Reasons for IraqWar? We Got a Million of ’Em

Newsday ^ | James P. Pinkerton aUGUST 28,2003

[Angel]

What are we doing in Iraq? The latest explanation is the so-called flypaper thesis. That is, it's a good thing that we have 140,000 troops in Iraq, because the terrorists are going after our men and women there, lured like flies to flypaper.

As President George W. Bush said on Tuesday, "Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York, or St. Louis or Los Angeles."

This argument is dubious, however, for three reasons.

[Angel]

I hated to excerpt this because he starts out with a premise I agree with. Then he continues to explain why this isn't a good premise.

Please read the rest of the article.

I'd love to hear comments. I personally think we can get rid of terrorists that come to Iraq on their shores rather than the US, but he does make some interesting points.

[MJY1288]

James Pinkerton is a well reasoned reporter.

As far as Iraq goes.... We had many reasons to remove Saddam Hussien!

Here is the only reason I needed to back this war against Iraq:

Back in 1991 we committed blood and treasure to drive Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait and we kicked the crap out of Saddam's forces in just 3 short days after we launched the land war.

When the objectives were met, Saddam was faced with an agreement in order to remain in power and he agreed upon and signed a clear set of requirements that ended Desert Storm". Shortly after the terms of surrender were agreed upon and signed, Saddam Hussein started violating every aspect of the cease-fire and nothing was done about it. My opinion is that when we sign an agreement like the one we signed in 1991, we owe it to those who gave their lives in that operation. I lost 2 good friends in the Gulf War and IMHO their deaths have been avenged now that Saddam is gone.

I consider all the other bullshit reasons the liberals expect from our political leaders for waging war against Saddam Hussein and once and for all removing him from power is a complete waist of time.

The U.N. and the Euroweenies might have needed proof of WMD's to justify the removal of Saddam, NOT ME!, Those we lost in the Gulf War was reason enough for me. Much like the Democrats....... Saddam Hussein mis-underestimated GWB and he lost.

[Cacophonous]

All other issues - WMD, harboring terrorists, brutal dictator aside - I can also support the Iraq War on the basis of US getting oil, but not because Saddam Hussein broke his word.

There is a legal principal - and I forget the name, and used to know the Latin, but no longer do - that roughly says that no law should come out of bad deeds.

For example, the burglar that gets bitten by a someone's german shepherd while trying to break into the house cannot sue the dog's owner for having a dangerous animal.

Iraq in the early 90s invaded Kuwait because the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields and then flooding the oil markets with the stolen oil, lowering the value of the rest of the oil Iraq had. A mercenary and clever trick on the part of the Kuwaitis, but one can certainly understand why the Iraqis were pissed.

Kuwait's culpability has not been disputed or disproved - at least not that I have seen, and Hussein actually consulted with the US before invading Kuwait. The US besically took an officially ambivalent position, saying (absolutely correctly) that it was an Iraq-Kuwait issue, and not one we should involve ourselves in. Then we changed our tunes when Iraq invaded.

So of course the defeated Hussein signed any deal that would keep him alive and in power, and of course he used the whole thing to nurture his hatred of the US. Since the first Gulf War didn't change the fact that Kuwait stole his oil, he no doubt considered the law based on a bad deed.

[freethinkingman]

I can support the Iraq war on the basis of saving money!

Now would you stop laughing for a minute and hear me out.

I think that the administration would do well to tally up what past expenses the U.S. has had dealing with Iraq post Gulf War:

1). How much has it cost to house the 15-20k troops in Saudi Arabia for the past decade?

2). How much has patroling the No Fly Zones cost over the last decade?

3). How much do/did we spend on building and upkeep of our base in Turkey? Ditto other bases in the region?

4). How much money did Clintons' bombing of Iraq cost?

5). For each bullet point project those costs for the next 30 years.

6). Add 1-4 After the 30 year projections

7). How much does it cost to feed and cloth and house the 140k troops for 2 years if they were somewhere else (say on a base in the US)? And subtract from what it costs for 2 years in Iraq.

I am sure that the sum from #6 is much greater than the difference from #7.

Wouldn't ya think?

[america-rules]

Who cares because the Iraqi Oil will pay us back and that's why we are frantic in keeping the oil lines safe ! All this crap about how much will it cost doesn't matter because they will pay us back 100% with oil money !

[Cacophonous]

I have no problem with using oil money to recoup our costs, but would modify some things.

1. The oil is ours. Iraq then belongs to us, becomes a US territory.

2. If the oil is ours, let us relocate our troops from Europe, the Balkans, Saudi, etc. and put them in Iraq, defending and protecting American vital interests.

I agree with you completely. It's funny, though; I suggested months ago that war for oil (oil = money) is a noble and just cause, and well worth supporting. And I got called a traitor! Stunned me. Still amazes me.

[never4get]

Newsday...what a liberal rag. I live on LI and we are faced with having this paper as our only local. Jeez, less then two years post 9/11 and this rag questions anything and everything Bush does to fight terror. If it was Gore who sent out troops into Irag not a bad word would be spoken. Mmm, out of toilet paper, grab a Newsday. Samething.

[Mr. Silverback]

"Bad" News: We are drawing the terrorists to Iraq like moths to a candle.

Good News: The candle always wins that one.