in the high tech areas such as the west coast and Japan that rely on this energy, and to keep it flowing to provide economic stability in the future. Without this stable flow of oil, we will return to gas rationing days like we did in the late 70's. For those of you that were too young to remember these great times, it sucked and so did our economy for several years with high interest rates and inflation.

IMHO, I don't trust any of those Arab counties, and it would not surprise me in the least if Saddam was helping Al Quaida, but I guess we won't know until he is removed from power and evidence is collected. I think it's a good idea to eliminate this bastard, but the Arab commuity will hate us even more although our reasoning for removing him is just. Lets just hope other countries don't get involved.

[FlyingPenguin]

But where was the oil in vietnam?

Seen any oil in korea?

For goodness sakes, that was cold war politics. How can you possibly compare Iraq to the Vietnam and Korean wars? Now don't tell me you think we were in Korea and Vietnam just to help our fellow asian brothers maintain a high standard of living, and avoid dictatorship?

Our main concern was limiting the POLIICAL influence of the Soviets and Red China. We also got involved in Angola and the Congo covertly for the same reasons. In those days third world countries were nothing but pawns in a complex chess game between the US, Soviet Union and Red China.

Sure we waved the banner of "freeing oppressed people from the yoke of Communism" and there was a little something to that, but it's basically (AGAIN) looking out for this country's best interests in the region.

In the case of Korea it was MOST DEFINATELY a "regional stability" issue. Korea is a small bastion of Western influence snuggled up next to China and Russia. Not to mention that it acts as a buffer between Japan and China.

To turn things around, our interests in Vietnam and Korea were similar to the Soviet Union's interest in backing the Castro regime in Cuba - we both wanted influence and MILITARY ASSETS in a country next door to our enemies.

In the 50's and 60's is was the same recurring cycle: China or the Soviets funds some rebels in one country, we choose to back the brutal and dictatorial government only because it's anti-communist. In some other country we back the rebels to try and over-throw or at least destabilize the pro-communist regime.

Once again, it was neccessary in the atmophere of the time, but there wasn't much humanitarianism involved.



-------------------
EDIT

I think we probably need to check everyone's age around here because I THINK I see the reason for differences of opinion.

The younger men here are more idealistic, believe that the US only fights wars for morally good reasons, etc.

Those of us who have more than 4 decades under our belts are a little more jaded and see the political situation without the rose colored glasses. We too were idealistic once (some of us still are) but we also know the REAL world doesn't work that way...

Consider this example:

To me, saying this is mostly "about oil" is like saying our president is a liar. He isn't the best with getting his point across, but I do trust him.

Oh Blade, ANYONE who makes it to ANY high political office in this country IS a liar. You have to sell your SOUL to become President. That's the way the system works.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe the president of the United States (ANY President past or future) won't lie to the public if he has to? Sometimes it's even necessary.


But yes, we'll agree to disagree...

[sbp]

blade and Executioner are under 40?

[blade]

I think we probably need to check everyone's age around here because I THINK I see the reason for differences of opinion.

The younger men here are more idealistic, believe that the US only fights wars for morally good reasons, etc.

Those of us who have more than 4 decades under our belts are a little more jaded and see the political situation without the rose colored glasses. We too were idealistic once (some of us still are) but we also know the REAL world doesn't work that way...

Once again FP, you are wrong.

I ask again for the second time, are you pro-democrat?

It's worthless to argue about this because we both are convinced of the facts as we see them. But I would appreciate if you would stop talking down to those who do disagree with you.

Oh Blade, ANYONE who makes it to ANY high political office in this country IS a liar. You have to sell your SOUL to become President. That's the way the system works.

Yes some, but not all. That's one very bitter "opinion" you have there.

[dadx2mj]

Wow reading this thread is confusing to me. Someone said that unless you are a fly on the wall then we really dont know and I think that is very right. In the end I think there are probably many reasons for the decision to go to war. I doubt we will ever know the main reason and I am sure it will be debated endlessly. However I dont think that Oil is the main reason but more a side benefit of the whole thing. And if memory serves me I have you by a year or so on the age deal FP.

[Executioner]

Originally posted by sbp
blade and Executioner are under 40?

Hehe, I wish but I'm approaching the half century mark quickly.

[FlyingPenguin]

I never have looked at the anyone's ages so I honestly don't know...


Am I a democrat? No, I belong to no party. I don't believe in parties. I vote for whoever I think will best represent my interests.

The restriction of only 2 ACTUAL political parties that can run for presidency (Electoral College does NOT recognize any party but Dems and Reps) is one of the major flaws in the system. To be president you have to sell your soul to the power brokers of one party or another to attain the office.

I ask again for the second time, are you pro-democrat?

I generally feel more comfortable in a room full of democrats than I do in a room full of republicans. I would consider my self liberal-leaning, but it's rediculous to pigeon hole someone like that. I have some opinions that are what most people would consider decidedly right-wing. I also happen to be Cuban which means I was raised in an extrememly pro-rebublican pro-right wing household.

To paraphrase George Carlin, I was born a Catholic and a Repulican, now I'm an American.... you grow

Yes some, but not all. That's one very bitter "opinion" you have there.

Not bitter - I'm a realist. I know how the system works. The most honest man will become a whore by the time he reaches a high office like Congressman, Governor or President. That's the way the system works - you can't make it any other way (oh well, okay, there was Jesse Ventura but Minnesotans are nuts anyway )

Also anyone in that high an office MUST lie for the sake of national security. The public does not need to know everything thje government is doing.

I considered Reagan a relatively decent man, but please let's not forget Iran Contra, and if you don't think he wasn't in the "know" about it you're living a dream world. "Plausible deniability"...

[Tomuchtime]

Originally posted by BillyGoat
Sorry, i dont wanna come off flaming anyone becusae I believe this board is a great place, and i believe FP and Lmandrakes posts were well thought out and also what they believe in and american is all about being able to say what you wanna say and believe what you wanna belive...

But where was the oil in vietnam?

Seen any oil in korea?

This war is about finishing things that should have been done 13 yrs ago, also it is about terror, and i think you will see stuff happen in africa soon, that place is full of terrorist and training facilitys.
I dont think it will be as visable (covert ops) because of the legalness, but I beleive Bush is just living up to his promise of not tolerating terrorists or the countrys who harbor them, Iraq was just the logical second stop on the map.

Korea and Vietnam were "Muscle Flexing" wars under the pretext of fighting "Global Communisium" as was Angola years later-(Kissinger will deny this but so would any war criminal of his caliber). If you'll notice after Korea and Vitetnam we only managed to divide the countries as a way to "Gracefully" but out,leaving the indigious people to finish as much as they could on thier own while raking in big bucks for the military arms companys.The Iraq war has pretty much been paid for and the issuses are not as complex as some people would like one to think. Oil is a good start but not because we need oil.Nevermind that everyone in the current adminastration has a pice of the winning pie,there is a power thirsty egocenteric core to this war and they want to control the Euro-Aisa
wells between China,India,Pakastian
and Russia as some of these countries are about to hit thier peak monitery and proudctivity in the next ten years.We import more oil from other sources than the middle east but we have no control over the growth of competition of the $dollar vs. the Euro
in these markets.In 2000 Iraq switched to the euro - many finanical "Wizzards" laughed thier asses off. In 2003 the euro is %15 over the dollar and climbing- Iraq made a nice bit of change here.We are loosing control of our monitery system.That's the problem.Notice the gold fluctuations?
When gold starts to climb, the holders dump some on the market to stablize prices,that's because some countries are selling $dollars as quick as they can for a more stable currency. Mexico and Argentina are looking for other ways to stabilize thier economy - Why do you think the US has any intrest in destabilizing Chevz? or Fox? It sure as hell isn't freedom, otherwise we would have an open border policy without some bullshit patriot act crap.
Think about the "Drug War" and what countries are upon focus there.35 years and for some unkown reason we can't stop the flow of drugs from the smallest of countries? how 'bout that war , huh? It's about the buck, no more no less, and whom controls it.The buck = power and that's the thinking of our sad little pathetic exsintence and everything we grow around.propaganda and all.
We'll get better...just takes time.
bill

[PreDatoR]

*yawn* you really need to stop reading the lone gunmen newspaper....

[sbp]

Urrgh Republicans and Republican Guards urrgh see the connection.

[FlyingPenguin]

If it wasn't for Toomuchtime, I'd be considered a flaming liberal here. Once again I have to thank him for for redefining the extreme left position, which nudges my apparent position on the line so far over to the right that it provides the illusion that I'm actually right wing
:B

Henry Kissinger a war criminal? Man where do you get this stuff? Ah well, as Blade said we agree to disagree....