auto-da-fe

I agree that the dichotomy between our Iraq stance and our stance on say Rwanda (which is nothing, we ignore it) is very hypocritical. I will also agree that there is a great many nations around the world that have problems at least as big as Iraq 6 months ago. I personally think that the difference between Iraq and Rwanda (as far as US foreign policy is concerned) is that Rwanda poses absolutly no threat to either the US, US interest, or US allies. I know this may not be justification in and of itself, but it is at least a partial explanation. IMO the US foreign policy should be that we will take action against these kinds of Govnmts. when they are threats to one of the three (US, US interest, or US allies), and for all the other countries that fall into the brutal regime category, that is where the UN would become more important.

I don't think that the US should shun the UN and become a rouge nation, but I do beleive that the UN has its own political purposes and sometimes those purposes are in direct conflict with what is best for the US and the citizens of the US. Not only that, I think after the debacle of how the UN handled the Iraq situation, they have lost a lot of their power (or at least, if not power, then credibility).

auto-da-fe

I still haven't had anyone explain to me exactly how the US is supposed to benefit from the oil in Iraq in some way that the rest of the world would not benefit from as well. I am serious. I'm not trying to be confrotational, I just don't honestly understand how we are supposed to benefit so hugely that Bush was willing to go to war.

brighid

I may understand the dynamic incorrectly, but controlling the oil flow in Iraq gives the US some degree of control over other nations. I would also say the billions of dollars going to companies like Halliburton, etc. is justification enough for the greedy. Billions of dollars, control over a vast oil supply that effects other nations (like Russia, France and Iran) and the future profits that come out of that money.

Brighid

auto-da-fe

The control of the oil and the oil rigs will not be from Haliburton. AFAIK the oil will still be controlled by the interim Iraqi Government. Haliburton still has huge sums of money coming its way from other crap, but I don't think that they have anything to do with the oil.

BTW, Haliburton is the one thing that I would have changed about what Bush did (other than rely so much on WMD's to convince everyone to go to war, as that is obviously coming back to bite him on the ass). I think it is a bonafide scam that Haliburton got the contract with no bidding and no competetion. Agreed there isn't any other single company that I can think of that could do it, but that doesn't mean a conglomerate of companies could not have gotten together to do it.

Jat

Originally posted by MegaDave

To Jat, I find it hard to buy that what was morally justified 12 years ago, is no longer, simply because of the 12 year time span in between. Why is it no longer morally justified?

Because they had passed up their chance back then to "Liberate" Iraq from him. So, in fact it is their fault that he remained in power for so long afterwards.

Also, since he apparently no longer has the suspected WMD the justification is no longer valid. Isn't there a law in the USA called "Double Jeopardy" where you can't be presecuted for the same crime twice? Are Americans hypocrits when it comes to their own legal system, or is their military exempt from this as well?

MortalWombat

Which, surprise, surprise, is now being appointed by the U.S..

auto-da-fe

Well except that the piont to Gulf War v. 1 wasn't to liberate Iraq, but to try and stop him from invading another country. Which we did.

Uh... yeah, ok. The first war (again) was not about WMD's so there was never a first "trial" for him to be acquitted from. So he was never prosecuted in the first place. So your comment is sort of lacking anything that really adds to this discussion and is little more than an attempt to rile me, is it not?

HaysooChreesto!

I wouldn't have made the WMD's the focal point. Bush didn't have to. There were several other good reasons for taking out Saddam and the American people would have supported those reasons.
He was non-compliant, was using the food for oil program to enrich himself, was violating the terms of the cease fire, etc.

At any rate, I don't think I would have gone after Iraq in the first place. Iran is much worse. They're developing nukes and are probably the biggest sponsor of religous terrorism in the world. They would have fallen almost as easily as the Iraqis did and from Iran we coud have directly meddled with Saddam and openly supplied his opposition parties with weapons and support. Two snakes with one stone.

The French and Germans would have cried just as loudly in regards to an invasion of Iran so what difference would world opinion have made anyway?

auto-da-fe

Well true, but can you think of another way to do it? I'm sure your response will be "Yeah let the Iraqi people decide", except that in order for that to happen you have to have elections. How are you going to organize an election with no one in power to oversee it? Who should oversee the first election if not the interim Govnmt., and who should appoint an interim govnmt. other than us? Seeing how we are already there for military support for that interim govnmt. and all.

ImGod

Since the end of the "liberation" gas prices in my area have gone down from a high of $1.80 to $1.39 a gallon. Do you think anyone here cares if the price happens to go down for the rest of the world too. That’s just a side benefit.

Direct, or indirect, control over Iraqi oil production has a stabilizing effect on the economy by allowing the US to control global crude prices. The best way to boost the economy (to compensate for the tax cut and spend economic policies) is to get gas prices around $1.00 a gallon like we had 2 years ago. Transportation costs would be cut nearly in half. That would save me more money per year than I’ll get back from the federal tax cut. The profits go up for airlines, trucking, rail, and manufacturing with the reduced costs.

Add a false sense of security to any type of economic recovery and you get the basis for the 2004 elections. Remember the true art of politics is trying to figure out how to get re-elected.