Posted on 02/24/2003 7:24:04 AM PST by conservativecorner
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
February 24, 2003 -- PLACARDS with "No blood for oil" adorn anti-war protests across Europe and America. It's a vile accusation that President Bush would sacrifice young American servicemen and women for cheap oil, but one that needs to be answered. First off, if oil were the goal, the United States could get Iraqi oil most easily by merely scrapping the sanctions the United Nations imposed on Iraq a dozen years ago. This is what Iraq's U.N. ambassador has advocated in remarks to the foreign ministers assembled.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Which is what I have been telling the libs at work for weeks. There are many easier ways for us to get the oil without war. They cannot fathom this so I often point them to the link on clinton in this month's Atlantic journal discussing Iraq and these links (reason - they believe Clinton/Gore blindly so if you can show them they agree they get all tied in knots).
Gore repeats that Saddam MUST GO - June 2000
Taliban, Clinton, Saudi Involvement - All laid out in a book published in 2000 (from USMC.MIL site)
The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)
Headline Rundown and links on Iraq - Things the democrats have conviently forgot...
Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton -clear and present danger to safety of people everywhere 1998
What the democrats want you to forget
Iraq is a Regional Threat, capable of as much as 200 tons of VX nerve agent (1999 Clinton report)
Czech military reports say iraq has smallpox virus in weapons stockpile (and camelpox)
Iraqi chemical weapons buildup reported (Sept 2001 Report)
Clinton, Gore rally domestic support for strike at Iraq, "unholy axis" (1998 Must read)
statement President Clinton from 1998 on the air strikes
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Full Text, Sense of Congress - Remove Saddam
In 1999, Saddam insisted on being paid in Euros instead of dollars for his oil; this was a huge windfall for him, and a loss to the American economy:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamclark1.html
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=3630
As I said, protection of the American economy is a legitimate reason to go to war.
As far as the war on terrorism, I think President Bush would convince a lot more people of his sincerity if he were to do something about the millions of illegals crossing our borders. Granting them amnesty is not the answer.
That's sort of my take on it. I like where this thing is going. It seems—it feels legitimate. It feels like this is not just a vast charade, preparing for a conflict. If that's true and the conflict comes, we'll have much broader support and be much closer to where we were in Kosovo. And that will guarantee a much greater likelihood of success in the aftermath. And if, God forbid, [Saddam] does use or give away any of those weapons, we'll have a more broadly shared responsibility, because everybody else is going to be aware of the risks just like we are.
Why don't these people fear another event, or see the abject idiocy of doing nothing?
It's obvious to me that the US is not THEIR country, they of course would deny this assertion, but I believe that another terrorist attack on the country whose continued existence in the current capitalist mode represents to them the ENEMY, everything the left exists to oppose, and would be a welcome event.
A good point. Hopefully he's attacking the problem at the source for now, then will get our borders protected later.
As I told my son yesterday, the cost of protection FROM WMD would be extremely expensive. The cost of preventing CREATION of WMD could be as little as the cost of ONE BULLET.
I don't think you can prevent people from creating (and therefore selling, and therefore obtaining WMD). You would have to "unteach" a technology, like teaching them to forget algebra or geography. Like shoving toothpaste back into the tube.
The long-term solution is two-fold: First, a re-evaluation of our foreign policy, and a policy to get us the hell out of places we aren't wanted, which is just about everywhere but good ol' terra firma USA. Let the rest of the world learn to diaper itself.
Second, make it very clear, that any terrorist action will be met swiftly, brutally and finally with annihilation, and be prepared to back it up. Even nukes if necessary.
But the second is meaningless without the first.
Not only is the idea that 'oilmen' like Bush and Cheney will profit from liberating Iraq an empty and ridiculous notion but the statement above is very telling about Saddam. He could personally be richer by a huge factor if he just played along with the U.N. and rode that big wave of oil. As long as he kept within his borders and didn't kill dissenters too overtly he could maintain his iron fist control over Iraq. He obviously has other ambitions.
I'm not sure it is a ridiculous notion, but so what? The real question is, "Is profit their motive?". I doubt it is; but they are (or were) businessmen, and successful ones. So they might make some money in the process, but it may shouldn't matter, except to the whiner crowd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.